Like all temperature data sets, the past has been cooled at UAH, which creates the appearance of warming.
As of 1995, UAH closely matched NOAA radiosonde temperatures and showed no warming after 1979. The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report
The thick line is UAH, and the thinner line is radiosonde. They were almost a perfect match, with zero warming.
The next graph is the current version of UAH vs. NOAA radiosonde. UAH now shows about 0.4C warming since 1979, about three times as much warming as the radiosonde data.
The next graph shows how the 1979-1995 UAH data has changed since 1995, turning a cooling trend into a warming trend.
UAH has also cooled the past in the US since their 2001 version, having cooled the very warm year of 1995 by almost 0.3C. That year was the year without a winter in the US.
UAH US temperatures diverge sharply from measured US temperatures, warming about 0.3C more since 1979 than the raw surface data.
I don’t see any reason to believe any of the temperature data sets, except for the ones I can process myself from raw data. The US has seen no warming since 1920.
What about ocean temperatures?
I don’t see any reason to believe that there is a reliable long term ocean temperature data set. Until a few years ago, GISS didn’t even pretend to know ocean temperatures before 1950
Send an email to John Christie and ask him what’s going on.
Sadly even the Satellite data is being manipulated to “improve it’s quality”.
I have long argued over at WUWT that the UAH temperatures do not relate to what we are actually experiencing on the Surface, it quite often shows much warmer than we feel and measure at the time and that is what really matters to us. Not some “Calculated” temperature in the lower troposphere.
How much of that Radiation actually originates from the surface below and how much “heat” is moved laterally over the surface from warmer areas?
“When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.”
-Stephen Jay Gould
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
It is a lot easier to cool the past than warm the present … lol
I have the impression UAH is going to re adjust the excessive warming. Anyway Roy Spencer should be able to answer this posting. You willprobably find a HUGE posting just dedicated to this posting LOL (or avoidance)
Reply posting At R Spencers siteI meant to say
How frustrating to see this set of data being corrupted as well. Always I placed a bit more of trust into the Satellite data. Thanks anyway. Still seems to be true: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – well done, again.
Merry Christmas from Chile
Here’s a list of the corrections at UAH. The biggest is the diurnal drift fix in 2005. If you are going to object to the data you need to explain why these corrections were wrong.
The reality is without making this fix UAH would have become ignored by climate science completely. Some adjustments really are required.
I have no visibility or interest in discussing the mechanics of the corrections. I am showing that the “corrected” data doesn’t match radiosonde or surface data.
Without being an expert on orbital decay and diurnal drift, I have long accepted UAH adjustments on these matters for several reasons. First, Spencer and Christy were getting hammered in the Science community until these adjustments were made. Second, the two have long impressed me that they would rather admit their errors rather than continue in error. Third, the RSS group was apparently established at the urging of CAGW protagonists to establish an alternative to UAH — alternative not managed by CAGW skeptics — and the RSS and UAH groups have exchanged information, analysis and opinions in a collegial manner.
Nevertheless, it is disconcerting that the UAH record now diverges from the radiosonde data. There are so many issues with any surface record that it is not surprising when another analysis diverges from the surface record.
What issues do you have with the raw US surface temperature record?
Of course UAH would be ignored if Spencer didn’t at least give a minor hat tip to the supposed ‘warming’ . Heck UAH probably would not exist without that minor hat-tip because Spencer and Christy receive funding and cooperation from the Feds. Must be a darn fine line those two have to walk between keeping their ‘Masters’ from giving them the boot and telling the whole truth.
Do not forget Dr. Happer, as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, was fired by Gore for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” The USA signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Juned of 1992 but it was not ratified until the end of March in 1994. Therefore it was critical to get rid of a man of Dr. Happer’s knowledge, stature and integrity.
“Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.”
I believe we are supposed to infer from these statements that (1) funding from industry would taint the results but (2) funding from government does not. As if government is not a “special interest group” with its own agenda. Good grief.
Try adding up the various adjustments in your list and see if you can match them to the Graph of Changes just since 2001.
I also emailed Dr. Spencer and requested he address the issue in a post.
It is obvious that a huge majority of the “adjustments” to raw data are biased to cool the past and warm the present. I wonder why that should be?
Trying to obtain the desired, predetermined result (catastrophic warming) would appear to be a reasonable explanation.
No problem with global warming would result in a huge decrease in funding. Huge problem with global warming would result in a large increase in funding. That is not hard for any rational person to see the vested financial interest in creating the “right” results.
The real question is, if the data is so UNRELIABLE it has to be ‘tweeked’ constantly then…it isn’t reliable! Therefore, cannot be used by itself for any purpose!
The temperature satellite is a fraud due to this inability to accurately gage incoming information reliably.
I tend to agree with SG only Raw unadjusted data is credible. All the rest is BS to play along with the AGW. Its really obvious by now. Also RURAL unadjusted data is where the truth lies and generally shows no change since 1740 (Armagh and CET) Yes you only need ONE reliable site to show any SIGNIFICANT global change.
How was this anomaly chart created?
It’s quite complicated.