re: #245 ludwigvanquixote

LOL! Trying to garner some self control finally? Well clearly you failed here too. I have learned a lot about you Ludwig Von Beck as you post your lickspittle ridden rants. But we will get to that at the end. This is going to have to be a multi-part response across comments. Want to give Ludwig Von Beck a reasonable hearing.

This is an outright lie on multiple counts. First off, of course the satellite data shows significant warming.

I never said there was only one satellite. I said there were two SETS of data: ground based and satellite based. I did this to note how a global sample from a single calibrated sensor (or sensors if you must be talked down to) represent a better source of data (precision-wise) than a suite of uncalibrated and verified sensors scattered around the globe. Which is only a step in demonstrating how little is settled in the GW ‘science’.

You know, you really need to stop yelling ‘lie’ when it is your reading comprehension that is failing. but this is one of those interesting things I learned about you. You’re used to intimidating people with what I am sure you consider your massive frontal lobes. But there is something about me that I think sets you off. And its not my (calmly laid out) points. It is much deeper. You are compensating with your rants.

For the others here at LGF let me state up front my challenge to the alarmists. There a couple of hypotheses that underpin the AGW argument (I was being too generous before when I elevated them to ‘theories’). The unproven hypotheses are:

(1) We can measure a ‘global’ temperature index that is akin to an average or mean temperature (pay attention to those things called adjectives Ludwig) within a tenth of a degree today.
(2) We can determine a global’ temperature index to a tenth of a degree back in time 10’s or 100’s of years (at least 2,000 would be nice).
(3) By comparing today to the historic record we can determine a global ‘normal’ temperature index to within a tenth of a degree.

I challenged Ludwig to prove these hypothesis - he failed and instead tried to divert attention to non sequiturs. If any of these fail, the entire argument behind AGW fails. But these are not the only hypotheses that need to be proven to get to AGW, they are just part of the foundation. In addition you have to prove CO2 is the DOMINANT driver behind the global temps - if you can prove you can measure them to the precision claimed. But we are focused just on these three right now. Because my post was about precision, it important to note keep this in mind.

Let’s begin with AIRS instrument:

These studies used the AIRS data to show that surface warming leads to an increase in water vapor. This water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas and amplifies the surface warming. The AIRS observations are also consistent with warming predicted by numerical climate models, increasing confidence in model predictions of future warming.

Nice set of reports. But show me the data from AIRS. All you did was link to analysis of AIRS performance. Here is what I was looking for as AN EXAMPLE, something to back up your claim of 30 years of significant warming in the Sat data. AIRS won’t do it since it launched in 2002, and as the link I noted pointed out there has been no significant warming since 2002. I will also note AIRS seems to have a precision of only 1 K - not a tenth of a degree. Therefore it cannot be used to claim the 0.6 C increase in temperature over the last 50 years or so, can it? Thats like trying to measure your fingers with a meter stick.

On to Part II