By Dr. Roy Spencer
…or, OMG! HAS UAH BEEN BOUGHT OFF BY GREENPEACE!?
Over the last ten years or so there has been a growing inconsistency between the UAH and Remote Sensing Systems versions of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. Since I sometimes get the question why there is this discrepancy, I decided it was time to address it.
If we look at the entire 30+ year record, we see that the UAH and RSS temperature variations look very similar, with a correlation coefficient of 0.963 and linear trends which are both about +0.14 deg. C per decade:
(In the above plot I have re-computed the RSS anomalies so they are relative to the 1981-2010 average annual cycle we use; this does not affect the trends…just makes it more of an apples-to-apples comparison).
But if we examine a time series of the DIFFERENCE between the two temperature records, we see some rather interesting structure:
===============================================================
Also, based on a conversation with Roy at ICCC and minor change in naming conventions, I am pleased to announce that Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Chart is now available on WUWT’s Global Climatic History Page and Atmosphere Page.
If you really like to keep an eye on Atmospheric Temperatures it is recommended that you visit the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Discover AMSU Temperature Page, which offers daily atmospheric temperatures from a range of heights based upon the Aqua satellite.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
last line spelling “temerpatures”.
REPLY: Fixed, thx – JTF
I appreciate the integrity of the UAH dataset and really don’t care so much about the comparison to RSS. For me – its all about the comparison to the surface temperature record……
Well, the 0.14C increase per decade is in line with what I find: 0.13C per decade.
What those sat. records donot show is what caused the warming.
It was maximum temps. rising, i.e natural causes.
But do note the difference between NH and SH, especially the average temps and minima.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
The warmistas love UHA because it shows warming of late.. Unfortunately there has been no increase since 2002 (its flat), so no warming as stipulated by the IPCC. But at least the warmistas like to cite or trust it, so its actually very good news for the skeptical side as they (AGW) will not be able to whinge when and if it goes down
HenryP
The satellite record of 0.14C/decade is unlikely to be the long term trend as the whole satellite record is contained by the warm side of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMDO) and will be hit by the 30-year long cool side of the oscillation now. I believe the long term trend is only about half of that or 0.07C/decade and we can attribute maybe half of that to anthropogenic CO2, a tenth or two anthropogenic methane, and the last couple tenths to the modern maximum (solar activity). The real test is coming up what with the AMDO turning negative and the sun believed to be entering a grand minimum for a few decades or more. If we’re lucky it won’t totally eliminate the recent decades of warming because the warming has been quite beneficial for agriculture.
Dr. Roy,
Can you understand why many of us do not trust ANY of the data anymore? For one reason or another It appears to get bent, twisted, adjusted, by each agency, to suit their own agenda be they warmers, coolers or guys in between and then people who are not even good at statistics really go to work on it all!
To be honest I think, on the whole, there are honest people working on the subject but you are all miles away from figuring how to get this chaotic system together before modelling graphs and telling me what is happening.
You can throw all the formula you want at the data but you cannot even keep a satellite in the orbit without calibration to adjust for its drifting! Its all just guessing really.
OT but the warmist will really be jumping on this one (even though temps have flattened). Could be lower than 2007 in which case the agenda will be pushed through and we will all be impoverished
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Of course they will not mention Antarctica which has been above or normal for years now
Can we add .3 to it………….because CO2 is heavy?
This comment from Roy Spencer says it all really
Actually, Roy, I think you’ll find HadCrut is currently in favour – though it’s noticeable that RSS is making an increasing number of appearances on certain blogs (not this one).
The real divergence is GISS from the others. These should open your eyes more than a cup of coffee:
Part 1
Part 2
It’s too bad that neither one is giving us useful information.
Latitude says:
July 8, 2011 at 7:13 am
Can we add .3 to it………….because CO2 is heavy?
==================================================
Of course we can, and probably will when it becomes apparent the sat data isn’t matching our belief systems. lol
Erik Styles,
Have you looked at the Antarctic ice extent lately?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
“Pete H says:
July 8, 2011 at 7:07 am
Dr. Roy,
Can you understand why many of us do not trust ANY of the data anymore? For one reason or another It appears to get bent, twisted, adjusted, by each agency, to suit their own agenda be they warmers, coolers or guys in between and then people who are not even good at statistics really go to work on it all!
“
I think this is a very good point, and keep in mind that so much of this data is cherry-picked, flung around like dung as strawmen, and otherwise ignored if it does not show the truth as “some people think the truth is.”
If that seems just a bit crypic, maybe its because it really is. Its not about what the temperature series(s) really say or do not say, its all about keeping the funding going for third-rate scientists or other people who sold their souls to the global warming band-wagon and really can not do anything else at this point.
So yes, I would say at this point I don’t care if you use GISS or UHA or whatever series you want to. Because in the end, they are all corrected with statistics differently, and whether these corrections really correct things can be debated endlessly. Even the satellite data is “Corrected”…and when this is done, the trends are all changed. What are we the thinking people supposed to think? I just laugh at the end of the day at all the antics of the warmists with difference metrics. – IE we only use temp scales that show warming currently and forever.
They have to use so many different series’s just to be able to continue to beat that old drum that its really funny now. They are becoming laughing stocks, and as much as I admire the science here and elsewhere, we have to realize at some point that fighting PMS is not going to work with real science. We will never win as realists/sceptics or whatever we want to call ourselves.
The only thing we can do is to show how out-right wrong these people are. Until they work at McDonalds, keep a close eye on them, and especially on people who correct the data and put them under a microscope. At the same time , we need to show divergence issues such as this more. As sceptics, divergence problems are something common people can understand, kind of like the “hide the decline” which caused so much damage. One email did all of that to Dr. Mann, what kind of issues are we still missing?
I would hazzard to guess Dr. Santer is worth a looking into at some point, he is after all the current scientist adjusting (correcting?) satellite data to show that maybe the satellite data is missing the hot-spot! What hubris! This from the same man who corrected the IPCC 1996 report to claim that yes, we found a human imprint in the climate!
Oh so much to say, but I will leave it at that.
Bob roege that’s well within normal deviation . Er temps are NOT rising and ice is melting OMG
“Of course we can, and probably will when it becomes apparent the sat data isn’t matching our belief systems. lol”
Yes the next few years will be interesting. People who clamor for the return to normal science will continue to ignore observations or question observations… IN THE SAME BREATH they will point to believers in AGW who ignore observations.
People pick and choose the observations they happen to like. When all the observations go against their belief system… they
1. Attack observers
2. Question knowledge and prediction altogether ( its chaotic!)
3. Point to what we dont know ( It could be another cause!)
selective skepticism
BTW re:polar ice caps: What happens if mean global temps fall to say 0 or below anomaly and NH ice melts completely (or say below 2007 minima) how will this be interpreted?
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2011 at 10:04 am
“Yes the next few years will be interesting. People who clamor for the return to normal science will continue to ignore observations or question observations… IN THE SAME BREATH they will point to believers in AGW who ignore observations.”
Steven, instead of pointing out our collective deficiencies, lets give Dr Spencer credit for scrupulous honesty. I think it can be said that although Dr. Spencer is a skeptic (to my perception at least), he does not fudge, and when he sees a discrepancy he investigates it. I am sure he will engage constructively with Mears and Wentz to address this issue and that they will by their efforts set an example for the rest of climate science to follow.
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2011 at 10:04 am
People pick and choose the observations they happen to like. When all the observations go against their belief system… they
==========================================================
Oh for the good old days…………
When all you had to do was kill a chicken or throw a virgin in the fire………………
NWS Monterey:
500 MB HEIGHTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE MORE THAN -2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR SO HIGHS WILL BE MUCH COOLER THAN NORMAL NORMAL FOR MOST OF NEXT WEEK. IN FACT MOST INLAND SPOTS WILL BE IN THE 65 TO 75 DEGREE RANGE BY NEXT WEDNESDAY (MID 50S TO LOW 60S AT THE COAST) AND COASTAL COMMUNITIES COULD GO MULTIPLE DAYS WITH VERY FEW BREAKS IN THE CLOUDS. COASTAL DRIZZLE IS POSSIBLE FOR MANY MORNINGS AS WEAK IMPULSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TROF ROTATE THROUGH.
===============================
Each update this seems to be strengthening. Will it ultimately be an actual rain producing mid latitude (as opposed to tropical or SW Monsoon) system? In mid summer … in California.
Pochas, if you go to the good Dr’s. blog you will see that Dr. Mears has posted there.
I’ve asked this before but I don’t think it was in the context of satellite measurements. As more parts of the world develop and industrialise will there not be an increase in the amount of DIRECT warming of the atmosphere by human activity? By “direct” I mean the warmth given off by the burning of fossil and nuclear fuels, which is used for residential heating, transport, industry, power generation, and so on, but which which must eventually leak out into the environment. Could direct warming be large enough to be detected by the satellites? Has anyone tried to quantify it?
Steven Mosher says (July 8, 2011 at 10:04 am): “People pick and choose the observations they happen to like. When all the observations go against their belief system…”
Tell me about it. The last century’s “unprecedented” warming isn’t, the “endangered” polar bears aren’t, our “increasingly disrupted” weather isn’t, and fuel-saving “green energy” doesn’t, but hey we’re still gonna DIE!!! if we don’t mend our ways!
In a way, I really wish humanity did have its collective hand on the earth’s thermostat, because I don’t care much for the current setting — a bit too chilly. Unfortunately the earth is a lot like my own house, where my wife controls the thermostat and I…don’t.
Grrrr.
SJF says:
July 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Yes, the amount of direct heat from human processes has been quantified, and it is still insignficant. A year or two ago, I came across a paper that looked at this. They did an exponential extrapolation of human energy use and conclude that after 7 more doublings (128 times increase), the amount would start to be noticeable in the global climate system.
Per Wikipedia, solar irradience it 3,850,000 exajoules per year. Human energy consumption (2005) is 487 exajoules per year. The earth receives the human energy budget in approximately 1 hour. The natural variation is 3.5%, so plus or minus 134,750 exajoules. The human contribution to direct warming doesn’t even qualify as noise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant