Both Lucia and Steve McIntyre beat me on this story, so I’ll defer to them. That’s what I get for going to dinner with relatives last night and sleeping in.
Below is a plot from McIntyre showing the RSS data compared to UAH MSU. Both are down significantly in June 2009 with UAH MSU at .001°C
RSS is down from 0.090C in May 2009 to 0.075C in June 2009
Steve McIntyre writes a little parody of the issue: RSS June – “Worse Than We Thought”
Lucia actually expected RSS to climb and has an analysis here
Even NCDC’s director Tom Karl has something to say about satellite data, read on.
Both of the datasets are available in raw form if you want t plot for yourself.
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa)
RSS data here (RSS Data Version 3.2)
UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville)
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
There had been some comments in the UAH thread earlier that May and June seem to have cycled lower in the UAH data set in recent years. It seems that RSS is following also.
I expect we’ll hear an announcement from NOAA/NCDC soon about it being the nth warmest June on record. They will of course cite surface data from stations like this one at the Atmospheric Sciences Department, University of Arizona at Tucson:
Here is a testimony in March 2009 before congress from NCDC’s director Tom Karl, where he complains about satellite data and the “adjustments” required:
It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).
You mean “sophisticated technical processes” like these performed on raw surface temperature data at NCDC?
larger image
larger image
Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the graph labelled “Difference between RAW and final USHCN Data sets – is this comparing before and after some type of calibration adjustment applied, or are we talking about some GISS level monkeying with the values?
It’s NOAA/USHCN only.
GISS, if you can believe it, does not adjust raw HCN data. They “unadjust” HCN adjusted data (by algorithm), then readjust.
It looks more like .1C-.4c to me.
USHCN1 stations, raw data, equally weighted, show ~ 0.14C rise for the 2oth century. With TOBS alone, it’s ~ +0.31C.
John Finn (12:22:53) :
When I read meteorology I was taught that sea temperatures lag atmosphere temperatures, not the other way aroun.
John Finn:
“…HadSST2 has just released it’s June anomaly. It is +0.5 which is the highest anomaly since 1998…”
I’ve noticed this, too. What is interesting is that when the 1997/1998 “super” El Nino began, 1997 June SSTs were ‘only’ 0.32 and by that time the El Nino was a lot stronger than the current one. I suppose the reason is that when the 97/98 El Nino was getting ramped up, basins other than the Pacific had anomalously low SSTs, while currently all basins (except around Antarctica) are dominated by anomalous warmth (especially the North Atlantic). If current SST trends continue, July could easily have the highest monthly global SST anomaly ever recorded (at least within the HadSST2 record going back to 1850).
“Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
Is Anthony going to have to start a ‘Pompous Buffoonery of the Week’ series?
If Tom Karl knows so much more about the satellite data than the RSS and UAH teams, how comes the NCDC don’t publish their own monthly analysis of the satellite data?
Too much of a contrast to the surface data waltz perhaps?
Tom Karl: “It is important to note raw satellite data and rapidly produced weather products derived from satellite sensors are rarely useful for climate change studies. Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records (CDRs).”
Hahahha! NOAA and GISS have twisted their raw data so much they look like a pretzel. He seems to have forgotten how much “sophisticated technical processes” NOAA and GISS have to perform to make their data so the temperatures are rising.
Flanagan (11:42:05) : “Always the same …”
. . . misinterpretation of what is going on. We know why the temperature data spiked in 1998 and remained up for the few following years. Without that El Nino induced rapid release of heat there would likely be very different things being talked about. A slower release would have kept the temperatures up without the spike. No release would have had people writing about the heat stored in the ocean.
It isn’t the near zero aspect of this that is important but the fact that the warm temperatures of the past ten years are now gone and the temperature appears to be falling again. Note the slope in the years before the El Nino. Meanwhile CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise. Given this result and the rise out of the last glaciation (as far as I know whatever brought this about is still operating), I think it is time for all those who believe in the “scientific method” to boot the notion of AGW into the ash heap of history.
To be filed under: “Weather is not Climate”:
From New Zealand: “May the coldest on record, Niwa figures show”
http://www.times-age.co.nz/local/news/may-the-coldest-on-record-niwa-figures-show/3901165/
Massachusetts reflects on ‘the year without a summer’
http://www.pembrokexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1317&Itemid=29
Pembroke’s Past: The year without a summer
Written by Karen Proctor
Thursday, 09 July 2009 10:41
So — it’s the beginning of July, and it looks like, perhaps, we’re going to have a summer season after all. It has definitely been a long time coming — that cool rain has made for some lush foliage and plenty of weeds, but my garden needs SUN!
Keeping our recent weather in mind, if you had been around in the year 1816, surely even the unpredictable New England seasons would have had you worried about the weather. That year is known in weather circles as “The Year Without a Summer”: Yes, you read it right. Now read on — if you dare!
Southern hemisphere, Northern hemisphere must be a coincidence!
Mike
I do wonder why we’re still seeing so many cold events if GISS and Hadcrut are seeing skyrocketing global temps at the moment assuming they are accurate. You’d think recorded cold events (especially records like lowest max. temp.) would’ve become quite a bit rarer since 1990 on this day, but seeing some of the stories they haven’t (at least over the past 2 years).
Anchorage is getting a summer a bit warmer than last year, but Intellicast shows plenty of colder air set to settle over large parts of Canada, it’s like this Summer the cool air Anchorage experienced last Summer just shifted a bit to the East.
tallbloke (13:12:06) :
“Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
Is Anthony going to have to start a ‘Pompous Buffoonery of the Week’ series?
———
tallbloke,
I don’t know what Anthony will do. But!
Personally, Tom Karl’s words did a 10.0 on my open BS scale.
John Finn (12:22:53) :
I’ve posted on this before, but I don’t suppose it’ll hurt to do it one more time.
The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.
So, an admission of SST oscillations influencing temperature. You’re one grade above the IPCC, and making progress.
Anthony, you have a sly way of finding the phrases that contain the highest quantity of subterfuge, chaotic thinking, or outright fraud and juxtaposing clear, “simple”, truthful science. Great photo, too. Just like almost all our academic institutions today — U. of Arizona at Tucson can’t do much right if it has to do with climate science or climate. Could it be the money???? The UAT should be ashamed of themselves. And the Atmospheric Sciences Department? Can’t they read government regulations about siting their surface station? Are we dealing with idiots?
“Look Mom–No Warming!!!”
NCDC has been shown to be an ineffective cooling-preventing artifice that can be of no significant value when used in a conscientiously applied program of amoral hijinks and regular professional scares.
Buy NCDC! We’re the professional adjusters… Nice and slow, not like that fast satellite stuff!!
Did somebody deliberately place that temperature-measuring station in a concrete parking lot?
At least we can be glad it’s not black asphalt. . .
/Mr Lynn
“Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
Translation:
“We adjusted the raw data to turn it into acceptable data. We’ve been doing it for twenty or thirty years.”
Dr. Tom, uhh wait Mr. Tom Karl… they haven’t taken the Mr. away from him yet have they?
Anthony: This was posted on CA
ken roberts:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“Re: BarryW (#12),
From what I recently read this is the last data we will get; two of the three on-board lasers have failed and the remaining one is failing”.
This concerns the satellite JAXA/AMSR ice data apparently (you might double check if worth your while). I’ve suspected this for some time especially when NANSEN withdrew its last years major down adjustments. I suspect they will re-adjust soon again upwards. Visually it doesn’t look like NH ice is melting much this year.
I second the call for a “Pompous Bufoonery of the Week” slot.
This has to take the biscuit.
“Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
Yep, low temperatures combined with increased uv radiation gives a really crapy garden this year.
Can someone send some warming our way in Indiana? It’s over 80 today, but last week was downright cold! I expect my Hoosier summers to be hot and humid; I don’t want a 4th of July that feels like the 4th of April.
Someone ought to give the politicians a clue–most of us like it a bit warmer rather than on the cold side. Our gardens like it better, too.
“Rather, an ordered series of sophisticated technical processes, developed through decades of scientific achievement, are required to convert raw satellite sensor data into Climate Data Records”
This statement by Tom Karl of NCDC is absolutely correct. UAH and RSS are not remotely “raw data”. To get the UAH and RSS products, the raw satellite data is run through a series of corrections and adjustments that that make the GISS adjustments look simple.
But Mr. Karl was not specifically talking about satellite temperature measurements anyway. If anyone had bothered to actually read the link to his testimony, you would see a long list of all the raw satellite data that is available. And all that data needs to be adjusted- for orbital drift, satellite changes, instrument degradation, etc- before it is useful for determining long-term changes.
Looks like big mainstream media has had enough
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
watch the thing tumble. Even K Rudd admitted so this morning re Copenhagen
VG: What satallite are you talking about with the failing lasers? If it’s the NASA Aqua satallite then we could be in for a blackout of the most reliable data and will end up relying on the less reliable ground measurements and the less precise NOAA satallites with decaying orbits, guess we’d have to rely on actual community observation and ocean buoy readings.
Flanagan,
One can cherry pick the zero point base line for your anomally anywhere.
I don’t udnerstand why we don’t use the MWP, then we’d still have a negative anomally!
Your link to “the blackboard” on the side window disappeared. Only place i used for a marker.
REPLY: it is still there, look carefully
John Finn @12:22:53:
The satellite measurements are behind the curve, i.e. they are reflecting the low SST that were present a few months back. The surface readings are now on the rise. The satellite readings are just now “bottoming out” and will follow the surface readings upwards in the next month or so.
HadSST2 has just released it’s June anomaly. It is +0.5 which is the highest anomaly since 1998. It is considerably higher …
Mr. Finn, the surface temeopratures are always rising, didn’t you know that 🙂 It’s just that this only happens at GISS and HCRU. From teh HADSST2 web page
The SST data are taken from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, ICOADS, from 1850 to 1997 and from the NCEP-GTS from 1998 to present.
HadSST2 is produced by taking in-situ measurements of SST from ships and buoys, rejecting measurements which fail quality checks, converting the measurements to anomalies by subtracting climatological values from the measurements, and calculating a robust average of the resulting anomalies on a 5 deg by 5 deg monthly grid.
I’ll take satellite temps anyday.
And how about those Argo buoys??
Chris V. (14:56:14) : What appears disingenuous is the suggestion that these adjustments aren’t already being/have been done. This kind of misdirection is done by the Team all the time-it is suggested that certain data still needs adjustments-subtly, but simply saying “satellite records must go through processes to make them into climate quality data” or the like with out mention that the processes have already been applied (which is true in many cases). Apparently intentionally, this gives a baseless reason to reject satellite results-a doggy treat for the Team’s bulldogs and true believers.