Here's a copy of the text that was sent:
I'm writing with questions regarding the January, 2010 Aqua satellite AMSU Level 1B data. I checked various QA flags in the data and found the following results:
● Of the 7410 files containing January data, 7386 of them had their automaticQualityFlag marked "suspect" and another 24 of them had the flag marked "failed". None passed QA.
● Of the 7386 suspect files, all of them had a "Good Data" percentage of 93.33334 percent. Here, "Good Data" is taken as the result of subtracting bad data, special data, and missing data from total data. "Good Data" is then divided by total data to get the percentage of "Good Data".
● Of the 333,450 Channel 4 readings for January none of them passed QA. All of them in the files marked "suspect" had been marked as failing QA and, obviously, the ones in the files marked "failed" were in files that failed QA and should not be used.
My questions are:
● Is it considered normal to have zero Level 1B AMSU data files for a month pass QA?
● Is it normal for all Level 1B AMSU data files for a month to have the exact same numbers for bad data, missing data, special data, and total data?
● Doesn't the statistics engine used for AMSU limb adjustment require valid data from channel 4 in order to correctly adjust channel 5 data?
Additionally, I asked Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer if channel 5 from Aqua's AMSU is used to produce UAH anomalies. In an article on WUWT, Dr. Spencer said it is, but I just wanted to double check to make sure I understood correctly.
Previous Articles In This Series:
About The Aqua Satellite Project
UAH January Raw Data Spot Check
So, About That January UAH Anomaly
A Note On UAH's High January Temperature
How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced