Trenberth takes on UAH satellite data in a new paper

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.

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DR
May 8, 2012 9:23 am

Using Limited Time Period Trends as a Means to Determine Attribution of Discrepancies in Microwave Sounding Unit Derived Tropospheric Temperature Time
RSS had a warm bias during the early 90’s resulting in a step change error.
No other temperature reporting product has received more anal exams than UAH. Keep in mind UAH uses a different satellite for the past decade, and that Dr. Spencer has stated there will be adjustments in their latest revision release.
BTW, Tamino deleted the thread where he smeared the authors of the above paper until one of them caught wind and pinned Tamino’s ears back. Anyone want to bet one this one? 🙂

Skeptikal
May 8, 2012 9:39 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel),
To your question of “how this adjustment to rectify the “tropic problem” won’t screw up the global trends”, I can only answer with what I said previously “I don’t know if this proposed fix is the right fix or not”.
We also have to ask the question; is the current good agreement in the global trend lines mearly a transient thing? Given that UAH and RSS process the data differently, I suspect that a divergence is inevitable.
As I said in my original comment, I think the most important thing is to get the differences in satellite datasets sorted out as quickly as possible. How that is to be achieved will be determined by people more knowledgeable than myself.

FerdinandAkin
May 8, 2012 9:50 am

The satellite is so poorly constructed it has a temperature drift in its calibration but it is so well constructed that the drift is perfectly linear and the data can be adjusted to usable values.
/sarc

kim2ooo
May 8, 2012 10:18 am

Ripper says:
May 8, 2012 at 7:03 am
Probably time to trot out this email.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1939.txt&search=wealth+of+others
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you!

Steve Keohane
May 8, 2012 10:35 am

What, rightly or wrongly, I get out of the current draft on an initial
read is:
“We don’t like UAH. We don’t believe radiosondes over the satellite
period, but do over the longer period (paradox). We believe Fu et al. is
correct. There is no longer any problem whatsoever.”
I don’t think this simple message is actually remotely supported by the
science.
Quoting Peter Thorne 4/2/2005 from the email to Ken & Phil at this post:
Ripper says: May 8, 2012 at 7:03 am
revealing to say the least.

Ged
May 8, 2012 10:53 am

@Skeptikal
“If you read the article, you’ll notice that the problem being addressed in this article relates to data from NOAA-9. This was a satellite used in the 1980′s. Back then, UAH was LOWER than RSS. The numbers being punched out by UAH for the latest observations are HIGHER than RSS.
UAH: LOW in the 1980′s
UAH: HIGH now.”
Only problem with that, is if the UAH needs to be adjusted up in the past, as this paper is suggestion from my understanding of the press release, then this would -decrease the trend- of the total UAH dataset. That is, UAH would be rising a lot slower if you had to raise its early years relative to its current years.
So, what really is going on if they are supposedly adjusting it warmer in the past and getting a bigger temperature trend?

François GM
May 8, 2012 12:22 pm

Skeptikal,
Nonsense. What’s the point of having an independent database if you’re going to adjust it to be in agreement with the others. Adjustments are only required when a source of error that cannot be corrected introduces a systematic bias in data acquisition.

May 8, 2012 12:28 pm

C.M. Carmichael says:
Climate science relates to real science the way Astrology relates to Astronomy. Just a distant goofy cousin.
I think Astrology has more supporting evidence.

May 8, 2012 1:34 pm

“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”
NOAA-9 launch date 12 Dec 1984
http://database.eohandbook.com/database/missionsummary.aspx?missionID=97
How can a claimed satellite error launched at the end of 1984 affect data from 1979 on?

Stephen Richards
May 8, 2012 1:50 pm

Capell says:
May 8, 2012 at 9:15 am
So there’s a calibration error. That implies, to me, that they’ve found a systematic, constant error to the satellite temperature measurements. So how does this affect the temperature slope over time?
No, I don’t think so. Calibration is the wrong word here. Calibration requires a ‘Standard’ against which to calibrate. They do not have a calibration standard, thay have a ‘special need’ to help Trenberth et al to prove their models accurate.
In engineering circles this work would be called cheating.

Stephen Richards
May 8, 2012 1:53 pm

François GM says:
May 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Skeptikal,
Nonsense. What’s the point of having an independent database if you’re going to adjust it to be in agreement with the others. Adjustments are only required when a source of error that cannot be corrected introduces a systematic bias in data acquisition.
You do have to PROVE that you have a systemic bias and be able to verify and validate the value and cause of the bias before applying your correction which will then have to be rechecked against the original before acceptance.
You are correct, of course.?

Poriwoggu
May 8, 2012 4:39 pm

“John West says: May 7, 2012 at 4:02 pm From the abstract: “…
From the abstract:
1. They studied the MSU TMT warm target factor for the NOAA-9 satellite using five homogenized radiosonde products as references.
2. There is a positive bias of 0.062 ± 0.040 in the warm target factor.
3. This artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.050 K decade−1 for 1979 – 2009
4. Accounting for this bias increases the global UAH TMT trend from 0.038 K decade−1 to 0.088 K decade−1.
There is something not right about this set of facts. The error is between 0.022 and 0.102 K/decade-1. An error range of 1/2 an order of magnitude is no better than guessing. The known problem is the NOAA-9 satellite which was only in use by UAH for about 2 years, but was operational for about 10 years. To ask UAH to increase the correction for all years is … a little crazy.
The “its 0.062 K/degree-1 but just remove 0.050” smacks of a negotiating ploy. The GIS correction to the sea surface level was defended the same way “the sea level rise will have 0.3 mm/yr added to compensate for the ocean floor falling even though we estimate it is 0.4mm/yr”, to obscure the fact that they had no damn business making this correction to a sea surface measurement.

Poriwoggu
May 8, 2012 4:45 pm

Errr. “error range of 1/2 an order of magnitude” … make that “error range of over 1/2 an order of magnitude”

Jeff Alberts
May 8, 2012 6:39 pm

Kurt in Switzerland says:
May 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
This is important. Not only does the scientific world need to finally define what constitutes Global Average Temperature

Why waste time on something so meaningless?

fyi
May 8, 2012 8:32 pm
Gilbert
May 9, 2012 1:46 pm

I would note first of all, that there still isn’t a hot spot.
Secondly. this paper will be accepted as gospel and repeated ad nauseam , even if proven to be junk

garymount
May 9, 2012 3:05 pm
1 4 5 6