|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 13, 2009 2:17:44 GMT
If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ).Another one who thinks the satellite readings are affected by UHI. In reality the satellite data is processed and produced to create trends which correspond to the observed temperatures on the earths surface If the temperature data of the earth changes then so must the satellite data because the satellites cannot measure temperature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements The satellite temperature record Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles. Upwelling radiance is measured at different frequencies; these different frequency bands sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere......... Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend.[14] The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult.Radiant, If I'm understanding your assertion concerning satellite calibration, UAH is not processed to correspond to surface data. The referenced Wikipedia link is both incomplete and misinforming readers. Sometimes it is better to hear directly from the source: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/“No other data are used in the construction. That is why we can do comparison studies without any interdependence.” RSS use climate models for their calibration BTW. glc, if you can't see the simplicity in the graphs I presented on surface data clearly showing both non-correlation and exaggerated warming versus satellite, I give up and will not attempt to make it any easier. The data is what it is, take the blinders off. Also, I emailed John Christy on this very subject recently. His response (my bold): Klotzbach is the lead author on a paper of ours to come out in a couple of months in which we compare directly the mean land-surface trends from popular datasets vs. the upper air trends from satellites. The result shows the land-surface trends are warming at a significantly faster rate, which is physically possible only if the surface temps are being warmed by non-climatic factors such as UHI.
John C.
Last count it's at least ten papers just in the last twelve months concerning land use change causing warm bias in the surface station data. Obfuscate if you wish; everyone has the right to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 13, 2009 3:52:06 GMT
In reality the satellite data is processed and produced to create trends which correspond to the observed temperatures on the earths surface If the temperature data of the earth changes then so must the satellite data because the satellites cannot measure temperature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements The satellite temperature record Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles. Upwelling radiance is measured at different frequencies; these different frequency bands sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere......... Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend.[14] The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult.Radiant, If I'm understanding your assertion concerning satellite calibration, UAH is not processed to correspond to surface data. The referenced Wikipedia link is both incomplete and misinforming readers. Sometimes it is better to hear directly from the source: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/“No other data are used in the construction. That is why we can do comparison studies without any interdependence.” RSS use climate models for their calibration BTW. glc, if you can't see the simplicity in the graphs I presented on surface data clearly showing both non-correlation and exaggerated warming versus satellite, I give up and will not attempt to make it any easier. The data is what it is, take the blinders off. Also, I emailed John Christy on this very subject recently. His response (my bold): Klotzbach is the lead author on a paper of ours to come out in a couple of months in which we compare directly the mean land-surface trends from popular datasets vs. the upper air trends from satellites. The result shows the land-surface trends are warming at a significantly faster rate, which is physically possible only if the surface temps are being warmed by non-climatic factors such as UHI.
John C.
Last count it's at least ten papers just in the last twelve months concerning land use change causing warm bias in the surface station data. Obfuscate if you wish; everyone has the right to be wrong. Magellan 1. If you read the comments in that thread you can see it is not cut and dried. They are measuring all of the oxygen microwave radiation coming up from earth at a certain frequency. They then have some method - maybe scanning? to decide from what altitude this radiation comes from. There must be a comparison to known temperatures and there must be adjustments in their models and maths. Which is not the same thing as saying there is a permanent feed from the terrestially gathered data. UAH needs to expand on their comments I think. Oxygen molecules could be warmer because they absorb at that frequency and yet nearby nitrogen atoms could be colder. How can you measure the temperature of the mass of air if you only measure the temperature of one part of it that is emitting a radiation related to its temperature when the temperature is also related to the absorbance of all of oxygens frequencies? Temperature measurement of a thin mass like air that is surrounded by radiation from many other sources is problematic. 2. Christys comments about UHI might not be true. The surface can be warmed and place more water in the atmosphere which causes the atmosphere to cool more, but increases the sky temperature as seen from earth to slow down the earth from cooling And of course also more surface warmth and atmospheric moisture causes more snow fall and so forth The topic is so complex i dont think we can make simple statements as fact. The satellites are evidently assuming that surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures will rise and fall together. I think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 13, 2009 5:39:08 GMT
Radiant, If I'm understanding your assertion concerning satellite calibration, UAH is not processed to correspond to surface data. The referenced Wikipedia link is both incomplete and misinforming readers. Sometimes it is better to hear directly from the source: wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/“No other data are used in the construction. That is why we can do comparison studies without any interdependence.” RSS use climate models for their calibration BTW. glc, if you can't see the simplicity in the graphs I presented on surface data clearly showing both non-correlation and exaggerated warming versus satellite, I give up and will not attempt to make it any easier. The data is what it is, take the blinders off. Also, I emailed John Christy on this very subject recently. His response (my bold): Klotzbach is the lead author on a paper of ours to come out in a couple of months in which we compare directly the mean land-surface trends from popular datasets vs. the upper air trends from satellites. The result shows the land-surface trends are warming at a significantly faster rate, which is physically possible only if the surface temps are being warmed by non-climatic factors such as UHI.
John C.
Last count it's at least ten papers just in the last twelve months concerning land use change causing warm bias in the surface station data. Obfuscate if you wish; everyone has the right to be wrong. Magellan 1. If you read the comments in that thread you can see it is not cut and dried. They are measuring all of the oxygen microwave radiation coming up from earth at a certain frequency. They then have some method - maybe scanning? to decide from what altitude this radiation comes from. There must be a comparison to known temperatures and there must be adjustments in their models and maths. Which is not the same thing as saying there is a permanent feed from the terrestially gathered data. UAH needs to expand on their comments I think. Oxygen molecules could be warmer because they absorb at that frequency and yet nearby nitrogen atoms could be colder. How can you measure the temperature of the mass of air if you only measure the temperature of one part of it that is emitting a radiation related to its temperature when the temperature is also related to the absorbance of all of oxygens frequencies? Temperature measurement of a thin mass like air that is surrounded by radiation from many other sources is problematic. 2. Christys comments about UHI might not be true. The surface can be warmed and place more water in the atmosphere which causes the atmosphere to cool more, but increases the sky temperature as seen from earth to slow down the earth from cooling And of course also more surface warmth and atmospheric moisture causes more snow fall and so forth The topic is so complex i dont think we can make simple statements as fact. The satellites are evidently assuming that surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures will rise and fall together. I think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 There are many, many papers available on this subject from the last ~20 years. Nonetheless, email John Christy with the above comments and see what he has to say. An early paper: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fams.confex.com%2Fams%2Fpdfpapers%2F82848.pdf&ei=NA_USojXE5LU8Qbn1qWGDQ&usg=AFQjCNHNH6vc0wPsSld4Fzv1MOaIvw25iQ&sig2=TRd57k0qXlHxjqDRvV87ngBalloons are not used to calibrate, only as a comparison. A calibrated "hot target" is used to calibrate the sensor IIRC. We use several different types of temperature measurement devices. Even a mercury thermometer is a reference and does not technically "measure" temperature. 2. Christys comments about UHI might not be true. The surface can be warmed and place more water in the atmosphere which causes the atmosphere to cool more, but increases the sky temperature as seen from earth to slow down the earth from cooling See wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/2009_christynm_eafrica.pdfI think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 There is no such thing as perfection; continual improvement is an ongoing effort with all technology. No other single product has been scrutinized more than UAH. Contrast that with the surface station network which has degraded with time, has never been calibrated and the gatekeepers of data refuse to release their methods and data, not to mention more recently CRU "losing" theirs. If there are no reliable data for anything, why even bother discussing the issues? |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 13, 2009 6:29:12 GMT
Magellan 1. If you read the comments in that thread you can see it is not cut and dried. They are measuring all of the oxygen microwave radiation coming up from earth at a certain frequency. They then have some method - maybe scanning? to decide from what altitude this radiation comes from. There must be a comparison to known temperatures and there must be adjustments in their models and maths. Which is not the same thing as saying there is a permanent feed from the terrestially gathered data. UAH needs to expand on their comments I think. Oxygen molecules could be warmer because they absorb at that frequency and yet nearby nitrogen atoms could be colder. How can you measure the temperature of the mass of air if you only measure the temperature of one part of it that is emitting a radiation related to its temperature when the temperature is also related to the absorbance of all of oxygens frequencies? Temperature measurement of a thin mass like air that is surrounded by radiation from many other sources is problematic. 2. Christys comments about UHI might not be true. The surface can be warmed and place more water in the atmosphere which causes the atmosphere to cool more, but increases the sky temperature as seen from earth to slow down the earth from cooling And of course also more surface warmth and atmospheric moisture causes more snow fall and so forth The topic is so complex i dont think we can make simple statements as fact. The satellites are evidently assuming that surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures will rise and fall together. I think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 There are many, many papers available on this subject from the last ~20 years. Nonetheless, email John Christy with the above comments and see what he has to say. An early paper: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fams.confex.com%2Fams%2Fpdfpapers%2F82848.pdf&ei=NA_USojXE5LU8Qbn1qWGDQ&usg=AFQjCNHNH6vc0wPsSld4Fzv1MOaIvw25iQ&sig2=TRd57k0qXlHxjqDRvV87ngBalloons are not used to calibrate, only as a comparison. A calibrated "hot target" is used to calibrate the sensor IIRC. We use several different types of temperature measurement devices. Even a mercury thermometer is a reference and does not technically "measure" temperature. 2. Christys comments about UHI might not be true. The surface can be warmed and place more water in the atmosphere which causes the atmosphere to cool more, but increases the sky temperature as seen from earth to slow down the earth from cooling See wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/2009_christynm_eafrica.pdfI think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 There is no such thing as perfection; continual improvement is an ongoing effort with all technology. No other single product has been scrutinized more than UAH. Contrast that with the surface station network which has degraded with time, has never been calibrated and the gatekeepers of data refuse to release their methods and data, not to mention more recently CRU "losing" theirs. If there are no reliable data for anything, why even bother discussing the issues? Magellan Spencer said in 1997 that the satellite method was insufficiently accurate and the data too sparse for the purposes of measuring climate change at that point in time. Yes i can read on Wuwt that the satellites use an on board heat source and the heat of space as a reference for the oxygen emission. But the satellites are measuring the total earth emission. They cant measure the emission at 20,000 feet unless they use some kind of modelling of the atmosphere and of earths ability to radiate from surface oxygen etc. What is the purpose of these measurements? 1. It generates income for the space agencies 2. It generates income for the numerous instrumentation companies 3. It subsidises and justifies obscure and irrelevant other space work 4. it obscures the cost of the defence program 5. it enables employment and income for thousands of people And so forth. Most of it is bollocks. I think we agree on that dont we? And if it is true that night cooling experiments on clear nights show even in Antarctica where water is almost not present in the atmosphere, that water is still the source of most atmospheric radiation towards earth, then the whole thing about C02 is surely just a load of rubbish. Night cooling experiments with their simple truths are quietly embarassing the climate alarmist industry. Further if water cools by emitting only water based radiations to our watery atmosphere that are totally absorbed in only 0.27 inch of water and 96.7% absorbed in 0.04 inch of water, and cooling bodies of water or other cooling bodies wetted by water cover a huge portion of the earths surface via which they conduct the terrestial heat to the atmosphere, then we have even more grounds for saying the whole thing is a scam. All of this was known in 1860. Meanwhile it appears as fast as we are learning the faster we are forgetting. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 13, 2009 8:35:47 GMT
I believe the AGW-Istas should declare what is a normal anomaly of average temperature. And then say if we are within this normal "corridor" or not. I would say that currently most places are still within the "normal" range most of the time. The problem is that many places are at the top end or above the normal range which puts pressure on species that are not well adapted over too many seasons for them to cope. The continued warming will increase the pressure, and the rate of warming will be too fast for species to adapt. That last sentence doesn't make sense. I'll paraphrase my position. I have nothing against regional climate change that can result in some cold places becoming warmer and some warm places becoming colder. I have nothing against the idea that the earth could be warmer than now with lower levels of CO2. I have nothing against the idea that the MWP *could* have been warmer than now across the globe, but I don't think the evidence for such a warm MWP is there. There are many things that cause change to climate both regionally and globally. At the moment, the biggest cause is CO2 and its impact is global. It's about as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 13, 2009 8:42:07 GMT
glc, if you can't see the simplicity in the graphs I presented on surface data clearly showing both non-correlation and exaggerated warming versus satellite, I give up and will not attempt to make it any easier. The data is what it is, take the blinders off. Magellan I have some experience of graphs, curve fitting, linear trends, polynomials etc. Please don't try to fob me off with this nonsense. You can't explain your graphs because you don't understand what your trying to show. Your graph doesn't actually show anything. The anomaly difference (Hadley-UAH) is due entirely to the use of different base periods. You are making the same fundamental error as a lot of posters on WUWT (including AW himself initially). The size of the anomaly tells us nothing. As an exercise - think about what would happen to the anomalies if we used a 1871-1900 base period. The GISS Sept anomaly is +0.65. However if we use 1979-98 base period (as used by the satellites) the anomaly is +0.45, i.e. it's pretty much in line with the sat readings (UAH 0.42; RSS 0.48). Also, I emailed John Christy on this very subject recently. His response (my bold):
Klotzbach is the lead author on a paper of ours to come out in a couple of months in which we compare directly the mean land-surface trends from popular datasets vs. the upper air trends from satellites. The result shows the land-surface trends are warming at a significantly faster rate, which is physically possible only if the surface temps are being warmed by non-climatic factors such as UHI.
John C.I'll take a look at this paper when it comes out, but even though Christy is talking specifically about land-surface temperatures I think he is overplaying the "non-climatic factors". Meanwhile here's a plot showing UAH and Hadley since 1992, what do you think it tells us. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/offset:-.2/plot/uah/from:1992/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/offset:-.2/trend/plot/uah/from:1992/trendFinally, I've still not seen anyone respond satisfactorily to the Parker study (see link) hadobs.metoffice.com/urban/Even Pielke can only come up with some guff about how it needs to be looked at again. Simple as it is, Parker's results do suggest that even if there is a UH effect, there is no trend in UH and the trend in global temperatures is, therefore, unaffected.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 13, 2009 9:27:28 GMT
I believe the AGW-Istas should declare what is a normal anomaly of average temperature. And then say if we are within this normal "corridor" or not. I would say that currently most places are still within the "normal" range most of the time. The problem is that many places are at the top end or above the normal range which puts pressure on species that are not well adapted over too many seasons for them to cope. The continued warming will increase the pressure, and the rate of warming will be too fast for species to adapt. That last sentence doesn't make sense. I'll paraphrase my position. I have nothing against regional climate change that can result in some cold places becoming warmer and some warm places becoming colder. I have nothing against the idea that the earth could be warmer than now with lower levels of CO2. I have nothing against the idea that the MWP *could* have been warmer than now across the globe, but I don't think the evidence for such a warm MWP is there. There are many things that cause change to climate both regionally and globally. At the moment, the biggest cause is CO2 and its impact is global. It's about as simple as that. You dont understand the science of the gases of the atmosphere that much is simple. |
|
|
|
Post by latecommer on Oct 13, 2009 17:57:06 GMT
The IPCC has always argued from ignorance... now before I get jumped on for this statement, let me explain what I mean.
An argument from ignorance can be defined by the statement "WE don't know any other way to explain these results except for ...."
This is not the base to build economic activity on. I would hope that this is patently true and understandable.
|
|
|
|
Post by latecommer on Oct 13, 2009 18:28:10 GMT
I admit to not having read every post on this thread, but has the radiosondes method been discussed as the third major global measuring system? It has it's problems as well, but long term trends at different altitudes are perhaps best measured in this manner.
What this whole discussion shows us is that it is perhaps impossible to determine a true global temperature in the short term, but with adjustments made for known problems we can approximate temperature with the exception of perhaps, the unknown unknowns.
And is it truly necessary to know the exact temperature?
The new kid on the block is the AGW hypothesis. It is presenting a challenge to the standard model of climate which is the extraterrestrial one of solar (in all it's aspects...not just irradiance) influences. As the challenger the onus of proof rests on the AGW hypothesis. I am a paleo geologist by training and have spent nearly 5 years studying climatology both present and paleo-, and have yet to see even one validation of the new theory. Proof of rising temperature gets us not one step closer to the causation of same. Proof of human causation is still required and absent.
Yes I have seen correlation, suggestions and possibilities, but validation is still waiting empirical proof. Since (in my humble opinion) this proof has not been found, proponents of the hypothesis have moved on to the unscientific precautionary principle....which in some I am convinced is an attempt to shift the focus from actually empirical evidence to a stance of "Gee don't you think we should do something?"
At that point it no longer is science we are talking about but politics
|
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Oct 13, 2009 20:09:15 GMT
glc:
You want me to comment on a unpublished paper too prove AGW?
;D
To be fair can I do the same now, i hope.
Here is my source:
The radiant hypothesis which AGW-istas use to prove a link for CO2 induced climate change is scientifically proved to be wrong.
Fundamentally.
Will be published in all newspaper near You in 2010.
OK?
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 14, 2009 7:40:09 GMT
glc:
You want me to comment on a unpublished paper too prove AGW?
what are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2009 0:26:22 GMT
I think UAH are currently working on version 5-3 of their method of constructing temperatures. No doubt in time we will see 101.1 Thats excellent. They have all sorts of good data to work with and continuing calibration targets. OTOH, GISS, NOAA, and Hadcru are faced with having nothing to fine tune their systems after the dog ate all their original data. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 23, 2019 18:47:34 GMT
"Global, Driven By Natural “Atmospheric-Ocean Cycles”, Not CO2
New Study Shows Medieval Climate Period Was Global, Driven By Natural “Atmospheric-Ocean Cycles”, Not CO2
By P Gosselin on 23. June 2019
The Medieval Warm Period in Oceania
By Die kalte Sonne
For a long time it was said that the Medieval Warm Period was a North Atlantic phenomenon. This proved to be wrong. On June 15, 2019, a paper by Lüning et al. 2019 on the Medieval Warm Period in Oceania appeared in the journal Environmental Reviews. Here is the short version:
The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Oceania
Temperatures in Oceania have risen by 0.5-1°C over the past 100 years, resulting e.g. in significant retreat of New Zealand’s glaciers. In order to better understand natural and anthropogenic contributions to this warming process, the observed climatic change has to be placed in a longer-term palaeotemperature context. Of particular interest is the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, 1000-1200 AD), a recognized period of natural pre-industrial climate change, associated with marked temperature and hydroclimatic variability that is best known from the Northern Hemisphere.”
Temperature reconstructions for Oceania were traditionally based on two classical tree ring series. Here, we are enlarging the Oceania reference dataset with another 13 published temperature reconstructions from SE Australia, New Zealand and West Papua. These are based on a variety of proxy types, and help to geographically and methodologically augment the regional palaeoclimate database. The proxy series have been thoroughly compared and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. Ten out of the 15 sites show a relatively warm MCA, compared to the last 1500 years, with warming generally occurring in the envelope period 900-1500 AD.”"More at -- notrickszone.com/2019/06/23/new-study-shows-medieval-climate-period-was-global-driven-by-natural-atmospheric-ocean-cycles-not-co2/
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 23, 2019 23:15:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 26, 2019 18:50:14 GMT
Wandering the Med areas it is apparent that a literal explosion of small fortified cities developed in the period ca 900-1300. That warm períod was a productive one.
|
|
