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.
To: Willis Eschenbach & Kristian:
UAH was clearly wrong in 1992. UAH adjustments for drift had shortcomings. These shortcomings were easily identified because of the openness of their data and calculations (contrary to other temperatures series of that time). When the shortcomings were identified, Christy and Spencer made the appropriate corrections and came out with a new version – a warmer trend. Later, RSS also had shortcomings; and because of the openness of its data set and a collegial relationship, Christy and Spencer were able to help RSS make appropriate corrections, and RSS came out with a data set that was warmer! Yes, Christy and Spencer help RSS increase its trend, and RSS came closer to the UAH trend.
@richardscourtney, January 29, 2014 at 3:59 pm:
timetochooseagain/Andrew is all about bluster. Glad you see that too, Richard.
Probably what should be done is area weight the whole lot , then you can take the latitude bands you want. 😉
However, that’s not the main problem. What you seem to be missing is the difference between an extensive property and an intensive property. For example, mass is an extensive property. If you double the amount of something (the extent), then the value of all extensive properties will double.
Temperature, in the other hand, is an intensive property. If I get one glass of water from the tap, it has the same temperature as two glasses of water from the tap, despite the fact that the mass has doubled.
Thanks Willis for this enlightening comment on extensive and intensive properties. This provides just the terminology I have been looking for to address an issue in my work, concerning regions of interest in 3d image analysis.
Greg:
I write to thank you for your post at January 29, 2014 at 4:13 pm.
Yes! Thankyou!
I tried to say that upthread and clearly failed.
Richard
I am rather puzzled as to why President Obama has not been informed of the 17 year pause in global warming.
Honestly, his SOTU address comments about the climate made him look like the dumbest President ever.
And as for his “climate change is a fact” comment, well that’s like saying water is wet!
@richardscourtney You accuse me several times of misrepresentation, implying malice. This would require me to understand WTF you are talking about first. Since easily half your reply is jibberish to me, that’s clearly impossible.
“I make technical points and arguments and you have replied at January 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm with bluster and self-refuted assertion.
I wrote
The determinations of RHH and UAH are not of a defined metric which depends on the arbitrary choice(s) of weightings.”
and you have replied with this misrepresentation
The weighting profiles are very well defined. I have no idea where you get an impression to the contrary
I said the the determinations are not of A DEFINED METRIC. I did not say the weighting profiles are not well defined. And I DID say the the weightings are arbitrary. Simply what I said is true, and what you pretended I said is bollocks.”
Again. WTF is a”well defined metric”? The weighting functions are a result of satellite viewing angles, they aren’t arbitrary.
“I said
“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.”
and you have replied
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.
It means there is no possibility of calibration for the indicated results of temperatures of atmospheric layers. The accuracy and precision of a measurement cannot be known in the absence of a calibration standard. Instrument error may be assessed on the satellites but that is only one source of error. Indeed, you stated this in a previous post at January 29, 2014 at 12:46 pm where you wrote
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.
I made no mention of the trends: your mention of them is a red herring.”
WTF else would we be talking about?
“As you say, the RSS and UAH can be adjusted to agree with the radiosonde data”
Now who is misrepresenting? I’ve said no such thing. And no such thing is done. Adjustments are made without reference to independent data. That’s what makes them independent. It sounds like you are a victim of disinformation against the satellite data.
“and that gives some confidence in the MSU data from the satellites, but it does not afford calibration for the compiled layer temperatures for the globe and hemispheres because the balloons have limited coverage.”
Okay, A. Good agreement where we can check can’t be associated with “everywhere else is nonsense and we can’t say anything” that’s not how the instruments or the processing methodology works. B. Look up the Rossby Radius some time.
“I wrote
“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.”
and you have replied
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.
OK. We agree they “measure something different” and, therefore, they aren’t *supposed* to be” indicative of the surface-derived data. So, why the explanation mark when we agree?
Importantly, how does one compare them “intelligently” when they “measure something different”, and there is no clear definition of the GASTA determinations, and those determinations often change? What possible “theory and models” enables that comparison, guesswork or prejudice?”
See numerous posts above of mine.
“And you conclude saying
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.
Well, disagreement with your own misrepresentations does seem to be your forte.
Measured data need to be reliable and have known accuracy and known precision. The UAH and RSS data are reliable because they can be compared to the balloon data, but they have no known accuracy and precision because they are not calibrated and are known to drift.. Hence, the UAH and RSS data can be uuseful but are not a true measurement.”
Pure sophistry!
“The various versions of GASTA are not reliable – they change because their definitions change almost monthly – and they have no known accuracy and no known precision have no because they are not calibration. They have potential use, but at present their use is likely to mislead.”
On the contrary, we can specifically trace the problems with them.
“You seem to think bluster is an alternative to rational argument and information. I could not disagree more.
Richard”
You seem to have less idea what I am saying than anyone could what you ate saying. If that’s possible.
Willis Eschenbach says, January 29, 2014 at 2:20 pm:
“But heck, Kristian, please get back to us and let us know what S&C have to say about your theory”
Thanks, Willis, but I’m afraid I don’t have any ‘theory’ on this. I have mentioned what I’ve mentioned here and shown the data several times on Spencer’s site. He has yet to answer. He probably won’t. And that’s fine with me.
All I’m doing is looking at the data and pointing out what I see. It’s not like I aspire to change the world doing it …
Willis Eschenbach says, January 29, 2014 at 2:20 pm:
“Far too often, the one guy is right and all the rest are wrong.”
Yup, I know. Well said.
timetochooseagain says, January 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm:
“@Kristian-No, you continue to spread completely inaccurate nonsense.
“What the data shows us” is something you haven’t sufficient braincells to actually understand, as evidenced by your continuing to make invalid comparisons.
I have *shown* that you are dead *FLAT WRONG* and you continue to spew ignorant, incorrect nonsense. You should get lost.”
You really are a funny character, Andrew.
Greg says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:02 pm
“Well if it has “unknown properties” it can hardly be used to measure anything !”
timetochooseagain says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm
“@RichardLH-Look at your own chart. Look how much larger the swings in LT data are relative to surface data. Do you see you’ve done something wrong here?”
OK. Instrument calibration lab:
Four or more different thermo resistors connected to some resistance bridges, amplifiers, displays etc.
One high quality calibrated thermometer.
One common tank in which they all sit which has a constantly varying temperature but a stirrer which tries to keep all the sources at a resistors approximately the same temp and which cycles up and down constantly because of varying heating/cooling inputs.
Two amplifiers connected to one of the resistors. Unknown slight differences between the two amps.
Described calibration methodology assuming that there is a large amount of noise in all the signals and about the only thing you can be sure of is that they are all showing the same, underlying trends up and down cyclically.
If you can come up with something other than OLS for range and offset over the entire set of readings then….
We will leave aside philosophical questions as to if they do really represent temperature and the like.
No.
%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FGeographical_zone%3B1100%3B849) but the divisions chosen are reasonable and make physical, logical sense with respect to the single most important physical influence on climate changes: the sun’s solar elevation angle each day.
Other divisions are possible of course (see:
Between -23.5 and +23.5 latitudes (the Tropics of Capricon and Tropic of Cancer) the sun will cycling from directly overhead to 23.5 degrees below each year. One could could choose “tropics” as +/- 30 degrees since the sun is still very close to overhead, but 23.5 is adequate.
On the other end, 67.5 latitude is the other end: the sun is below the horizon part of theyear, and continually above for part of the year. I would use 70 degrees (southern bound of the arctic ocean, northern bound of the antarctic continent, but 67.5 is definite point.
If there are different trends between tropical, temperate, and arctic zones, the ones selected might as well be the most simplest choice. More appropriate than 5 arbitrary divisions. And, if you choose 5x bands, how are you going to do it? 5x equal areas? Equal solar exposure in all five? Equal radius angles from the center – leaving different areas in each still?
Willis, when I look at the same break up of the NCDC global summary of days surface data, I get the same results.
“Howcome; on the same scales the north pole and the south pole have whacking great peak real signal amplitudes”
Sample size. Ie very small number of samples.
JBJ says:
January 29, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Gosh, imagine that, who would have guessed that? Oh, wait … I did. Maybe that’s why I said, in the same comment you quoted from,
w.
Kristian says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Say what? Clearly you have a theory. You told me you thought they needed to, what was it … OK, here is your theory:
Heck, you not only have a theory that there is a problem with their data, you have a solution:
So … go tell Roy Spencer and John Christy about your theory that they are wrong and you know how to fix it, and let us know what you find.
(You do know, I hope, that this is a polite way to say that I think you’re talking nonsense … and that if you think you are not, if you think your claim is real, then you are in the wrong place. If you think you’ve discovered a flaw in S&C’s work, you should take it to them and discuss it, because my thread is the wrong forum to try to make your point … )
w.
george e. smith says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:13 pm
“What if you re-divide your earth into five EQUAL AREA zones, instead of the unequal areas you used. ”
Because the heating input profile to those areas would be wrong?
You do know why the lines on the globe are where they are don’t you? The bit about the sun being directly overhead at some point in the year and the other about it not being seen at all some or visible all of the time as well?
The issue of humidity in regard to temperature has been raised here. I had a discussion with the building manager in our office today. My desk is next to a window which extends down to floor level. Recently I have noticed a lot of moisture on the lower (metal) window frame. Sometimes the adjacent carpet is wet also. Some colleagues suspected a leak but I felt condensation was the more likely cause.
The building manager confirmed that it is condensation. Above my window is an air conditioning unit. Apparently this has been adjusted recently to increase the humidity in the air. The goal of this is energy – and money – saving, the latter magnified by green tax incentives here in Belgium. He explained that the perception or experience of warmth is the same at lower temperature and higher humidity, as at higher temperature and lower humidity. And that it cost less energy and money to achieve the “warmth-feel” the first way, i. e. with more humidity and lower temperature.
I did not argue but was surprised by this. I would have thought that increased humidity would mean it cost more energy to heat the air. Did the lower temperature more than offset the higher humidity?
Does any of this have implications for climate and global energy budgets? Any comments would be welcome.
Willis, Kristian has spouted his nonsense theory on Roy’s blog already, and Roy has ignored him. You are right that he is talking nonsense, but there really is no reason to be polite about it.
“Should We Be Worried?”
Yes. We’re doomed. If not from Global Warming, then from something else. We might not have found it yet, but it’s there. Just you wait and see.
daddylonglegs,
1. The high humidity air is more efficient at transferring energy to your body than the low humidity air.
2. Your body is more efficient at cooling itself at lower humidity.
These two factors together mean that you perceive greater warmth from the high humidity air than the low humidity air even though the high humidity air technically contains less energy.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:58 pm
“Gosh, imagine that, who would have guessed that? Oh, wait … I did. Maybe that’s why I said, in the same comment you quoted from,”
So you “guessed” it … interesting 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says, January 29, 2014 at 5:08 pm:
“(You do know, I hope, that this is a polite way to say that I think you’re talking nonsense … and that if you think you are not, if you think your claim is real, then you are in the wrong place. If you think you’ve discovered a flaw in S&C’s work, you should take it to them and discuss it, because my thread is the wrong forum to try to make your point … )”
Here we go with the ‘Nobel prize’ type argument again …
Willis, it is not a ‘theory’ to say that according to the available data, UAH is clearly the odd series out. That is pointing out fact. An explanation of why would be a theory.
How S&C or anyone else want to deal with this if at all, frankly I do not care. And I really don’t care about what you think is nonsense either. I guess it bothers me probably as much as it bothers you that I think your cowboy spoutings on basic thermodynamics are nonsense. And if you don’t like me simply pointing out what I see in UAH (and/or RSS) data, then don’t write a post on UAH data. I was directly answering a question posed by commenter LT. Take it with him if you have a problem with this particular subject …
@Kristian-Given you’ve had the fact that you are wrong and your comparisons are meaningless nonsense explained to you dozens of times already, you shouldn’t be dragging it out on this, or any other thread. Again, you need to get lost. Your brain already has.
RoHa says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm
“Should We Be Worried?”
Yes. We’re doomed. If not from Global Warming, then from something else. We might not have found it yet, but it’s there. Just you wait and see.
==========================
The global warming Hobgoblin is dead
Long live the ocean acidification Hobgoblin
(although it won’t be a long life)