|
Post by radiant on Sept 21, 2009 18:18:02 GMT
Radiant, Your point? It seems to to prove you are still confused between BB and spectra. Normal Infrared spectroscopy will only detect spectral radiation, not blackbody radiation at the same (or close to) temperature of the equipment. Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera to learn about BB radiation issues when looking at IR. Since the instrument itself is emitting blackbody radiation, any other materials (O2, N2 etc) will be in equilibrium and this will cancel. Spectral absorption is made up of very narrow intense peaks which stand out from the background BB radiation. To detect BB radiation, you need to supercool the IR equipment down, and this is indeed done when examining BB radiation. In this example, you can see that the CO2 peak (spectral) stands well above the BB radiation. The point is the BB radiation covers ALL frequencies for each temperature base curve, while spectra are discrete peaks. The area under the curve represents radiation power. It is not insignificant, just ignored. Great stuff guys!!! Now I guess one can conclude a perfect "blackbody" is a perfect emitter of all bands of spectral radiation? So we have a process by which spectral radiation is absorbed and reemitted without converting much of it to heat. . . .no? I assume the surface of the earth can do that generally as well as CO2, for CO2's frequencies, being a near perfect blackbody. . . .except for the back radiation it doesn't reflect back into space via its albedo. Icefisher i am not exactly sure what you are saying If you get a 50 dollar green laser pointer it is more or less producing pure green light and if you could find a theoretical black body (you cant) when you shine your laser upon it then you would see no light but the black body would emitt black body radiation according to the temperature of the black body. If the object is warmed just above room temperature by the laser then you will be able to detect the emission of long wave infra red that was not there before you turned the laser on. While you shine the laser the laser light will be converted to heat which will radiate outwards from the object or be conducted somewhere else in the object to warm it and eventually radiate this thermal energy C02 is transparant more or less to visible light so the green would pass straight thru it but C02 would absorb some of the IR radiated from the black body and radiate some of it back towards the black body to increase its temperature.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Sept 21, 2009 18:45:10 GMT
Black body... To make it simple. From the discussion Kiwistonewall is saying it exists. Radiant is saying it can't be measured. Both are right. It is the fact that atoms are shaking/vibrating/ have moving parts or however you wish to say it. They are imparting "energy" to what ever other atoms they are interacting with. This "Energy" is the simple state of things. But it also can't affect a change in energy "level". So it really has no affect. Of course I could be totally off and will soon be putting my boot in my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 21, 2009 18:48:15 GMT
Radiant, Your point? It seems to to prove you are still confused between BB and spectra. Normal Infrared spectroscopy will only detect spectral radiation, not blackbody radiation at the same (or close to) temperature of the equipment. Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera to learn about BB radiation issues when looking at IR. Since the instrument itself is emitting blackbody radiation, any other materials (O2, N2 etc) will be in equilibrium and this will cancel. Spectral absorption is made up of very narrow intense peaks which stand out from the background BB radiation. To detect BB radiation, you need to supercool the IR equipment down, and this is indeed done when examining BB radiation. In this example, you can see that the CO2 peak (spectral) stands well above the BB radiation. The point is the BB radiation covers ALL frequencies for each temperature base curve, while spectra are discrete peaks. The area under the curve represents radiation power. It is not insignificant, just ignored. www.sense-ware.com/fire-detection/fire-detector/flame-detector/gas-detection/co2-detection/spark-detection/flame-detection/images/Black-body-radiation_Flame-detection.gifKiwi My point is that i have produced another reference produced by people who claim knowledge of IR detection that argon nitrogen and oxygen produce nothing that can be detected using any method known to human kind in the IR band beyond insignificant or sparce amounts If you dont want to believe in quantum physics and you want to believe that all materials produce radiation of all frequencies then you can chose to do that But why is that so important to you? It seems you have a theory about the earth and you need this important theory and you dont like being challenged on it. Why do you get me to look at thermal images of solids and liquids? Why is a hand which approximates a black body holding a cold blooded snake that approximates a black body going to interest me? Why are lemurs and trees interesting? Of more interest is the invisible air between these objects surely? Can we see human breath with an ir camera? i am not sure. Argon is a monoatomic gas. Nitrogen and Oxygen are molecules where two identical atoms are bonded together These are unusual gases. Hence their properties are unusualMatter is made of atoms and molecules. Why talk about spectral emission of molecules as if matter is not made of molecules too?? Why mention cooled solid materials surrounding a sensitive IR detector? Why did you pick out a spectra from the atmosphere where there was total cloud cover? And why no explanation of why you did that?? Why did you chose antarctica where there is almost no water vapour to demonstrate you are right? It appears to me that it is you who has some vested interest in being right about some theory you have rather than me. How about we write to Michael Hammer? Would you agree with his verdict if he answered?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2009 19:41:16 GMT
Great stuff guys!!! Now I guess one can conclude a perfect "blackbody" is a perfect emitter of all bands of spectral radiation? So we have a process by which spectral radiation is absorbed and reemitted without converting much of it to heat. . . .no? I assume the surface of the earth can do that generally as well as CO2, for CO2's frequencies, being a near perfect blackbody. . . .except for the back radiation it doesn't reflect back into space via its albedo. Icefisher i am not exactly sure what you are saying If you get a 50 dollar green laser pointer it is more or less producing pure green light and if you could find a theoretical black body (you cant) when you shine your laser upon it then you would see no light but the black body would emitt black body radiation according to the temperature of the black body. If the object is warmed just above room temperature by the laser then you will be able to detect the emission of long wave infra red that was not there before you turned the laser on. While you shine the laser the laser light will be converted to heat which will radiate outwards from the object or be conducted somewhere else in the object to warm it and eventually radiate this thermal energy C02 is transparant more or less to visible light so the green would pass straight thru it but C02 would absorb some of the IR radiated from the black body and radiate some of it back towards the black body to increase its temperature. Not sure what your question is as you didn't punctuate it. But my questions did not get answered and I think without answering one would not be able to conclude what I was saying. I was sort of throwing some multiple choice suggestions out there dependent upon the answers to: 1) Does CO2 convert all it absorbs to heat and reemit it to IR at its BB heat spectra? or 2) Does CO2 slingshot IR without converting it to heat (presumably maintaining the same spectral frequencies, but not sure about that) and if so, Why cannot a black body do the same. . . .e.g. remit it independent of it heating up. The rest was just recognition of a reflective surface not absorbing IR but reflecting it back instead. . . .all that IR above the clouds has a hard time getting absorbed by earth with much being absorbed by clouds, contributing to convection and delaying condensation, and more being reflected via albedo. Finally a few freezing molecules in the upper atmosphere sending heat back to the surface of any significant degree seems to boggle the mind. I keep imagining these super hot (relative to surrounding gases) CO2 molecules floating around in a 2500 to 1 mixture of other gases, essentially providing all the heat found in that region in the atmosphere. Answers to some of the questions above would contribute to understanding and where the heat associated with CO2 IR spectra is going as it sure isn't registering from satellites. What percentage is missing? If much of it even gets above the clouds why don't we pick it up as reflection from albedo?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 21, 2009 20:20:45 GMT
Icefisher i am not exactly sure what you are saying If you get a 50 dollar green laser pointer it is more or less producing pure green light and if you could find a theoretical black body (you cant) when you shine your laser upon it then you would see no light but the black body would emitt black body radiation according to the temperature of the black body. If the object is warmed just above room temperature by the laser then you will be able to detect the emission of long wave infra red that was not there before you turned the laser on. While you shine the laser the laser light will be converted to heat which will radiate outwards from the object or be conducted somewhere else in the object to warm it and eventually radiate this thermal energy C02 is transparant more or less to visible light so the green would pass straight thru it but C02 would absorb some of the IR radiated from the black body and radiate some of it back towards the black body to increase its temperature. Not sure what your question is as you didn't punctuate it. But my questions did not get answered and I think without answering one would not be able to conclude what I was saying. I was sort of throwing some multiple choice suggestions out there dependent upon the answers to: 1) Does CO2 convert all it absorbs to heat and reemit it to IR at its BB heat spectra? or 2) Does CO2 slingshot IR without converting it to heat (presumably maintaining the same spectral frequencies, but not sure about that) and if so, Why cannot a black body do the same. . . .e.g. remit it independent of it heating up. The rest was just recognition of a reflective surface not absorbing IR but reflecting it back instead. . . .all that IR above the clouds has a hard time getting absorbed by earth with much being absorbed by clouds, contributing to convection and delaying condensation, and more being reflected via albedo. Finally a few freezing molecules in the upper atmosphere sending heat back to the surface of any significant degree seems to boggle the mind. I keep imagining these super hot (relative to surrounding gases) CO2 molecules floating around in a 2500 to 1 mixture of other gases, essentially providing all the heat found in that region in the atmosphere. Answers to some of the questions above would contribute to understanding and where the heat associated with CO2 IR spectra is going as it sure isn't registering from satellites. What percentage is missing? If much of it even gets above the clouds why don't we pick it up as reflection from albedo? Icefisher I think the answer to your question is related to probabilities. As a gas gets less dense then the higher energy level has more chance of being released as IR emission rather than via conduction to warm another atom or molecule. But as you point out if there is less gas up there then there can be less radiation coming back down to warm a much bigger mass below. So there is some probability that IR will be absorbed or pass thru C02 and some probability it will be retained or emitted. Yes if C02 absorbs an exact wavelength then it does that because it has had a precise energy state raised and when that precise energy state falls back to the lower level again the same radiation is emitted A true black body immediately absorbs all radiation falling upon it but then randomly emits radiation depending upon its resultant temperature that it reaches depending upon the intensity of the radiation that is falling upon it Co2 and a black body both randomly emitt but C02 only has a very limited number of energy states whereas the black body via temperature has access to more or less an infinite number of possible energy states I cant answer your questions about satellites because i have not seen the data But if water and C02 are green house gases then i am assuming there will be less intensity observed via a satellite for their frequencies compared to what goes up via the atmospheric window. C02 though is a trace gas and most of the absorption must be via water. The fact that there is a fall in temperature up to the point where water is not very present in the atmosphere seems evidence that water is the principal bad guy in warming the earth to keep us from freezing to death As i keep saying show me the experiments and then we can see what is going on. C02 is probably doing something......i just dont know what
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2009 20:27:46 GMT
Kiwi My point is that i have produced another reference produced by people who claim knowledge of IR detection that argon nitrogen and oxygen produce nothing that can be detected using any method known to human kind in the IR band beyond insignificant or sparce amounts Sparse is a relative term. When you say insignificant or sparse in the context of atmospheric radiation one has to be very careful in defining sparse as CO2 is extremely sparse in the atmosphere but its effect is supposedly making the effects of everything else sparse in relation. Yet all we ever talk about is a molecule for molecule comparison. Once the sparses are merged, what was sparse may or may not be sparse any longer because a very sparse number of molecules can offset a very sparse IR absorption ability by the dominant molecules.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 21, 2009 21:18:29 GMT
Kiwi My point is that i have produced another reference produced by people who claim knowledge of IR detection that argon nitrogen and oxygen produce nothing that can be detected using any method known to human kind in the IR band beyond insignificant or sparce amounts Sparse is a relative term. When you say insignificant or sparse in the context of atmospheric radiation one has to be very careful in defining sparse as CO2 is extremely sparse in the atmosphere but its effect is supposedly making the effects of everything else sparse in relation. Yet all we ever talk about is a molecule for molecule comparison. Once the sparses are merged, what was sparse may or may not be sparse any longer because a very sparse number of molecules can offset a very sparse IR absorption ability by the dominant molecules. I suppose my thinking at the moment is that since water is present in such huge concentrations at the very absolute surface and since 99% of the atmosphere is more or less incapable of radiating heat to outerspace the critical part is how to warm the surface of the earth a little bit extra so the atmosphere then is warmed a bit extra If 70% of the globe is oceans and a massive amount of the equator is ocean then extra radiation via water aborption and emission must be massively more important than that provided by C02 which is present throughout the atmosphere in tiny concentrations Importantly also to my way of thinking it is incredibly cold where there is almost no water vapour and little sun and this applies anywhere on earth even in deserts at night
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Sept 21, 2009 22:02:13 GMT
Sparse is a relative term. When you say insignificant or sparse in the context of atmospheric radiation one has to be very careful in defining sparse as CO2 is extremely sparse in the atmosphere but its effect is supposedly making the effects of everything else sparse in relation. Yet all we ever talk about is a molecule for molecule comparison. Once the sparses are merged, what was sparse may or may not be sparse any longer because a very sparse number of molecules can offset a very sparse IR absorption ability by the dominant molecules. I suppose my thinking at the moment is that since water is present in such huge concentrations at the very absolute surface and since 99% of the atmosphere is more or less incapable of radiating heat to outerspace the critical part is how to warm the surface of the earth a little bit extra so the atmosphere then is warmed a bit extra If 70% of the globe is oceans and a massive amount of the equator is ocean then extra radiation via water aborption and emission must be massively more important than that provided by C02 which is present throughout the atmosphere in tiny concentrations Importantly also to my way of thinking it is incredibly cold where there is almost no water vapour and little sun and this applies anywhere on earth even in deserts at night I think I'm getting what your saying!!! ;D Could the whole "greenhouse" effect be simply the fact that H2O is very resistant to phase change?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 15, 2009 2:51:24 GMT
Here you go glc, rip it to shreds before it gets to press www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdfglc said I have some experience of graphs, curve fitting, linear trends, polynomials etc. Please don't try to fob me off with this nonsense. You can't explain your graphs because you don't understand what your trying to show. glc also said Your graph doesn't actually show anything. The anomaly difference (Hadley-UAH) is due entirely to the use of different base periods. You are making the same fundamental error as a lot of posters on WUWT (including AW himself initially). The size of the anomaly tells us nothing. As an exercise - think about what would happen to the anomalies if we used a 1871-1900 base period. glc also said solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=870&page=3#31505Magellan said: Why is the surface warming faster than the atmosphere? CO2?
glc replied It's clearly not - as your first plot shows. The second plot is complete garbage and I suspect has not had the baseline adjusted. Tell me where you got it from and I'll check it out. You are so vain. I knew exactly what I was trying to show, and likely most everyone else did as well. In reality it is you who don't understand anomalies as I stated specifically I adjusted for baseline differences. Also, the graph was not to demonstrate trend differences; recall I stated specifically absolute values were used. A trend could not be constructed or even construed using absolute values, which any statistics novice would know. However you insisted on lecturing on my ignorance, so I figured what the heck, you're making your own rope, why not let you hang yourself with it. The fact is you stated the surface and satellite anomalies match quite well. Not only do they not match well, there is a warm bias in the surface records, period (see below). The only thing you got right in your entire rant was one part of a sentence, and that only because you repeated what Christy said! I'll take a look at this paper when it comes out, but even though Christy is talking specifically about land-surface temperatures..........".
Does this graph look familiar? Had I intended on comparing land-to-land and known where to obtain the raw data for CRU land only, mine would have matched exactly (save the 1.2 amplification factor) if using yearly averages and no absolute values. There it is, rearing it's ugly head, staring you in the face; no room to wiggle now. Notice in the title 'Anomaly Difference Over Land', but you said The size of the anomaly tells us nothing. With that said and other snide remarks, you definitely don't understand anomalies, but just for kicks maybe you should email Christy, tell him his graph is garbage and he clearly doesn't understand what he's trying to show. ;D
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 15, 2009 7:54:30 GMT
Does this graph look familiar? Had I intended on comparing land-to-land and known where to obtain the raw data for CRU land only, mine would have matched exactly (save the 1.2 amplification factor)
Magellan
Contrary to what you wrote earlier you clearly don't understand anomalies. You didn't adjust the baseline - you simply plotted the difference between the raw anomalies. This is not a valid comparison. The Hadley anomalies will always be ~0.2 deg higher than UAH anomalies because the mean temperatures for 1979-1998 was ~0.2 deg higher than the mean temperature for 1961-1990.
Is there any one who can explain this any easier?
Anyway - on to your Land surface (not global as you did initially) plot. This is another piece of jiggery-pokery. What Pielke has done (is it Pielke?) is to assume that the models are correct and assume, therefore, that the troposphere should warm at ~1.2 times the rate of the surface. This plot then reduces the troposphere anomalies by a factor of 1.2 and - hey presto - we have disagreement.
Pielke's reasons for doing this are somewhat more subtle than yours in that he is trying to bolster a particular pet theory.
But Pielke is wrong to do this. The Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH measurements are what they are. If they happen to agree more than the models suggest they should then that needs to be addressed by the models. It's nonsense to suggest that they don't agree because of model predictions and then decide that land-based factors somehow, quite by coincidence, account for the precise amount of additional warming that should have been measured in the troposhere.
To summarise, Pielke (or whoever) is putting forward the following argument:
This plot says the models are correct, i.e. the troposphere is warming at ~1.2 times the surface. The difference in warming isn't seen however because the surface is warming ~1.2 times more than it should due to land-based biases.
To be honest though we need you (and lots of others) need to get a grip on the anomaly issue .
You are so vain.
Carly Simon (early 70s). I remember a girl singing it to me in a pub ~35 years ago, so you might be right.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2009 8:26:27 GMT
But Pielke is wrong to do this. The Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH measurements are what they are. If they happen to agree more than the models suggest they should then that needs to be addressed by the models. It's nonsensical to suggest that they don't agree because of model predictions and then decide that land-based factors somehow, quite by coincidence, account for the precise amount of additional warming that should have been measured in the troposhere. To summarise, Pielke (or whoever) is putting forward the following argument: This plot says the models are correct, i.e. the troposphere is warming at ~1.2 times the surface. The difference in warming isn't seen however because the surface is warming ~1.2 times more than it should due to land-based biases. So its your opinion that spatial interpolations of temperatures is improper?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 15, 2009 10:07:09 GMT
So its your opinion that spatial interpolations of temperatures is improper? Do you follow what's been done. Basically the troposphere temperatures have been reduced by a factor of 1.2 to show a bigger discrepancy than otherwise exists between the troposphere and the surface record. But the real problem here is that Magellan is changing the argument and bringing in links which are irrelevant to the original discussion which was related to the difference in global anomalies. Magellan/Icefisher I've just come across this rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/Scroll down to the first graph. This shows the trends up to August 2009 of all 5 records from Sept of each year from 1989 until 2004. Notice that Sept 1989 to Aug 2009 (20 years) - all 5 are similar ditto for Sept 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. Then GISS/NCDC begin to diverge (more on this below) but Hadley, UAH and RSS continue to track each other very closely. It's only when we get to the Sept 2000-Aug 2009 trend that Hadley and the satellites start to show any disagreement. Why might this be? Probably because the satellite readings have a larger (not faster) response to ENSO fluctuations. Between 2002-2007 El Nino-type conditions were dominant then in 2007-08 a significant La Nina developed which caused a downturn in all trends but was largest in the UAH and RSS. The largest discrepancy is in the very short term Sep 2004 - Aug 2009 trend. This is understandable but I'm fairly sure it will reduce over time, e.g. the Sep 2004 - Aug 2014 trends will be much closer. What about the earlier GISS divergence? THe GISS extrapolation over the arctic offers the best and most reasonable explanation. Whether they are right or wrong to do this extrapolation (and I think they're probably right) they have, at least, been consistent. Once the arctic lost the very high temperatures GISS anomalies dropped back in line with the other records. When Hadley post their Sept figure I'll do a direct comparison for all anomalies using the 1979-98 base period.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 15, 2009 12:36:21 GMT
Does this graph look familiar? Had I intended on comparing land-to-land and known where to obtain the raw data for CRU land only, mine would have matched exactly (save the 1.2 amplification factor) Magellan Contrary to what you wrote earlier you clearly don't understand anomalies. You didn't adjust the baseline - you simply plotted the difference between the raw anomalies. This is not a valid comparison. The Hadley anomalies will always be ~0.2 deg higher than UAH anomalies because the mean temperatures for 1979-1998 was ~0.2 deg higher than the mean temperature for 1961-1990. Is there any one who can explain this any easier? Anyway - on to your Land surface (not global as you did initially) plot. This is another piece of jiggery-pokery. What Pielke has done (is it Pielke?) is to assume that the models are correct and assume, therefore, that the troposphere should warm at ~1.2 times the rate of the surface. This plot then reduces the troposphere anomalies by a factor of 1.2 and - hey presto - we have disagreement. Pielke's reasons for doing this are somewhat more subtle than yours in that he is trying to bolster a particular pet theory. But Pielke is wrong to do this. The Hadley, GISS, RSS and UAH measurements are what they are. If they happen to agree more than the models suggest they should then that needs to be addressed by the models. It's nonsense to suggest that they don't agree because of model predictions and then decide that land-based factors somehow, quite by coincidence, account for the precise amount of additional warming that should have been measured in the troposhere. To summarise, Pielke (or whoever) is putting forward the following argument: This plot says the models are correct, i.e. the troposphere is warming at ~1.2 times the surface. The difference in warming isn't seen however because the surface is warming ~1.2 times more than it should due to land-based biases. To be honest though we need you (and lots of others) need to get a grip on the anomaly issue . You are so vain.Carly Simon (early 70s). I remember a girl singing it to me in a pub ~35 years ago, so you might be right. glc, time for a reality check. Is there any one who can explain this any easier?
Anyway - on to your Land surface (not global as you did initially) plot. This is another piece of jiggery-pokery. What Pielke has done (is it Pielke?) is to assume that the models are correct and assume, therefore, that the troposphere should warm at ~1.2 times the rate of the surface. This plot then reduces the troposphere anomalies by a factor of 1.2 and - hey presto - we have disagreement. Excuse me? I adjusted the baseline. You thought it was neat that Feb 2009 showed "good agreement" between the anomalies within .01 deg, so I created another graph without adjusting for baseline and suddenly Feb 2009 lost the "agreement". You still didn't get it. I digress. Look at the graph from the paper. Mr. Obvious says the expected amplification is a separate calculated line below the anomaly differences. Do you see it? Please note everyone the back pedaling glc must employ at Olympic speeds. Mr. Obvious also notices glc made incorrect statements concerning anomalies and now is speaking poetic gibberish, but he cannot refute the evidence. As for cherry picking trends, you do a masterful job.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 15, 2009 14:08:41 GMT
Excuse me? I adjusted the baseline. You thought it was neat that Feb 2009 showed "good agreement" between the anomalies within .01 deg, so I created another graph without adjusting for baseline and suddenly Feb 2009 lost the "agreement". You still didn't get it.
Sheesh this is hard going. Let's use Feb 2009 as an example and assume that the UAH and Hadley anomalies are the same at ~0.35. What does this mean? It means .....
Hadley Feb temperature is ~+0.35 above the 1961-1990 average Sept temperature.
AND .....
UAH Feb temperature is ~+0.35 above the 1979-1998 average Sept temperature.
BUT ......
The average Feb temperature (Hadley record) for the period 1979-1998 is ~0.2 deg warmer than the average for the period 1961-1990.
SO IF WE ADJUST the base line.....
The Hadley anomaly for Feb 2009 becomes ~+0.15.
Therefore in Feb 2009 Hadley-UAH = 0.15 - 0.35 = -0.2
Therefore the baseline adjusted anomaly difference is -0.2. On your plot it is ~0.01.
Conclusion:
You did not adjust the base line. You (or someone else) simply subtracted the UAH anomaly (1979-1998 base period) from the Hadley anomaly (1961-1990 base period). In other words the plot is meaningless. It's as meaningless as subtracting UAH in deg C from Hadley in deg F. I asked you what the plot is supposed to convey and you were unable to tell me. There is no point continuing this discussion unless you grasp the basic concepts involved.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2009 15:35:44 GMT
THe GISS extrapolation over the arctic offers the best and most reasonable explanation. Whether they are right or wrong to do this extrapolation (and I think they're probably right) they have, at least, been consistent. Once the arctic lost the very high temperatures GISS anomalies dropped back in line with the other records. When Hadley post their Sept figure I'll do a direct comparison for all anomalies using the 1979-98 base period. Seems to me you are saying its OK to spatially adjust temperatures if GISS does it and not OK if Pielke does it. . . .or at least you offered absolutely no other explanation why you think one was wrong and the other was right to do such stuff.
|
|