previous post I discussed that high anomaly reading from UAH's January measurements, pointing out that it's possible UAH's statistical adjustments to scan readings could have been thrown off by the unusual weather. In another post I discussed how the AMSU data used by UAH has known errors in nearly all of its scans. The error for channel 5, which is used to create the UAH anomaly readings, can go as high as -10 degrees K. In yet another post I discussed the raw scan line data that I've pulled from the AMSU on the Aqua satellite. It just so happens the data I pulled occurred during January.
So in this post, I want to combine those three posts and show why I'm still not convinced the January anomaly reading from UAH was correct. Basically, the data I pulled from January had an error of -14 degrees K in the channel 5 reading, which is 40% higher than the the maximum error according to the journals.
I can't help but wonder how well the statistical methods used to correct the known channel errors react to errors so far out of range of expected values. Actually, I can't help but wonder if errors of this size have ever been tested at all.
Which means I can't help but wonder if the January UAH anomaly has any validity at all.
It also makes me wonder how much additional data falls outside the expected error range. Because I didn't put any effort at all into finding data 40% beyond that range.
Some Useful Climate Code
A Note On UAH's High January Temperature
Taking A Look At Raw UAH Data