Not exact matches
The same issues have dogged other attempts by climate scientists to glean clues
on climate trends from bodies of
data collected by satellites and
weather balloons for other reasons (not to mention ongoing attempts to discern climate patterns in tree rings, ice layers, and other natural substitutes for thermometers; remember the «hockey stick» debate?).
To measure the thermal winds, they studied
data on the motion of
weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere.
Data often cited by the anti forces generally turn out to be either statistical extrapolation, or they are using data that has been proven wrong (one weather monitoring station on a balloon was found to be too high in the atmosphere, giving cooler results then expected, same with a monitoring station in the ocean that was too de
Data often cited by the anti forces generally turn out to be either statistical extrapolation, or they are using
data that has been proven wrong (one weather monitoring station on a balloon was found to be too high in the atmosphere, giving cooler results then expected, same with a monitoring station in the ocean that was too de
data that has been proven wrong (one
weather monitoring station
on a
balloon was found to be too high in the atmosphere, giving cooler results then expected, same with a monitoring station in the ocean that was too deep).
I do not know the accuracy of the NCEP reanalysis
data on upper tropospheric humidity, but the direct measurement of humidity by
weather balloons seems preferable to the very indirect determination from satellite
data.
John Christy, the scientist and interviewee
on whose work this latter claim is based, seems to have forgotten that he had written in a US Climate Change Science Program report: «This significant discrepancy [between lower and upper atmosphere warming] no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde [
weather balloon instrument]
data have been identified and corrected.