Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I chanced to plot up the lower tropospheric temperatures by broad latitude zones today. This is based on the data from the satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU), as analyzed by the good folks at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Here are the results, divided into tropical, extratropical, and polar. I’ve divided them at the Arctic and Antarctic Circles at 67° North and South, and at the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer at 23° N & S.
Figure 1. Satellite-based microwave sounding unit temperatures (red line) from the University of Alabama Huntsville. Blue line shows a loess smooth, span=0.4. Data from KNMI (NCDF file, 17 Mb)
So … is this something to worry about?
Well, let’s take a look. To start with, the tropics have no trend, that’s 40% of the planet. So all you folks who have been forecasting doom and gloom for the billions of poor people in the tropics? Sorry … no apparent threat there in the slightest. Well, actually there is a threat, which is the threat of increased energy prices from the futile war on carbon—rising energy prices hit the poor the hardest. But I digress …
What else. Southern Extratropics? No trend. South of the Antarctic Circle? No trend, it cooled slightly then warmed slightly back to where it started.
So that’s 70% of the planet with no appreciable temperature trend over the last third of a century …
What else. Northern Extratropics? A barely visible trend, and no trend since 2000.
And that means that 96% of the planet is basically going nowhere …
Now, that leaves the 4% of the planet north of the Arctic Circle. It cooled slightly over the first decade and a half. Then it warmed for a decade, and it has stayed even for a decade …
My conclusion? I don’t see anything at all that is worrisome there. To me the surprising thing once again is the amazing stability of the planet’s temperature. A third of a century, and the temperature of the tropics hasn’t budged even the width of a hairline. That is an extremely stable system.
I explain that as being the result of the thermoregulatory effect of emergent climate phenomena … you have a better explanation?
My best regards to everyone,
w.
PLEASE! If you disagree with what I or anyone says, QUOTE THE WORDS that you disagree with, and say why you disagree with them. That way we can understand each other. Vague statements and handwaving opinions are not appreciated.
DATA: All data and R code as used are here in a zip file.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RichardLH:
Thanks for trying to break through my mystification with your post at January 29, 2014 at 11:16 am which answers my question “Proxies of what?” by saying
No, I don’t have a clue what the “underlying factual property” is when it is not defined and the different teams each assesses it differently. Hence, I fail to see how there can be an approximation to THE “underlying factual property”. Are they each assessing the same thing merely because they call it the same thing?
For example, two people looking at a garden may each say they can see movement. But one may see daffodils waving in the wind and the other sees fairies flying over the grass. Is either seeing what the other sees, or is either or both of them seeing something else? A definition of movement is needed.
Richard
“””””…..RichardLH says:
January 29, 2014 at 11:19 am
dbstealey says:
January 29, 2014 at 11:08 am
“The problem is that computer models are wildly inaccurate.”
I doubt that. They do demonstrate the difficulty in building things from the detail up rather than combination down. Inside view or outside view.
Like trying to model fluid flow by tracing each individual atom. Can be done but it is a LOT of computing power and very difficult to get right…..”””””
Well Heisenberg says you can’t even keep track of one single atom; let alone zillions of them.
So if the computer models are not “wildly inaccurate” as dbstealey asserts; why are there 13 of them (or is it 17), and no two of them agree with each other; let alone agree with the planet earth?
Do each of those computer models come from a different parallel universe, where the laws of physics are different from ours, and each other’s ??
I use computer models; have done for over 40 years. Not even once, did a system manufactured from the results of my modeling, ever fail to perform the way my model predicted it would. Well some of them eventually crapped out due to lousy manufacture, or QA, but if they turned on, they worked as designed.
Many of those situations, I made the model, as well as the system I designed with it.
None of them was a climate instrument or system. Some of them have sold in the billions; you are probably using one right now.
richardscourtney says:
January 29, 2014 at 11:35 am
“No, I don’t have a clue what the “underlying factual property” is when it is not defined ”
Temperature is defined as what happens when the atoms in a body vibrate faster or slower.
Larger groups of them with unequal combinations will have a much more difficult to determine, but still valid, ‘average temperature’.
The Globe is the ultimate (for humans) problem. Deriving the ‘Average Temperature’ for that requires approximations.
george e. smith says:
January 29, 2014 at 11:41 am
“None of them was a climate instrument or system. Some of them have sold in the billions; you are probably using one right now.”
And quite a few used summary statistics (averages) to produce output for human consumption no doubt. Often with filters to remove ‘noise’ from ‘signal’. I too have done the odd model in my time.
Done a lot of things.
Willis; on your emergencies, you described how thunnerstorms transport huge amounts of energy to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, thereby bypassing the GHG gauntlet. I agree, great refrigerators are thunderstorms and hurricanes.
So given that all that energy, bypasses the H2O, CO2, and also probably, or possibly, the O3, then how does it radiate to space, if some folks insist that the normal atmospheric gases; N2, O2, and Ar, don’t radiate thermal radiation.
Now I agree, they aren’t BB radiators, because they are too low in molecular density, to be total absorbers; but so long as they can still collide with each other; they carry accelerating charges (transiently) and therefore they emit thermal radiation.
george e. smith , I was going to drop a comment here but it’s closed: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
You may find this relevent:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=756
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:58 am
“
HDH, you are so full of it. Willis has suggested and ,over time, provided evidence for, a ‘control mechanism’ that accounts for pretty much everything we have seen so far in terms of GSTA. Change the atmosphere and watch the ’emergent phenomena’ shift 15 minutes ‘earlier’. He makes a good case.
You, OTOH, are the equivalent of “witch craft is responsible”. You are exactly the kind of idiot that ‘warmists’, or whatever they are called these days, point to as being representative of ‘climate deniers’. You, and you are not alone, are a f*cki*g shambles that I’m ashamed to post on the same thread as.
As we might sing at an English football match …
Are you AlecM? Are you AlecM? Are you ‘dogs nose’ in disguise?
Seriously. You think Darwin was wrong? Hansen knows nothing about Venus? Jesus on a fxcking Dinosaur HDH… Will you ever accept the fact that we need people like you like we need ‘The Environmental Lobby’.
You are an embarrassment. Were it my blog then you and the ‘Dragon Slayers’ would have been out of here a long time ago. The only problem with this site is that Anthony is way to polite. He really doesn’t want to ‘moderate’ like ‘realclimate’. Me, well you would be out of here as fast as every other idiot troll.
Or, HDH, mental illness is not always diagnosed early enough in those who see ‘The Truth’. This leaves them free to frequent internet blogs as adults. Blabbering on about the mistakes that ‘Einstein’, ‘Darwin’ and every other individual has ever made. Medication time HDH?
Do us a favour and start your own crystal magic blog where people can see you for what you actually are. Anthony should have banned you from day one. He is a better man than I.
If a mod is really bored … could you fix me blockquotes in my post above please?.
[I don’t moderate … but I do fix things. Fixed. =w.]
“So given that all that energy, bypasses the H2O, CO2, and also probably, or possibly, the O3, then how does it radiate to space, if some folks insist that the normal atmospheric gases; N2, O2, and Ar, don’t radiate thermal radiation.”
Convection bypasses the main mass of spectral blocking GHGs but they are still present in stratosphere.
RichardLH:
re your post at January 29, 2014 at 11:46 am.
I know what temperature is.
Temperature is an intensive property. Intensive properties cannot be averaged.
However, as I explained to you above, one possible explanation of Mean Global Temperature is
The problem with that is the assumption of unity specific heat and unity density is not true. Therefore, none of the determinations of your “underlying property” provides an average temperature because none of them assesses humidity and none of them assesses atmospheric thermal expansion. They only take temperature measurements and combine them.
So, whatever your “underlying property” is, it is not temperature although it is derived from temperature measurements.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 29, 2014 at 12:10 pm
“I know what temperature is.
Temperature is an intensive property. Intensive properties cannot be averaged.”
However the change in them can for sure. That delta is an expression of the energy added or lost.
Just as a thermometer is an average of all of the atoms inside it. And changes in those contents reflect changes in the energy it sees. An averages of those changes expresses rate of energy flow.
Yes: I’m worried about the fact that some “scientists” are running around like Chicken Little over this data. I’m worried about the reputation and integrity of science as well as any misguided policies that may come to be from Chicken Little advising our politicians. I don’t think that story ended very well for the chickens if I recall right.
Alan the Brit says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:59 am
John Marshall says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:22 am
Forgive the pedantry, but I was taught that Kelvin was Kelvin, & there were no “degrees” about it!
That’s quite right. I haven’t got a degree to my name. Absolute zero.
@richardscourtney- Er, I’m afraid I think we *do* disagree. For example:
“I say none of the data sets can be trusted to indicate anything about the others so they all provide indications which are “spurious” because none of them has a ‘true’ definition so none of them is ‘right’.”
I am not at all clear why you think the satellite datasets have a “wrong definition” of what they attempt to measure: the weighted average temperature of a particular part of the atmosphere. This seems like some absurd tilting at windmills sort of stuff to me.
I do happen to think UAH is “right” about the rate of atmospheric temperature changes in the last 35 years, to within published uncertainties. I *do* think that data can be trusted. I *do* think we can use the datasets, and theory, to check each other. If you don’t think so, I think you really ought to explain why.
So far it sounds like you are droning on under some misconceptions about what the datasets measure or how they can be connected to one another. This is understandable, the alarmed have spread a lot of disinformation about satellite temperature data. It’s probably a good idea to go back to John Christy and Roy Spencer’s actual publications on these subjects.
@Kristian-You really need to stop spreading that ignorant disinformation. Gross, criminal negligence of proper analytical procedure, really.
RichardLH:
This is pointless. I politely ignored your providing a description of temperature of a solid as being the description of temperature of a gas, and I gave you an explanation of why your “underlying property” cannot be temperature although it is derived from temperature measurements. You have replied with your post at January 29, 2014 at 12:15 pm.
I cannot be bothered to go through latent energies of evapouration, condensation, melting and freezing. Suffice it to say that temperature does NOT indicate energy, and also temperature change may or may not indicate energy flow.
So, I am discontinuing this conversation.
Richard
Willis you say – [My conclusion? I don’t see anything at all that is worrisome there.]
My articles show UAH has a severe warming drift compared to RSS (and surface groups) in various global regions. So until UAH resolve this, that is what could “worry” me.
Three articles from last month – first over Australia.
Warming departure in UAH lower troposphere satellite temperatures compared to RSS over the period 2005-2006
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2496
Similar to Australia in 2005-06 – large grid box in southern Africa shows huge warming departure in UAH lower troposphere satellite temperature anomalies compared to RSS
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2501
Difference between UAH and RSS satellite lower troposphere T anomalies has a distinct step change 2004-2005 over the USA 48 States – not as marked as Australia
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2554
richardscourtney says:
January 29, 2014 at 12:26 pm
“Suffice it to say that temperature does NOT indicate energy, and also temperature change may or may not indicate energy flow.”
The temperature of a body indicates the energy that flows in and out of that body averaged out over the time the reading is taken. Usually in balance for accurate readings.
Changes in that value reflect changes in the energy of the environment in which a body is placed.
Some changes, such as , condensation, melting and freezing, do reflect energy flow without very large changes in temperature. At a minute level however there is still change happening. Otherwise the change in state will not happen.
“So, I am discontinuing this conversation.”
bye.
timetochooseagain:
In your post at January 29, 2014 at 12:26 pm you say to me
The determinations of RHH and UAH are not of a defined metric which depends on the arbitrary choice(s) of weightings.
I am certain that the RSS and UAH data sets do provide indications of changes to temperatures of atmospheric layers, but their accuracy and their precision cannot be known because they cannot be independently calibrated for their global and hemispheric results. Importantly, I am certain that the RSS and UAH data sets cannot be indicative of whatever it is that the surface compilations of GASTA indicate.
I have studied the GASTA data sets over several years.
Please read Appendix B of this and note its signatories.
I do not “tilt at windmills”. I have much better things to do.
Richard
@wazsah-It is very bad practice to assume that the dataset which warms more must be the one that is wrong. The real problems in those areas are almost certainly caused by the drifting of satellites used by RSS, that they then correct for incorrectly. Around that time, UAH was using the Aqua satellite as a stable “backbone” for the dataset, which does not require drift correction.
The same thing happened around 1992 globally, except it was RSS warming relative to UAH. And RSS was wrong there and they are wrong now.
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/the-curious-case-of-noaa-12/
timetochooseagain says:
January 29, 2014 at 12:46 pm
“The same thing happened around 1992 globally, except it was RSS warming relative to UAH. And RSS was wrong there and they are wrong now.”
Which is why I choose to OLS all of the series over their time of overlap and derive a common view..
Basic OLS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLScomparison_zpsc45498e9.png
Aligned OLS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLSaligned_zps3186174a.png
Aligned series with 15 year and 60 year low pass filters
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/OLSalignedAnnualtrends_zps5603d308.png
[photobucket website giving “out of service” message. Mod]
@richardscourtney-“The determinations of RHH and UAH are not of a defined metric which depends on the arbitrary choice(s) of weightings.”
The weighting profiles are very well defined. I have no idea where you get an impression to the contrary.
“I am certain that the RSS and UAH data sets do provide indications of changes to temperatures of atmospheric layers, but their accuracy and their precision cannot be known because they cannot be independently calibrated for their global and hemispheric results.”
What the heck does this mean? The instruments on board the satellites are calibrated in a well understood manner. If you mean to suggest that one cannot independently check the temperature trends, well, that is just wrong. We have weather balloon datasets, these are independent sources of temperature through various layers of the atmosphere, they agree pretty well with the LT data when weighted to the LT profiles.
“Importantly, I am certain that the RSS and UAH data sets cannot be indicative of whatever it is that the surface compilations of GASTA indicate.”
They aren’t *supposed* to be! They measure something different. But this doesn’t mean we can’t use them to check one another, if we do so *intelligently*, properly applying theory and models.
Doing so indicates some of the data are probably wrong. I get the sense you think all the data are wrong, or have an equal (zero) probability of being correct, to within published uncertainties. I could not disagree more.
Willis here is a link to some R code to retrieve the UAH temp data (monthly) if that is any help
UAH code
@RichardLH-You can’t just apply scale factors to attempt to force the long term trends to agree with one another. You end up getting backwards results.
@timetochooseagain, January 29, 2014 at 12:26 pm:
You sound like ‘Andrew’ at Roy Spencer’s site. Coincidence?
You seem religiously convinced that UAH is ‘right’ and that RSS is ‘wrong’. Are Spencer and Christy infallible gods while the people at RSS are incompetent morons in your world? It sure sounds like it.
Listen, UAH is the only global dataset that shows a significant upward trend since 2001/02. UAH is the only global dataset that lets global temperatures fall back down after the lift in 1990/91 and the Pinatubo dent thereafter, that in practice do not show a step up after the El Niño of 1987/88 and La Niña of 1988/89.
UAH is the outlier in both these cases.
I’m not spreading ‘misinformation’ here. I refer only to what the data actually tells us.
george e. smith says:
January 29, 2014 at 11:14 am
Interesting question, George. I was surprised as well. Upon reflection I concluded that there were several reasons. 1) Size 2) Cohesions 3) Lack of GHGs
The polar regions are each only about 4% of the surface area. Also, they are pretty much self-similar. So in the tropics you have one place hot, one cold, and they average out. But the polar areas, from a combination of size and physical connectedness, tend more to all move one direction or the other.
Finally, the lack of water vapor means that in some circumstances they can lose heat quite rapidly. Mostly, though, it’s from the fact that any such small connected area will have greater variability than a larger, widespread area.
SInce the variability is roughly proportional to the square root of the areas, a back-of-the-envelope calculation is that we’d expect the poles (4% of total area) to have on the order of three times the variability of the tropics (40% of total area).
w.