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.
I wrote: “I’ve asked this before but I don’t think it was in the context of satellite measurements…” Apologies, as I’ve now found the thread where I asked about “direct” warming of the atmosphere before (i.e. no need for CO2 / greenhouse effect) and it WAS in the context of the satellite record. I do still wonder why this effect is not talked about more as a possible contributor to or even cause of the observed warming trend. On the previous thread, commenter ‘pft’ answered my question thus:-
“Hoyt (2006) indicated the US generated heat at about 0.34 W/M2, about 1 W/M2 in urban areas and much higher in cities. For this reason you would believe satellites are much better than surface temperature stations, at least 1/2 or more are in urban areas. Of course, land accounts for only 29% of the globes surface area.
“He estimated that since 1900 a population increase of 1 billion to 6 billion could account for 0.5 deg C, which is close to the observed warming. Of course, it’s complicated by land useage changes, aerosols, more active sun, and of course more CO2, etc.
“Thats from David Rapps book on Assessing Climate Change”
Steven Mosher says: July 8, 2011 at 10:04 am
…the next few years will be interesting.
Don’t see why.
CO2 is already running out of ‘gas’, the ‘grand sunspot minimum’ will turn out be a climatic damp squid, warmers fading into background and deniers left with not much to deny.
GISS/NASA is a Green Gang front god-fathered by the notorious James Hansen, he of the $1.2-million emolument scraped together while supposedly a Devoted Public Servant (DPS). Research? Science? Puh-leeze! DIPS are in charge, that’s all we need to know.
Vuk.
I realize your a voice in the wilderness that no one is listening to. At some point, perhaps it will occur to you that there is a reason for that. And it won’t have anything to do with other peoples lack of understanding. Instead, quite the opposite.
gary:
“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!”
yes, it’s true the CAGw crowd says all sorts of silly things. There is no need to copy them
There is a epistemological lemming effect.
back in 2007 the warmists starting screaming about the ice. My advice to them was this:
“the ice melts for many many reasons. The ice melt is not the BEST evidence for AGW,
so please do not run for the ice”
And of course skeptics follow them in debating evidence that is really not central to the case.
espistemological lemmings.
Then of course there are the other debates, debates over “unprecedented”. Again, weak evidence that you dont want to hang your hat on.. either FOR the case or Against the case.
And now with the sun. all manner of people who should be skeptical are saying definitive things.
So much for rigorous thinking.
It’s fun to watch.
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2011 at 10:04 am
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
===========================================================
Indeed. Though, in this case, while # 1 would be an indication of “selective” skepticism(and silliness given the history of Dr.s Spencer and Christy), I think it fine and rational to both question the knowledge and show what we don’t know. Given the large degree of variance between RSS and UAH, and the professional disagreement as to why…..(see here for Carl Mears’, of RSS, comment. I would say your #s 2&3 would by symptomatic of healthy skepticism.
To view the divergence, see here.
While the divergence may not appear to be significant, in this context(a decade), +/- 0.1 degree is huge.
On an aside, given what I’ve recently seen about satellites, I’ve little expectation that they could be much closer than that.
SJF says:
July 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm
do you mean in energy terms? if so its something like 174 Petawatts of energy incoming from the sun (1.74×10^17 W) and human energy use is 16TW or 1.6×10^13 W. Estimated actual surface solar energy reaching earth is 8.9×10^16 W – or in round figures 5000 times the human energy production?
so in terms of heating the planet directly – no, I don’t think human energy use is important!
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm
It’s fun to watch.
=================================
So how’s the climate way up there…..above it all
@Mosh
you are right in pointing out the deficiencies in either side pinning their hats on any single piece of so called evidence.
true skeptics dont believe a word of anything, unless they can see it/do it/ test it for themselves! But the trouble is that the AGW theory and its political agenda has been force fed to us for soooo long that the skeptics will naturally want to jump at any chance to knock the concensus.
when the data is collected and ready it hopefully will tell us what we need to know – but in the meantime, everyone MUST remember to point out what it currently DOES tell us – and that is that we do not KNOW it all – and the CONCENSUS was/is almost certainly based on incomplete data and understanding and moreover, any crazy ideological actions based thereon could be more risky than cautious action.
What annoys me the most about the whole AGW argument is the tipping point/alarmist scenarios – which we know from geological history – must be complete twaddle! If the warmists were saying – ‘yeah man, CO2 is probably warming the planet – lets ease off a bit and see what gives’ – I could go along with that kind of attitude, I might not agree, but it’s the pragmatic approach. But the gung ho, ‘Cut everything because the planet’s gonna die in a few years’ alarmism just don’t make sense and worse still, when the (false) alarmism is exposed as easily as in AR4 – it is gonna make everyone loose faith, the boy who cried wolf to often and all that! If the warmists had been a little less keen to be ‘groundbreaking’ and seeking fame in the media – this debate would never have got to the crazy warmist/denialist stance we know have.
Steven Mosher says (July 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm): “Then of course there are the other debates, debates over “unprecedented”. Again, weak evidence that you dont want to hang your hat on.. either FOR the case or Against the case.”
Actually, I consider the “precedented” argument to be the strongest against the CAGW bogeyman. Current temperatures, sea level, CO2, weather, etc. are all “precedented” in the earth’s history and yet life thrives. All the “evidence” for incipient CAGW is theoretical, yet there’s theory against it, too (e.g. no detectable tropical tropospheric “hot spot”, and differing estimates of “climate sensitivity”). So with uncertain theory and no physical evidence, I see no need to take drastic measures (with definite negative consequences) against a decidedly indefinite “threat”. The best course is to push the economic growth and scientific advancement that will improve our ability to deal with ANY future threats, e.g. asteroid collisions, solar (in)activity, and global cooling/heating.
Just so we’re clear, what do you consider the strongest non-silly things the “CAGW crowd” says?
No effing way you were an English professor.
Steve Mosher @ur momisugly several
Whilst I appreciate that skeptics can and do get carried away in the moment when arguing the toss over all things CAGW, THEY did not set the agenda in the debate (alarmists did). THEY did not attempt to indoctrinate masses of the global population in an extremist ideology that has more to do with cultist behavior than anything representing analytical thought! You project your own self perpetuating belief system onto all sides of the debate except your own. We are ALL subject to the constraints of our own egotism, yourself included, which no ivory tower intellectual viewpoint can hide. Your expertise is clearly of a extremely high level, far higher than mine for example, but it is important to realize that we are all fallible and can view data with the “eye of faith”, including lukewarmers like yourself. The onus of proof remains wholly and completely in the hands of alarmists who are asking us to radically transform the economic and geopolitical landscape predicated on very weak evidence with error bars almost as high as the level of warming seen. Remember the total surface temperature warming is less than 3/4 of a degree in almost 150 years. No need for any drastic measures, radical wealth redistribution or massive increase in taxation. NONE.
So, what is the theoretical or rational basis for approximating any trend of any type on the satellite temperature record as any kind of a straight line?
There is a 60-66 year short climate cycle that predictably varies measurable global temperatures by 0.25 degrees, superimposed on a longer 900-1000 year cycle (Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Modern Warming Period…. We don’t know the theoretical reason behind either cycle (yet!) but they are demonstrable and repeatable across all records and all proxies at locations all over the world.
So, go back to the figure: Why is a slowing rising sine wave not projected on the graph? It is what is observed after all. (Near flat in 1980 since it was rising from the mid-1970’s when the record begins in 1978-79, then rising until its high point as a flattened curve across the peak from 2000 – 2010.) Why is a linear trend extrapolated when one does not exist?
Longer term, still to be determined, is whether the Modern Warming Period will peak in 2000-2010, or 60 years later between 2070 – 2080, or still one cycle later between 2140 – 2150.
Mendeleev did NOT know the theoretical basis for any part of the Periodic Table when he used it to predict future elements, future element properties not yet measured, and even found errors in experimental results that not match the Table properties. Newton could not develop the theoretical Laws of Gravity – but he used what was actually observed to develop the practical laws of physics. That list could be continued, but i predict that no real understanding of the earth’s climate will occur until the first man or woman is courageous enough to stop drawing straight lines, and begin to explore why there are periodicies in the real world.
Jeff;
Thanks for that. Walking my way thru, and enjoying the clarity and rigor.
One of many take-aways:
In lay-speak, the “true” average of a list of temperature measurements can be whatever you want; there’s no choosing by physical criteria. I.e., it’s meaningless.
HenryP says:
July 8, 2011 at 5:26 am
Well, the 0.14C increase per decade is in line with what I find: 0.13C per decade.
What those sat. records do not show is what caused the warming.
Either the sun shone a bit brighter or there were less clouds.
—————————————————————————
AND OR,OUT OF SIGHT,OUT OF MIND,3 MILLION +++ submarine thermal vents volcanic activity AND
SEISMIC that ALL show several hundred percent INCREASE,Professor Ian Plimer WILL prove to be correct and vindicated soon and george moonbat will be forced to apologize to him.
And here’s where the “it’s just science” and “it’s fundamentally a power-grab” POVs part company. The direness of the predictions and extrapolations and implied necessary remedies are CORE, not derivative. It is not desire to “scoop” the science community that drives the (C)AGW bus.
Edits: It’s “consensus”, and “lose faith”, not “concensus” and “loose faith”.
Brian H says:
July 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm
agreed – I wasn’t trying to suggest the current crop of pro-AGW climate scientists or their warmist agendas are in any way interested in ‘Saving the Planet/Humankind’ or anything these days as their driving force! For them it seems to be all bravado and hot air on the most part, or simply trying to get recognised as some kind of ‘expert’ in the MSM. I suppose, perhaps 20/30 years ago, someone in the climate field may just have shown some genuine concern, but within a short time the political agenda input must have been introduced (along with all the funding of course!).
BTW, apologies for typos – it was the last thing I did before hitting the sack!
I am not a denier of any objective measure of what is going on with the Earths climate ,there are always different ways of measuring anything.I am not a denier because I refuse to accept the political interpretations made by the left and right about “climate change”.Governments would like to make a set of rules of how we should all behave with regard to the Earth’s changing climate and this is similar to the rules of economics which have been imposed on us by Governments over the years.Left or Right economics?We can criticise both the rules of the “free market” and “Socialism” they are not the natural order of society that both claim to be.I think that the Earths climate should be left to the scientists to study and we should not have Governments or the UN involved in “climate change”.
To Curt, D.J. Hawkins and Kev-in-UK: thanks, it’s good to have my question answered 🙂
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Vuk. I realize your a voice in the wilderness that no one is listening to.
Hey Steven
In your consciousness: Bee Gees or prophet Isaiah ?
In your world of climate science: Fool’s false hope or wise man’s depths of despair ?
Isn’t it about time that we stopped chasing degrees around the world and averaging them? As someone said, it’s about as useful as averaging the phone book to get the next number to call.
Temperature averages for the MWP or LIA according to some ‘authorities’ vary scarcely from ‘noise’ yet the effects of these periods had very real and sometimes disastrous consequences for many populations around the world from drought , rain and cold such as we have never seen.
Incursions of the Polar Jet Streams close to, or beyond the equator have occurred in the southern hemisphere over the past two years and moved further south than normal in the NH. These are signs of a cooling climate, which consists of increased weather extremes according to the father of modern climatology Hubert H Lamb (whose Christian name I got wrong in a previous post, by quoting from “The Hunting Hypothesis”)
An internal CIA paper on the effects of a cooling climate can be seen here,
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
which makes interesting reading some 36 years on. Perhaps they got the timing wrong, but will the consequences be much different if they are right about cooling this time?
Henry@DaveSpringer
I have not seen any actual proof for man made warming, in terms of GHG’s (including methane)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I think the probability that some warming is caused by people removing snow in winter is in fact bigger. I can see this from some of records that I have been seeing.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Henry@Barry Day
I don’t have a problem with adding the probablity that volcanism did play a role in the warming of earth. But, like GHG warming, it looks difficult to prove.
Are you trying to tell me that those two graphs are different ? If the climate outcome depends on the difference in those two data sets, then we are all doomed.