They create an adjustment for the way the Alabama scientists handled data from NOAA-9, a satellite that collected temperature data in the mid-1980s.
From the University of Washington comes this press release:
New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer
By Nancy Gohring News and Information For more information: Po-Chedley, pochedls@atmos.uw.edu Trenberth, trenbert@ucar.edu, 303.497.1318
One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and climate models, according to a new University of Washington study.
The finding is important because it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations, said Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student in atmospheric sciences who wrote the paper with Qiang Fu, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.
They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Researchers there were the first to release such a record, in 1989, and it has often been cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.
In their paper, appearing this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Po-Chedley and Fu examined the record from the researchers in Alabama along with satellite temperature records that were subsequently developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Remote Sensing Systems.
The UW researchers are the first to come up with an adjustment for the way the Alabama scientists handled data from NOAA-9, a satellite that collected temperature data in the mid-1980s.
Scientists like Po-Chedley and Fu have been studying the three records because each comes to a different conclusion.
“There’s been a debate for many, many years about the different results but we didn’t know which had a problem,” Fu said. “This discovery reduces uncertainty, which is very important.”
When they applied their correction to the Alabama-Huntsville climate record for a UW-derived tropospheric temperature measurement, it effectively eliminated differences with the other studies.
Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9, one satellite that collected temperature data for a short time in the mid-1980s. But Po-Chedley and Fu are the first to offer a calculation related to the NOAA-9 data for adjusting the Alabama findings, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
“It should therefore make for a better record, as long as UAH accepts it,” he said.
To come up with the correction, Po-Chedley and Fu closely examined the way the three teams interpreted readings from NOAA-9 and compared it to data collected from weather balloons about the temperature of the troposphere.
They found that the Alabama research incorrectly factors in the changing temperature of the NOAA-9 satellite itself and devised a method to estimate the impact on the Alabama trend.
Like how a baker might use an oven thermometer to gauge the true temperature of an oven and then adjust the oven dial accordingly, the researchers must adjust the temperature data collected by the satellites.
That’s because the calibration of the instruments used to measure the Earth’s temperature is different after the satellites are launched, and because the satellite readings are calibrated by the temperature of the satellite itself. The groups have each separately made their adjustments in part by comparing the satellite’s data to that of other satellites in service at the same time.
Once Po-Chedley and Fu apply the correction, the Alabama-Huntsville record shows 0.21 F warming per decade in the tropics since 1979, instead of its previous finding of 0.13 F warming. Surface measurements show the temperature of Earth in the tropics has increased by about 0.21 F per decade.
The Remote Sensing Systems and NOAA reports continue to reflect warming of the troposphere that’s close to the surface measurements, with warming of 0.26 F per decade and 0.33 F respectively.
The discrepancy among the records stems from challenges climate researchers face when using weather satellites to measure the temperature of the atmosphere. The records are a composite of over a dozen satellites launched since late 1978 that use microwaves to determine atmospheric temperature.
However, stitching together data collected by those satellites to discover how the climate has changed over time is a complicated matter. Other factors scientists must take into account include the satellite’s drift over time and differences in the instruments used to measure atmospheric temperature on board each satellite.
The temperature reports look largely at the troposphere, which stretches from the surface of the earth to around 10 miles above it, where most weather occurs. Climate models show that this region of the atmosphere will warm considerably due to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, scientists expect that in some areas, such as over the tropics, the troposphere will warm faster than the surface of the Earth.
The paper does not resolve all the discrepancies among the records, and researchers will continue to look at ways to reconcile those conflicts.
“It will be interesting to see how these differences are resolved in the coming years,” Po-Chedley said.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
Re: “adjustments” of data…. It is inherently worthy of suspicion (suggestive at least of confirmation bias) when climate science “adjustments” of data ***always*** seem to favor C-AGW interests. I’ll wait for this to sort out with more perspectives.
Fu was one of the researchers whose work identified the errors in the UAH processing of the MSU data which led to S&C’s corrections, so he’s not a neophyte in this area.
I haven’t read the journal article, but I note that the above press release doesn’t say anything about physics. It’s all about “calibration” and “adjustments”. As one who has actually designed Radars for space, I’m highly skeptical of this “calibration”. What the Alabama folks have done has met the test of time AND influenced other applicantions of space based radar. If Christy’s calibration was off that much, that’s a HUGE error in phase, and there’s a bunch of radars out there that are wrong. Given that they are demonstratively not, I’m calling BS.
I doubt there was a single radar expert in the peer review.
So, if we grant for a moment that the “real” value is 0.21F / decade then why is a UAH figure of 0.13F (a 0.08F or 38% error) a problem, while a NOAA figure of 0.33F (0.12F or 57% error) is “close to” reality?
Don’t suppose the direction of error has anthing to do with it?
I would sure like to know if Trenberth is a US citizen and/or if he is lawfully able to work in the US. We would be a lot better off if he could return to his home country of residence, New Zealand, and contribute to the socialist, isolationist and environmental-wacko policies there.
“They create an adjustment for the way the Alabama scientists handled data from NOAA-9, a satellite that collected temperature data in the mid-1980s.”
When the data contradicts your conclusions, adjust the data. This type of elite thinking can only be from the brilliant minds of Climate Science. Well played, gentlemen.
Having done some of the early work in the field during the 1970s on Nimbus-E and Nimbus-F I call bullshit. Our temperature profiles retrieved from those instruments (NEMS and SCAMS) did not have a systemic bias at any pressure level in the retrieval. Errors at a given pressure level? Yeah sure, the inversion is an under-determined problem. And yes, we used RAOBs for “ground truth”. But what they are implying is that there are gremlins in the cold load and or the frequency that systematically shift the weighting functions or render the brightness temperatures systematically biased in a way that gives them the “happy” result that they want. I cannot speak for the AMSU and later instruments, but if anything, I suspect they were much more advanced technically and more accurate as a result.
Why did they share the data when they knew they would try to find something wrong with it? ;>)
The link ‘Satellite Temperature Measurements FAQ’ says:
“Weather balloons are used as an independent check for the (satellite) microwave sounding unit. Because the weather balloon measurement is independent of the temperature of the satellite (which warms and cools based on the angle in which the sun hits it), the UW researchers were able to conclude that the Alabama measurements of Earth temperature for one of its satellites (NOAA-9) were affected by the satellite temperature itself. This indicates that the Alabama research(ers) mis-calibrated the NOAA-9 satellite.”
It’s certainly possible that the satellite sensor is out of calibration, as we’ve seen before with sea ice detectors. If it is, I hope Spencer & Christy acknowledge the error and congratulate the authors for finding it. However, if this “miscalibration” can’t be replicated by others and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it’s just another blatant example of Trenberth and the ‘Gang that Couldn’t Adjust Straight’ adjusting empirical data to fit their beloved models. They have destroyed their credibility numerous times already. Let’s see how this pans out.
CodeTech says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
So, if you don’t like what the data shows, just change the data?
=====================================================
only if “…it’s obviously wrong.”
Strange that they mention UAH so much – there’s virtually no difference between RSS and UAH and in fact RSS is recently the one that shows less warming.
Apart of that the press release says nothing except that they yet again don’t feel like discussing it on professional level among scientists and rather release a paper about how bad the UAH team is. Let’s wait for Dr. Spencer’s opinion.
It is truly remarkable that every single adjustment to actual data over the last 25 years required that the data be ‘ warmed’. How did we manage to create such a wide variety of instrumentation, with each and every one of them having a cold bias? It is now blatantly obvious that engineers have been involved in a global conspiracy to hide the excessive warming we are all suffering and dying from.
And they are so good at it that no one is suffering or dying.
The UW FAQ on this “study” can be found here: http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/satellite-temperature-measurements-faq
I think my head is going to explode! If any of this has scientific merit why the #$%^ did it take >20years to figure it out?
So just where is this missing “heat”?
If satellites cannot find it in the deep oceans, then ipso facto their ability to quantify surface data is to be doubted.
For those in need – sarc/off
Well, we shouldn’t be surprised by this. We must get our minds right before the next IPCC meeting.
The revisions of our climate indicators has gone well past laughable.
It’s a sad reflection on ‘climate science’ that whenever certain names appear in a Blog you mentally check your wallet.
You could have knocked me down with a feather when I learned that if you adjust satellite data, it agrees with the models.
I note this line:
“compared it to data collected from weather balloons about the temperature of the troposphere.”
How close is “about the temperature”?
RE: Kasuha says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Strange that they mention UAH so much – there’s virtually no difference between RSS and UAH and in fact RSS is recently the one that shows less warming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did a crude match up of the two with an offset to mate the starting anomaly.
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/trend5.png
I will leave it to readers to determine why UAH is slammed hardest…….. Trenberth?
This is back to the age-old (as in within the climate debate) problem of ‘what is real data’? All satellite/sensor data is calibrated against some ‘standard’. Even thermometers are calibrated against reference standards. If the calibration is ‘out’ – the data is out – period. if the calibration changes with time, as in say, ‘drift’ of satellite sensors – how do we recalibrate? Do they bring satellites back to earth to run ‘checks’? (To my knowledge this has never been done and is to all intent and purpose, impossible!) So back to the problem – which data is ‘real’ and ‘valid’?
THEN – some smartarse decides to ‘check’ the data – and ‘adjust’ it – and this is supposed to be fecking science????? Oh FFS, come on folks, this is most likely to be BS………………
Put it another way – if this is good science, the Pope is likely to be Elvis reincarnated – (OMG, I bet there are some that will believe that’s possible too…..aarrgghh!)
They found that the Alabama research incorrectly factors in the changing temperature of the NOAA-9 satellite itself and devised a method to estimate the impact on the Alabama trend.
=============================
So I take it the NOAA-9 satellite gradually gets warmer…………………..a trend
Lee Kington says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm
RE: Kasuha says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Strange that they mention UAH so much – there’s virtually no difference between RSS and UAH and in fact RSS is recently the one that shows less warming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did a crude match up of the two with an offset to mate the starting anomaly.
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/trend5.png
I will leave it to readers to determine why UAH is slammed hardest…….. Trenberth?
=============
slam dunk………….
Has there ever been an example of data being “adjusted” to make AGW less? Every time I see an “adjustment”, it makes recent temperatures hotter and past temperatures colder.
It was about time the warmist antiscientists start to destroy the satellite measurements.
Since NOAA-9 warms throughout its lifetime, this introduces a spurious cooling into the satellite measurement, which subsequently affects the entire 30-plus year record.
This is from their website. I would like to see the data regarding the warming of NOAA-9 over its lifetime. Why would that be? Normally, after a few weeks of outgassing a satellites temperature range stabilizes unless there is something wrong with the paint coatings used for thermal control. This could heat the spacecraft over time but usually this is a log function, not a linear one.
I would like to see their data on this one as it does not correspond to the on board calibration of the instruments.
From the abstract: “This study evaluates the selection of the MSU TMT warm target factor for the NOAA-9 satellite using five homogenized radiosonde products as references. The analysis reveals that the UAH TMT product has a positive bias of 0.062 ± 0.040 in the warm target factor that artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.050 K decade−1 for 1979 – 2009. Accounting for this bias increases the global UAH TMT trend from 0.038 K decade−1 to 0.088 K decade−1, effectively eliminating the trend difference between UAH and RSS and decreasing the trend difference between UAH and NOAA by 56%. “
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1
From the press release: “Once Po-Chedley and Fu apply the correction, the Alabama-Huntsville record shows 0.21 F warming per decade in the tropics since 1979, instead of its previous finding of 0.13 F warming.
http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/new-research-brings-satellite-measurements-and-global-climate-models-closer
Uh ……doesn’t 0.088 K = 0.1584 F not 0.21 F?
What am I missing? The press release doesn’t seem to match the Abstract.