LIVE STREAM: Al Gore on using satellite data to measure climate change

Ironic, since the idea of satellite temperature data from Spencer and Christy et al is rejected by people like Al Gore.

Description: This panel discussion will examine ways in which new technological developments in satellites, artificial intelligence and big data could work towards an international data set to support implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Innovators will present a multi-stakeholder perspective on the lastest developments climate change data. The panel will discuss the impacts of these technologies to the UN climate change regime.Moderator, Dr. Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty, Arizona State University,

Speakers: Al Gore, Former USA Vice President, Matthew Gray, Climate TRACE, Brigitte Hoyer Gosselink, Director, Product Impact at Google.org, Mofoluso Fagbeja, Head, Space Education Outreach Programme, National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) Nigeria, Stephane Germain, CEO at GHGSat

0 0 vote
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 1, 2020 9:50 am

I predict the conclusion:
“It’s worse than we thought.”

Eric Brownson
December 1, 2020 10:05 am

What data measure “climate change?” What data frames of reference should be used to provide context?

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Brownson
December 1, 2020 11:07 am

Aw, c’mom man!

Klem
Reply to  Eric Brownson
December 1, 2020 1:46 pm

Something tells me that when the data arrives, it will be handled through premium quality Dominion computers and software.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Eric Brownson
December 1, 2020 4:08 pm

Don’t worry, the Dems know how to do a temperature record that they can ‘rely on’. They telegraphed this in advance: “towards an international data set to support implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

John Bell
December 1, 2020 10:13 am

OMG these people are the highest form of parasites, and they all use fossil fuels every day.

ResourceGuy
December 1, 2020 10:14 am

I predict a cycle-free discussion of short term data. Ignorance of data and context are required for this course.

Doonman
December 1, 2020 10:37 am

10,000 years ago, there was a mile of ice on top of Chicago. It’s gone now, all due to climate change. Climate change is real. It is imperative that we take steps to cool the planet as soon as possible.

Mr.
Reply to  Doonman
December 1, 2020 11:11 am

Do these “steps” involve some forms of extra taxes, perchance?

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Doonman
December 3, 2020 5:47 pm

Because just getting 50 feet of ice back on top of Chicago would solve all of Chicago’s problems!

Editor
December 1, 2020 11:09 am

This panel discussion will examine ways in which new technological developments in satellites, artificial intelligence and big data could work towards an international data set to support implementation of the Paris Agreement.“.

They don’t want to learn anything, they want to cherry-pick data to support their political position.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 1, 2020 1:20 pm

Which is the distinction between CliSci and normal science.

davve
December 1, 2020 11:28 am

Barf!

R2Dtoo
December 1, 2020 11:30 am

Perhaps they have retainer with Dominion to store the data.

TheFinalNail
December 1, 2020 11:34 am

“Ironic, since the idea of satellite temperature data from Spencer and Christy et al is rejected by people like Al Gore.”

Has Gore specifically rejected the UAH temperature data set? I can’t find a reference.

By the way, Roy Spencer just posted the preliminary UAH global temperature anomaly for November 2020, showing it to have been the second warmest November in their 42 year record (+0.53C); narrowly behind the record of +0.55C, set in 2019.

ww.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 1, 2020 12:35 pm

I keep waiting for the La Nina to show up in his monthly UAH data.

Aren’t we approaching the point where the time-lag response in global temperature follows the onset of the La Nina conditions?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
December 1, 2020 2:17 pm

The NINO3.4 region only barely entered La Niña in October and has hovered around -0.8C during November.
The global atmosphere temperature usually follows the tropical sea surface temperature by 1 – 3 months:
comment image

fred250
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
December 1, 2020 3:42 pm

Solar 30 year trailing mean shows just how high solar energy has been and still is…

comment image

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 1, 2020 1:58 pm

And ONLY at El Nino events.. Funny about that.

No warming between those El Ninos, you know that

Does human CO2 cause NATURAL El Ninos???

Now try again, rusty… or are you as evidence deficit as all the other AGW sympathisers.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 1, 2020 6:54 pm

Nail
So, the data shows cooling, that is what you are stating?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TheFinalNail
December 2, 2020 5:06 am

“By the way, Roy Spencer just posted the preliminary UAH global temperature anomaly for November 2020, showing it to have been the second warmest November in their 42 year record (+0.53C); narrowly behind the record of +0.55C, set in 2019.”

That might be relevant if the Earth was only 42-years old. Forty-two years is not enough time to give a good perspective on what is happening.

It was hotter in the 1930’s than it is today. The 1930’s are not figured into this calculation. How many Novembers in the 1930’s were hotter than the current November? Expand your horizons.

Meab
December 1, 2020 11:41 am

Many “climate crisis” Alarmists have disowned their own cult leader, Al Gore. Why? Maybe it’s because no Gore prediction has ever come true, maybe because he was caught sexually harassing massage “therapists”, maybe because he’s a hypocrite who travels by private jet and motorcades of SUVs and owns a house that use 20 times more energy than the average home? Maybe it is because Gore made about $100 million off the “climate crisis” scam; he made $75 million on the sale of his “green” Current TV channel to Al Jazeera, alone. Now that Al’s been disowned who will take Al’s place as the head cult leader? Who does the Climate Crisis Cultists have that they can look up to now? Michael Mann – the creator of the discredited “Hockey Stick”? James Hansen – the phony that claimed Manhattan would be under water by now? Phil Jones, caught in ClimateGate fudging data? It can’t be Ken Briffa, because he passed away. Ken’s entire paleoclimate reconstruction was found to depend on one single scrawny tree. Peter Gleick, who was caught forging documents? Jacob Harold, the guy with a Master’s degree in Business Administration and a summer-school certificate in “Complex Systems” from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, an author of one of the phony 97% consensus studies? Who? Greta?

Mr.
Reply to  Meab
December 1, 2020 11:59 am

It won’t be Hansen – he reckons nuclear power is the only solution, so he’s a heretic.

Scissor
Reply to  Meab
December 1, 2020 2:26 pm

Not true. Gore once took a flight on Southwest Airlines.

The rest is true.

Peta of Newark
December 1, 2020 12:29 pm

What is coming to bug me more & more is:
What is Spencer’s Sputniks actually measuring?

As I understand, they look for oxygen molecules resonating in the frequency range 55 thro 50GHz
The power of and mixture of gives ‘some idea’ of what temperature and pressure they’re at.

So how does Spencer’s Sputniks know the temperature of the ocean? It contains, effectively, no oxygen molecules and any it does won’t be behaving as they do in the atmosphere.

Ah but you say, the air temp near the surface is the same as that of the surface.

No its isn’t
Bury a thermometer 18″ deep and put another one 6 feet above it and they will follow different diurnal and annual temperature profiles. I know. I’ve done that.

It gets worse.
By example, the UK occasionally gets swamped by “Plumes of warm air originating from the Sahara’
So it does and temps can/do get into the mid-30’s

BUT, that air had to cross the Mediterranean to get to the UK.
Did the water temperature of the Med rise and fall as the warm plume went over it?

Unlikely, esp as Willis has told us often enough, open water temps ever go higher than 31 Celsius.

Get my drift?
Are Spencer’s Sputniks recording plumes of warm air that originated over land and swept out to sea?

Because if so, it renders Spencer’s numbers entirely meaningless when he asserts ‘Global Average Monthly temperature Is Now Blah Blah Blah
He has not actually measured the *water* temp of the oceans, just the temperature of wafts of warm air coming off the land. The Sputniks CAN NOT measure the water temp and as my example of UK Saharan Plumes shows, air temp does not follow or equal water temp.

Does that matter…….

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 1, 2020 1:41 pm

From memory, the UAH 6.0 40-year temperature trends over the sea surface and land are 1.12 and 1.18 C/century, respectively. Using land and sea surface thermometers, I believe the official trend for those 40 years is about the same as the trend for the official early 20th Century warming, where CO2 was not a driver. As long as the UAH method is consistent, it does not matter where all the temperature drivers occur.

And another one bites the dust.

RickWill
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 1, 2020 2:07 pm

UAH is not a surface temperature measurement. It shows a “temperature” trend above the Nino34 region while the surface shows no trend during the satellite era:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf

Dave Fair
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2020 2:28 pm

Yes, the water temperature is not the same as the air temperature over the sea surface. So what?

RickWill
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 1, 2020 2:35 pm

Human life exists on the surface. No one lives at 700mb.

The surface temperature matters and cannot exhibit a trend over periods shorter than a century. It is stuck where it is for the next few centuries by powerful negative feedbacks absent orbital changes and movement of land masses that occur over milennia or longer time scales.

Dave Fair
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2020 3:02 pm

Yes, the Earth’s oceans have a massive heat capacity that gives it a “memory,” or inertia, that continues to affect the surface climate over long periods. If the oceans’ past warming will result in more cloud cover (cooling the Earth), or less cloud cover (warming the Earth), nobody knows for sure. [Yes, it is more complex than that, but adding complexity does not change the fundamental relationship.]

Gary Pearse
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2020 5:06 pm

Rick, these physicists know how to take lower trop and convert it it into proper levels. They have ground truthing stations etc. Compare it to the other temperature sets and the difference isnt that obvious. The others have tampered mainly with pre-1979 where they can push the highs down to make a steeper temp rise a la IPCC CO2 control knob. They know better than to depart too much from the 1979 to present values. The Climate Wroughters can even use the “correlation” to buffalo everyone that we were cold in the first half century and warm in the Ice Age Cometh period 1945 to 1979.

RickWill
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 1, 2020 2:30 pm

Correct – the UAH data is a meaningless number with regard to temperature on the surface. The most reliable surface measurement are the tropical moored buoys. They show zero trend during the satellite era.

Dave Fair
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2020 2:51 pm

Rick, why do you continue to compare the temperatures of two different medium? Ocean temperatures vary on time scales vastly different than the bulk atmosphere. The two must be analyzed separately to determine their unique temporal-scale properties.

Anyway you look at past temperature trends, there is no obvious catastrophic AGW. UN IPCC climate models wildly overestimated AGW. Accordingly, the politicians/bureaucrats writing the UN IPCC AR5 were forced to reduce its intermediate warming predictions, but they refused to reduce long term catastrophic AGW “projections” that were based on the same models.

RickWill
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 1, 2020 5:44 pm

Earth’s temperature control depends on ocean surface temperature. It is the basis for temperature control via regulating the energy input. The surface temperature controls the level of water vapour in the atmosphere and the water vapour controls the cloud formation. Once TPW reaches 30mm there is a level of free convection that enables the development of convective available potential energy that leads to cloudburst. Once TPW is above 38mm, cloudburst can occur on a daily basis. It is observed as monsoon cloud that is highly reflective and persistent as well as cyclonic cloud in latitudes above 10 degrees. These clouds limit the energy input via reflecting sunlight. Reflected SWR increases rapidly once SST exceeds 27C:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3qPDHvnq-L6w5-5

Open ocean surface temperature cannot exceed 32C. Energy uptake falls once the surface temperature reaches 28.5C due to the highly reflective nature of the dense cloud limiting surface insolation:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd
Despite reduce OLR above dense cloud, the reduction in surface insolation is more dominant making the net lower above 28.5C.

The oceans store and release energy to stabilise the global temperature. The maximum SST is 305K. The minimum SST is 271K. It is no accident that the global average surface temperature is close to the mean of these two extremes at 288K – no “Greenhouse Effect” needed.

There can be no trend in temperature in periods of a century or so. Powerful surface and atmospheric processes regulate the temperature. When I see a temperature trend over a few decades my response is to determine why it is flawed. I know UAH does not purport to be an indicator of surface temperature so I regard it as a meaningless number.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 2, 2020 5:09 am

“What is coming to bug me more & more is:
What is Spencer’s Sputniks actually measuring?”

Well, whatever it is measuring is being confirmed by balloon observations.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2020 7:02 am

VERIFYING THE ACCURACY OF MSU MEASUREMENTS (UAH satellite measurements)

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/satellite/msu/comments.html

A recent comparison (1) of temperature readings from two major climate monitoring systems – microwave sounding units on satellites and thermometers suspended below helium balloons – found a “remarkable” level of agreement between the two.

To verify the accuracy of temperature data collected by microwave sounding units, John Christy compared temperature readings recorded by “radiosonde” thermometers to temperatures reported by the satellites as they orbited over the balloon launch sites. He found a 97 percent correlation over the 16-year period of the study. The overall composite temperature trends at
those sites agreed to within 0.03 degrees Celsius (about 0.054° Fahrenheit) per decade. The same results were found when considering only stations in the polar or arctic regions.

Here’s the UAH satellite chart:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2020_v6.jpg

ResourceGuy
December 1, 2020 12:49 pm

The climate con artists are are always looking for new ways to spin a tale and make money.

Steve45
December 1, 2020 1:34 pm

UAH satellite data is an outlier and keeps having to be corrected upwards. It doesn’t measure surface temperature and the error bars on the estimates are enormous.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 1:50 pm

Satellites and radiosondes both measure the same temperatures of the bulk atmosphere, where the radiative gases are supposed to work. Read more, blather less. [BTW, the use of a last name avoids being referenced as “robot 45 in the south barn.”]

Steve45
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 1, 2020 3:14 pm

“where the radiative gases are supposed to work”- well that takes the prize for today’s most stupid uninformed comment

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 3:45 pm

Yes YOU comment was the most stupid anti-informed nonsense.. EVAH

If atmospheric gasses don’t “do their thing” in the atmosphere..

Where T.F do you think they operate. Some fantasy land or something ??

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 2:08 pm

Over the USA, the trend of UAH-USA48 matches the pristine USCRN very closely.

NO ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED.

Error bars on surface data are SO LARGE that they pretty much indicate NO WARMING even in highly mal-adjusted once-was-data sets like GISS and its stablemates.

Adjustments of up to and beyond 1ºC in places, so the error margin must be AT LEAST 1ºC .

Given an error margin of at least 1ºC, surface data shows NO WARMING.

Maybe you can have a go at those two simple questions..

All your fellow AGW apologists continue to FAIL MISERABLY….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Steve45
Reply to  fred250
December 1, 2020 3:15 pm

“Error bars on surface data are SO LARGE that they pretty much indicate NO WARMING even in highly mal-adjusted once-was-data sets like GISS and its stablemates.”

Apparently fred250 is not familiar with the concept of an average.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 3:48 pm

So funny… looks like steve45 is yet another FAILED junior high drop-out.

Only a crass , nil-educated moron thinks averaging sparse, adjusted corrupted surface temperatures site reduces error.

Go back to Junior High and TRY A BIT HARDER next time, dolt. !!

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 3:52 pm

Noted: that you avoided even trying to answer those two questions.

HILARIOUS. !! 🙂

Scientific evidence is an enema to you, isn’t it little steavie.

Orson
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 3:42 pm

WRONG. To read you, satellites are unreliable measuring tools. That’s false because the problem is the same, and it progressively smaller adjustment.

Thus, every subsequent corrections to UAH has been smaller and smaller. And since the cause of corrections stem from later recognised atmospheric drag of these low earth orbiting satellites, the problem is clear and proper correction is simple mechanical time (or place in orbit).

For example, this means that satellites experience atmospheric friction lowering the altitude of flight, creating a previously unrecognised earlier in time, and hence, mistaken place in time measurements (because a falling satellite must orbit faster as it’s diameter shrinks). This happens because the mass of the satellite, typically, does not change and thus the inertial force required to stay aloft remains constant, too. It’s speed of orbital rotation must therefore increase to compensate.

And thus, your criticism is rejected as spurious.

fred250
Reply to  Orson
December 1, 2020 3:50 pm

These climate KOOKS don’t understand the difference between minor scientifically based adjustments, and whim/expectation/agenda driven mal-adjustments.

So funny that they are so scientifically incompetent.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 4:41 pm

The UAH record is the least ‘corrected’ of the main series UAH RSS HadCRUT NCDC GSS.
Go to Climate4you-> GlobalTemperatures-> Temporal stability of global air temperature estimates.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 4:48 pm
Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Steve45
December 1, 2020 10:09 pm

Steve45,
What is a reference to a published study that details these error bars and preferably, also how they were constructed? Geoff S

David Streeter
December 1, 2020 1:53 pm

We’re all going to die! Nobody will live past 110 years or so! OH. nobody lives past 110 anyway. What the hell; have another beer and die happy. After all. life has only existed on this old rock for a couple billion years. I am unaware of any good reason to think it won’t last another billion or so. Any way, I probably will only survive another few years at most since at 85 the life expectancy is what ever small number it is.

RickWill
December 1, 2020 2:03 pm

The Spencer and Christy data does not relate to what is observed at surface level. It shows the troposphere has warmed above the Nino 34 region where the surface measurements show no warming through the satellite era.:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf

There needs to be a Version 7 to get rid of the drift.

The thing about more complex measurement systems is that they are difficult to verify. The moored ocean buoys are the best temperature data resource but are not well maintained.

None of it really matters though because Earth has a powerful thermostat that limits the maximum temperature above tropical oceans and limits the minimum temperature of oceans at high latitudes:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3vzCCr-yZNwAEVd
The rest is noise.

The Climate Model kids can continue to play with their toys and the power mongers will continue to use their authority to separate individuals from the money they earn to pay for the toys.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
December 2, 2020 5:17 am

“The Spencer and Christy data does not relate to what is observed at surface level.”

Well, I guess Spencer and Christy should change their description of UAH because they say on their website that the satellites measure temperautures from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.

Balloons measure the temperatures from the surface to the upper atmosphere too, and the balloon measurements agree with the UAH satellite measurements.

dollops
December 1, 2020 5:38 pm

Change in sea level is the gold standard in detecting global temperature change – three hundred feet higher or lower water-line is quite unmistakable. Of course other factors will have some effect upon sea level but significant long-term change must mean that something is up with temperature. If the figure one-eighth inch rise in sea level per year is provable, that merely confirms that we are still in a warm phase of the glacial cycles. It doesn’t prove global warming unless the rate of rise is increasing – and even that wouldn’t necessarily be proof of warming, but due to other factors, for example reduced albedo. Until at least one of the modeled inundation disasters becomes reality, we really have no definitive measure of global temperature rise. Even if it should turn out to be so, Knute rules!

RickWill
Reply to  dollops
December 1, 2020 5:57 pm

Sea level has no bearing on the global temperature. It simply indicates the amount of water/ice stored on land.

Glaciation is a hemispherical phenomena. Accumulating ice on land is energy intensive. It indicates a mismatch between energy intensive ocean evaporation depositing ice on land and the less energy intensive land ice melting. It is an indicator of orbital variations rather than anything to do with global temperature.

The global temperature is highly constrained between SST minimum of 271K at the sea ice interface and 305K maximum SST in tropical oceans. The average global temperature is never going to be far from the mean of these two values.

Coeur de Lion
December 2, 2020 6:05 am

As an obsessive UAH watcher I’m a bit disappointed by November. But there’s been a plateau at half a degree for some months now. Bets on December?

%d bloggers like this: