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.
A warmist science project.
A tweak here, a tweak there, a little fudge, a hint of toffee to firm it up. walla a perfect model with a adjusta matrix calculation that simple solves all differentials! Fixamatosis the art of developing an answer first then asking the question. Long live the science of predetermination.
I would like to see the paper on this. Here is a paper where Trenberth and Christy Co-authored a paper on this subject.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282000%29081%3C2165%3ACOTTFR%3E2.3.CO%3B2
An interesting statement was made in the paper.
As radiosonde records almost universally contain temporal inhomogeneities as well, caution is required when interpreting trends, which are not known to within 0.1°C decade–1.
I would like a link to the actual paper if possible.
If the data do not fit the model, fit the data using the model. It’s an interesting procedure for sure, but it’s not science.
It is not the climate that is broken, it is the climate model. It does not match real temperatures so adjust the data. Pre 1990 adjust down post 1991 adjust up, It seems those days I spent at the beach in the 1960’s were not as warm as I thought they were or as warm as the thermometer recorded them, who would have thought that.
We need to graph the number of times past temperatures have been adjusted down, that would be an interesting trend.
The times they are a changin…
For a decade or more “sceptics” have been lampooned for challenging the accuracy of the numerous databases purporting to provide a “Global Average Temperature”.
Now for some reason they challenged by the people that used to defend them?
I wonder why?
PS, watch out for that rising water:-
“Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.”
Shouldn’t the guys at UAH be the only ones in the kitchen with thier hands in the pot? It *is* thier data, afterall.
If its good for the goose….just sayin’….
When was the NOAA-9 satellite in service?
How long is the overlap period with other satellites?
CodeTech says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
So, if you don’t like what the data shows, just change the data?
=====================================================
sophocles says:
May 7, 2012 at 3:14 pm
only if “…it’s obviously wrong.”
==============================================
After thirty or so years of all corrections having a warming bias, the temptation is to call BS without even checking the paper. Comes from crying wolf for years.
Yet another adjustment in the AGW world. Not sure if this one is legit or not, it could be…
Kind of funny how in the last few months, there have been about 4 or 5 adjustments. Here are a few I remember:
1) CRU temp record
2) UAH satellite data
3) Antarctica CO2 leading temperature
4) Sea level adjusted from Envirsat (I forget the exact spelling)
5) Volcanos, not the sun, caused the Little Ice Age.
It’s only about another month to Rio+20, I don’t anticipate any more adjustments…
Then explain to me why UAH an RSS were, for the most part, agreeing with each other even though they are on different instruments on different satellites and managed by different teams?
I must confess I am rather puzzled why they are picking on UAH and ignoring RSS. RSS has a straight line since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months. UAH has a straight line since August 2001 or 10 years, 9 months. And from where RSS is straight, UAH shows a rise. And from where UAH is straight, RSS shows a drop. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.58/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1996.83/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.58/trend
Amazing. First, “adjust” your “observations” to agree with your “theory”, then point at your work with a straight face and declare that “it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations”.
It’s “science”, Jim, but not as we know it.
This from RC gives background on the issue.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Like others, I’ll wait for Dr Christy/Spencer to respond.
They’re basically saying
“We adjusted their data to fit our models.”
Yeah, that’s credible.
Richdo says: May 7, 2012 at 3:21 pm
When I starting working with scientific instrumentation way back in 1980, the issue of calibration drift was already ancient history. When experiments are run a starting calibration is taken, then the experiment is run, and then an ending calibration is run. If the starting and ending calibration measurements differ (beyond some very small delta), then the results are not reliable and you have to rerun the experiment.
From the FAQ link above, Po and Fu seem to imply that UAH has not been conducting updated calibration weather balloon tests throughout the life of the UAH satellite program. If true, then UAH has been negligently operating these systems for many years. However, given that Drs. Spencer and Christy have responded promptly to previously discovered errors I cannot believe that they are capable of that level of impropriety. As far as I can tell, UAH is still providing a first-rate product that is second to none.
It’s hard to uncreate data where some exists.
There has been a difference (Tropics only) between RSS and UAH and the Wentz/Trenberth backed group has been looking at this for awhile. The adjustments are fairly arbitrary given how much these satellites drift and I don’t think anyone can say this is the right adjustment or not.
But, while Tenberth and Wentz (from RSS) are doing their victory dance, we should look at the actual trends (and do away with the degrees F trend garbage – yes it is garbage, science does not work in F anymore).
The Tropics are not warming anything like was predicted and there, most especially, is NO Tropical Hotspot.
Surface Tropics temperatures are increasing at just 0.12C per decade. The Surface is supposed to be increasing at something like 0.18C over this period and the Troposphere level (at the level measured by RSS and UAH) are supposed to be warming at 1.27 times that or 0.229C per decade – instead it is slightly lower than the surface at 0.118C per decade according to RSS.
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7510/rsshadcrut3tropics.png
(for reference of the Tropics lower troposphere is supposed to be warming at 1.27 times compared to the surface according to the climate models – the Hotspot – see figure 7 from this paper by Peter Thorne and Thomas Peterson – the two people who are really in charge of the surface temperature record. There is also some discussion of this issue directly).
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Thorne%20et%20al.%202010.pdf
SO they kept adjusting the satellite data to fit the models. Hmmmm. Well my income tax model shows that I should get back 100k each year, So, I guess I just need to adjust the data I receive from my employer to fit my model and, voila, I am right. Anyone think the US government will go for that “logic?” No? Yeah, me neither. However, many in government, and outside, expect us to buy into this line of utter feldercarb.
The team should have Michael Mann recalibrate the sensor readings using tree ring data from the past 20 years.
Its jailtime!!
Fraudsters! Ohhh well what a surprise!! They made the hustory cooler and present warmer? havent seen that before have we???
I’ve warned Dr. Spencer that they’re coming for him. The warmists will attack on the fringes, as in this case, but ultimately they will wrest control of the entire program from him and be free to make up the data as they please.
I encourage Drs. Spencer and Christie to 1) make all satellite processing codes and methodologies publicly available 2) establish a precedent of publishing the *raw* satellite data together with required processing steps on the internet so that when it is “disappeared” we will know they’re cooking the results.
I envision a freely downloadable R package capable of transforming the raw data into the monthly anomaly.
Gail, the history of S&C and the UAH MSU product has been to make errors which have tended to underestimate the temperature trend. In fact their error which they acknowledged in the correction to version 5.2 was first spotted by Fu et al., and confirmed by Mears et al. (RSS authors). So Fu has credibility in this area.
If it wasn’t for my hard earned money being at stake, this would be comical. Are most people really this gullible?
I am sure the temperature sensors in weather balloons are absolutely perfect at measuring the temperature.
I bet this new paper completely validates all the measurements made by each balloon.
It makes sense that a balloon. based cheap, lightweight, disposable temperature sensor/power supply is going to be better than one placed in a Satellite where it costs $50,000 a Kg just to get into orbit.
So CAGW rests 100% on adjustments to data, it cannot be argued from any direct interpretation of real world data.