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.
Roy Spencer found a step change in UAH at 1995 when they switched satellites
(second last graph)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-u-s-population-adjusted-temperature-dataset-pdat-1973-2012/
It is possible that UAH shows 0.5 deg C too much since that time.
This would explain why it’s so friggin’ cold here. Looks like Piers Corbyn was right with his “coldest May in 100 years.”
In the meantime the warmists pull every filthy trick to adjust temps and sea level data up. In a few years we’ll be living under glaciers and they’ll still tell us it’s the warmest year ever. Time to run them out of town and let them freeze.
“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.”
I’m confused again.
If “the science is settled” and “THERE’S A CONSENSUS!” then what was the debate about?
Just where and when was this dabate taking place?
Why didn’t Trenbreth mention these differences (publicly) before the fix was in?
Po & Fu adjust the data for Christie and Spenser to help them agree with Trenberth; all express their undying gratitude.
Or not.
The establishment steps forth to try to “discredit” UAH for the umpteenth time. They must be frustrated by how little this has accomplished over time: Enough to claim a couple of “victories” that didn’t save the models, probably half a dozen flops that UAH themselves showed to be wrong. But they really just want to raise doubt, it’s enough to make some scientists think “that data will eventually be brought in line” or even to believe, from disinformation, that this has already been achieved. If it takes that much work to bring an unruly data series into line, through fairly explicitly one-sided efforts of correction, one has to wonder if maybe the series is just telling us the models are wrong. Nah, couldn’t be, why trust data we’ve gotten changed so much after such extensive effort to get it changed in the direction we wanted.
There are errors in every time series: cooling errors and warming errors. And yet every major correction is always to more warming: not surprising*, the researchers expect warming so they look to make sure nothing is hiding it: they have little reason to make sure nothing is artificially creating it. Nothing surprising, in a way, about straight up confirmation bias. Researchers would apparently prefer to believe that there is a vast conspiracy of all bias factors to hide the warming.
*If you doubt this, read Michaels and Balling’s Climate of Extremes. It’s a documented fact: they could even add another example, now, to the HadCRUT section, as the new series adds yet more warming.
The satellite and balloon data blow up the Hot Spot and thereby blow up the key mechanism of AGW theory and models. Highly significant controversy.
What to do, what to do? Well, past is prologue in how to respond to any empirical threat to AGW. Just as the MWP and LIA were disappeared, and just as the warming of the 1930s is progressively being erased from the instrumental record, and just as UHI adjustments are thrown out, the balloon and satellite data are being “homogenized” and “adjusted.” The homogenized balloon data is claimed to not blow up the Hot Spot, or at least not so much. Adjusting satellite data to fit these homogenized balloon data series is a prelude to claiming that the Hot Spot actually exists. It will be interesting to see what Spencer and Christy have to say, for they have a proven track record of honesty concerning their own errors.
“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.”
So what does RSS show?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.33/scale:1000/plot/rss/from:1997.33/scale:1000/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.33
Well certainly for the last 15 years, the climate models have been bang on haven’t they!
/sarc off
Note how these “scientists” never consult Spencer and Christy, they just lob grenades. Fu is the same guy who smeared UAH for stratospheric measurements. Christy and Spencer gobsmacked him then, and I suspect will do the same now.
Trenberth is only there for the ride to give the paper name recognition.
I don’t believe one thing Trenberth or any of his ilk say anymore.
That satellite record has always been a thorn in the side of global warming advocates. Neither NASA, nor NOAA, nor the Met Office has had any use for it during the 32 years that it has been available. I always wondered how long it will be until they mount a direct attack and now it has happened. Apparently they found a grad student they could set up as a patsy to do their dirty work.
Old Nanook, noooooooo, nooooooooooo, we don’t want trenberth back here, Took us long enough to get rid of him, pleeeeeeeaase. Sorry, he’s all yours now. PMSL
Is it true to say one or both of the following?
1. Peer-reviewed published studies that deal with adjustments to any temperature measurements over time, including proxies, have all resulted in increasing the warming trend.
2. Peer-reviewed published studies that deal with adjustments to any temperature measurements over time, including proxies, have all examined data sets that show warming trends lower than climate models.
Alan Esworthy says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Is it true to say one or both of the following?
1. Peer-reviewed published studies that deal with adjustments to any temperature measurements over time, including proxies, have all resulted in increasing the warming trend.
2. Peer-reviewed published studies that deal with adjustments to any temperature measurements over time, including proxies, have all examined data sets that show warming trends lower than climate models.
===========================================================================
Depends on who the peers are doing the reviewing.
Ok, ok, I know for a long time I’ve been saying that there are no substantive disagreements among climate scientist. Well, that wasn’t exactly true. There was this insey-winsey disagreement about the satellite data. See, there you go — I’m an honest guy, I’ll admit that there was one area of minor disagreement. But the good news is that we reconciled the disagreement. We’ve adjusted the satellite data to agree with the adjusted thermometer data. Problem solved! So now there really are no more disagreement in climate science. Now some of you might be saying, “wait a minute, Spencer and Christy don’t agree with what you’ve done”. Well to that, I say it doesn’t matter. See the great thing about science is that its not about people’s opinions. Its about data. And the data agrees! .Mike’s been telling me that if and journalists bring up Spencer and Christy I should simple say that their arguments are “disingenuous”. Te-he, I like that. Whew, I’m glad we got that resolved. And just in time for AR5 to boot. Anyhoo, gotta run, I’m working on some really exciting ways of homogenizing Svensmark’s data. Oh, hmm, maybe there is one other little area of disagreement.
If the data don’t fit …. you must …..errr … they just adjust it …..
😉
Gunga Din says (May 7, 2012 at 8:50 pm):
Well, yes. Of course it does. That is one of the points of my question, which is a serious one.
Your reply did make me chuckle, though. Thanks!
Bill Illis says:
May 7, 2012 at 6:16 pm
The Tropics are not warming anything like was predicted and there, most especially, is NO Tropical Hotspot.
No Tropical hotspot—that’s something that matters. It is evidence that global warming computer models are wrong. And it’s something Kevin Trenberth, or any study, cannot tinker away.
Also, regardless of their tinkering with the data, there still has been cooling since 1998. This “adjustment” has not, and cannot, changed that. Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat is still missing.
This study is essentially meaningless as proof of global warming. But that won’t matter to most global warming alarmists. They will persistently chalk it up as some kind of victory. How do I know? Because, as an example, in spite of the negative findings of the National Academy of Science in the case of the Mann Hockey Stick global warming alarmists persistently claim those findings supported the Mann Hockey Stick. What they have done is what they will do.
“That which has been is that which will be. And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.”
~Solomon
Trenberth has admitted that he knows the radiation “window” to space is 66W/m2 and not 40W/m2 as in his papers but has made no effort to withdraw the papers or correct them. There is no missing heat. The missing item is the amount of heat absorbed by CO2 which is insignificant in comparison to the heat transfer at the surface by convection and phase change (ie evaporation). Also, missing completely is Trenberth’s understanding of heat transfer.
I’m getting SOOOooooo tired of the repeated application of Finagles Variable Constant to “adjust” data to the narrative. Can’t they see that folks have reached the point where such gimmicks are just seen to shout “Bogus!”…
If reality fails to fit the model, fix reality?
I do not understanding adjusting measured data. Back when I was a pup, if the data were unreliable, it was because the experiments could not be replicated by subsequent repetition. In that case, we didn’t adjust the data, we threw our the data that could not be replicated and took a hard look at the equpment and personnel producing the un-replicatable data. We were also told by our teachers and professors that if an experiment could not be replicated, then it was worthless.
Does replication of experimental data exist anymore in climate science?
Fu said. “This discovery reduces uncertainty, which is very important.”
This remark sounds familiar and raises alarm bells. Fu may have recalled that Hadley used a very similar phrase to justifiy their highly dubious overwriting of 30% of sea surface data in HadSST3 with an extremely lame excuse.
They claimed that by doubting and overwriting the content of historic documents, they “correct the uncertainty”. Of course, uncertainty cannot be “corrected”. Instead they INCREASED uncertainty by doubting the content of historic logs. This single episode contributed a staggering 1/3 of the warming since the last cyclical peak in the 1940s. (The warming would be 0.2 degree instead of 0.3 degrees in 70 years or 0.3 degrees insted of 0.45 degrees per century.)
—————————————
Here are the relevant quotes from the Hadley paper:
“It is likely that many ships that are listed as using buckets actually used the ERI method (see end Section 3.2). To correct the uncertainty arising from this, 30+-10% of bucket observations were reassigned as ERI observations.”
Section 3.2:
“It is probable that some observations recorded as being from buckets were made by the ERI method. The Norwegian contribution to WMO Tech note 2 (Amot [1954]) states that the ERI method was preferred owing to the dangers involved in deploying a bucket. This is consistent with the rst issue of WMO Pub 47 (1955), in which 80% of Norwegian ships were using ERI measurements. US Weather Bureau instructions (Bureau [1938]) state that the \condenserintake method is the simpler and shorter means of obtaining the water temperature” and that some observers took ERI measurements \if the severity of the weather [was] such as to exclude the possibility of making a bucket observation”. The only quantitative reference to the practice is in the 1956 UK Handbook of Meteorological Instruments HMSO [1956] which states that ships that travel faster than 15 knots should use the ERI method in preference to the bucket method for safety reasons. Approximately 30% of ships travelled at this speed between 1940 and 1970.”
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/
@Bill Illis says:
“The Tropics are not warming anything like was predicted and there, most especially, is NO Tropical Hotspot.”
====================================
Prof. Lindzen has recently speculated that the surface temperatures may have been tampered with so much that those in charge of the surface record have managed to mess up the trends and hide the hotspot…
The hotspot should be there and there is a good solid physical basis for expecting to be able to find it. That is to say, if you accept the claim that a doubling of CO2 should warm the atmosphere by approx. 1C. However, if it is found, it’s most likely a great deal smaller than what the Warmists were hoping for. And probably more in lines of what the sceptics would be expecting to find all along…
**Trenberth !!!! How dare you mention that name! That name is banned in my home. Please refrain from its use as it has the ability to make me spew. Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student, lol; some kid with his first real job, bet he would tell ** only wants ** wants to hear? I feel ill now and have to go to bed. **= scumbag!
First they homogenised the instrumental temperatures – result lower historical temperatures
Surprise – 2 of Trenberth’s lackies make adjustments and lo & behold the models are now much closer – yeah right
Lets get rid of the Medieval warm period, lets pretend the sea level rise is accelerating, lets pretend the Arctic sea ice is in a spiral of death, lets get rid of satellite temperature differences
Ah you can’t beat the the smell of Lysenkoism in the morning
[..] 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.[…]
So, when it comes to bringing satellite data in to line balloons are great. When balloons fail, after millions of attempts, to find a tropospheric hotspot they are garbage and we need wind shear and a creative colour scheme.
Adjusted ARGO, adjusted Satellites, carefully selected trees and the ever ‘flexible’ surface station record. We could be in a bloody ice age by now and we wouldn’t know except by looking out the window. These people are beyond parody.
As Dr. Spencer recently said (WUWT crosspost here) when looking at US temperature trends with the ground-based USHCN with its “adjustments”:
So, in the US at least, for the last 40 years, adjusting the data is required to “reveal” the devastating potentially-catastrophic “global warming signal”. Much like a block of marble needs to be “adjusted” by a sculptor to reveal the statue hiding underneath.
Now Spencer and Christy are being told they need to “adjust” their work so it appropriately matches the beautiful models that Trenberth et al are so completely enamored with, that obviously must represent the true reality for everyone.
Which is only fair, as the elegant lovely models were carefully chosen and extensively exhaustively shaped to reflect true reality as perceived by the scientists who used them, as in that reality which must be the correct reality. So changing the satellite data so it resembles the models which were made to resemble reality, is essentially just altering reality until it matches reality.
And what can be wrong with that?