User talk:Ed Poor/Satellite temperature measurements

Remember I said I'd make a page? Well, you beat me to it. Ah, you scientists, always in a hurry!

I'll make you a deal. You and I edit my subpage. Anything either of us disagree with, we move to this talk page. Even if this means whittling down the entire article to a single sentence like Scientists began measuring air temperature by satellite 25 years ago.

There won't be an edit war, because we'll already have agreed that nothing disputed can go on the subpage. We can call this the 1RR.

For example, I'll put in Christy or Singer or Baliunas or Daley, and if I have entered an inaccurate or biased sentence you will immediately cut it from the article and paste it here in talk.

Okay? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 17:08 (UTC)


 * We can see how it goes. It might be fun. At the moment, I notice that you're removed the S+C trend entirely from the page - the current trend isn't mentioned, only the trend in April 2002. Which iself is now probably wrong, because S+C have declared the 5.1 data wrong, though they haven't done a proper update to 5.2... but this is breaking news, so somewhat dubious in wiki. For info only, my computation of the trends to year-end are:

year 5.2     5.1 1992 0.0009 -0.0005 1993 -0.0025 -0.0046 1994 -0.0017 -0.0045 1995  0.0015 -0.0014 1996  0.0021 -0.0008 1997  0.0028 -0.0001 1998  0.0099  0.0070 1999  0.0089  0.0058 2000  0.0080  0.0046 2001  0.0090  0.0054 2002  0.0108  0.0072 2003  0.0117  0.0080


 * I don't know where you got the 0.10 per decade to 0.58 per decade figures from. Notice that on my new calcs (which you aren't obliged to accept, true) the MSU is within this range.

Decade figures
I remember the IPCC predicting temperature rise of 1 to 5.8 degrees per century. Now check my maths here, doc:

There are 10 decades in a century, so

1 / 10 = 0.1

5.8 / 10 = 0.58

If I've made a math error, or the 1 to 5.8 thing is invalid attribution, let me know. It should stay OFF User:Ed Poor/Satellite temperature measurements until we both agree on it. Uncle Ed 20:22, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to our good friends and rivals, Encarta:
 * The IPCC predicted in 2001 that the average global temperature would rise by another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100.

So I guess that should be 0.14 to 0.58 deg/dec - my mistake! Cheers, got to toddle off to a church meeting. Uncle Ed 20:27, July 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you're using the figures for the *next* century: you should be using figures for the *current* time period (ahem, I'm still thinking like we're in the 20C. But you know what I mean, I hope). For that period, there is no need for predictions: you can just use the data (for the sfc) and presumably the GCMs to "predict" the upper air temps they think should correspond. Sort of. Have fun at Church. William M. Connolley 20:36:10, 2005-07-09 (UTC).


 * Hello? This experiment is petering out... William M. Connolley 17:05:01, 2005-07-15 (UTC)

Sorry. Is the article satisfactory now, or is there something that needs to be taken out or put in? Uncle Ed 21:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Errrm... as the above para says, your numbers are wrong. Plus, you have removed both the 5.1 and 5.2 trends-to-date from the article. William M. Connolley 22:11:58, 2005-07-15 (UTC).