GISS Diverging From RSS At 1.2C/Century

ScreenHunter_768 Jan. 16 14.35

Global warming theory tells us that mid-troposphere temperatures should rise faster than surface temperatures. We are seeing the exact opposite.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to GISS Diverging From RSS At 1.2C/Century

  1. Baconboy says:

    Shouldn’t you be taking the time to research your data?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

    Link to this page
    What the science says…
    Select a level… Basic Intermediate Advanced
    The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.
    Climate Myth…
    Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
    “Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis – a test that the hypothesis fails.” (Bob Carter)
    John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

    Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

    To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

    Temperature trends of the troposphere now match well with the surface based trend.

    The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth’s surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
    There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

    When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Skeptical Science?!?
      ROTFLMAO!

      Try posting comments that says something they don’t like and see how fast you will be banned. Of course that is AFTER they edit the comment to make you look like a fool first.

      And Cook? RIIiiight. He put up a ‘pee – reviewed’ paper showing the bogus 97% crap again.

      The paper looks at 12,000 papers (quicky look at abstracts by his buddies at SkS) written in the last 25 years and scraps about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position. This was a quicky look at abstracts only by his buddies at SkS. Authors often hide the finds that are opposed to the Politically correct position on Global Warming in the body of the paper.

      They put the papers that ‘agree’ into three different bins.

      1. – 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers.

      2. – 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers.

      3. – 74% that cook says “implicitly endorses” global warming because they’re looking at other issues in conjuntion with global warming and therefore that means the writer(s) must they agree with human-caused global warming. This completely ignores the fact that if you do not use the CAGW get out of peer -review pass card in your grant and paper you do not get the grant money much less get the paper into a journal.

      Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards!

      Only problem for cook is several scientists raised hell about having their papers tossed in to the pro-CAGW bin.

      Bjørn Lomborg writes on his Facebook Page

      Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted?

      Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data.

      It has always been a dodgy paper (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical).

      Richard Tol, an IPCC lead author tried to replicate cook’s study and it turns out he has done pretty much everything wrong. AND he won’t release the data so anyone else can check it. To any real scientist that means it is NOT SCIENCE! In my field we expect the study to be replicated in at least TWO (not one) independent labs before we would begin to say the information is valid.

      Tol’swas so irrate he wrote a letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”

      The letter is here:
      http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

    • Kyle K says:

      Modern recognition of the pause in Satellite data occurred after that older issue was corrected.
      In short, it has no bearing on this argument. Station data is diverging from Satellite data.

    • Gail Combs says:

      My Favorite demonstration of the get out of peer-review free card used by those who actually thing it is B.S.

      Solar variability and climate change’ Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
      E.W. Cliver •and V. Bori•koff •
      Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts
      J. Feynman
      Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00499/pdf

      Abstract.
      …Our analysis is admittedly crude and ignores known contributors to climate change such as warming by anthropogenic greenhouse-gases or cooling by volcanic aerosols …. [so there is the bow to the CAGW god.]

      Introduction.
      ….In particular, various authors have noted that solar irradiance proxies and global surface temperatures declined for an interval during the middle of the present century while the concentration of greenhouse gases such as CO2, which cause global warming, rose monotonically.….. [OUCH!]

      Discussion
      The implication is that the geomagnetic minimum between cycles 23 and 24 (in -.•2007) will not exceed that of th e 1996 geomagnetic minimum(18.6 nT) which itself was slightly lower than the 1987 aa minimum (19.0 nT), and that the underlying trend in solar irradiance will and that the underlying trend in solar irradiance will continue to be flat or downward. As of this writing it appears that the average aa value for 1997 will be even lower (-.•16nT) than that of 1996.

      Such a leveling off or decline of the long-term solar component of climate change will help to disentangle its effects from that of anthropogenic greenhouse warming .

    • AZ1971 says:

      “Correct adjustments”? So the result matches THEIR preconceived idea on what “correct” ought to be? How is merging different sources of data, of using adjustments for orbital changes, any different than CAGW alarmists/”scientists” making adjustments for UHI, of ship readings that only measure at a single point in time (not multiple days), from multiple proxies, etc.?

      Oh right. In the CAGW debate, only the alarmists can be correct when “adjusting” data and only THEIR ridiculous methodologies are acceptable. To that hypocrisy, I give the one-finger salute, sir.

      • Gail Combs says:

        They use weather balloon data to cross check the satellite data

        Remote Sensing Systems (RSS satellite data)

        Upper Air Temperature Validation
        MSU & AMSU Data Comparison with In Situ Observations

        In order to validate the MSU- and AMSU-derived lower tropospheric temperature data, we would like to compare the long-term changes with those measured directly. The most widespread instruments for directly measuring the temperature of the upper air are radiosondes (commonly called weather balloons). These balloons ascend through the atmosphere, measuring various meteorological variables (including temperature) and radioing the results back to the surface….

        http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

    • Daavid A says:

      Baconboy, are you daft The graph above in the head post shows the anomaly after all the adjustments you quoted! Therefore your post is not relevant at all.

      The simple fact is that the troposphere was supposed to warm more then the surface, and the surface is diverging not only from the troposphere, but the warming in the surface is ever more from ever more use of adjusted data. The raw surface data is much closer to RSS, and the increase in sea ice and NH snow coverage support the RSS readings as well as the unadjusted surface readings.

      In any and ALL cases, the warming, even after all the questionable adjustments, is well below the theory. There is no CAGW period.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models.”

      You’re funny!

      In no other branch of science is it considered permissible to adjust the observational data to match the output from the computer games.

      Here’s a pretty picture for your delectation.

      Think about the implications of THAT, little pause denier.

  2. Thank you for vividly demonstrating again that John Cook is completely FOS

  3. omanuel says:

    Regretfully, Baconboy, Steven Goddard is now far more credible than the armies of consensus “scientists” who have hidden, manipulated and misrepresented the best experimental data on Earth’s heat source – the Sun – for seven decades.

  4. AdjustmentsRUs says:

    Just as BaconBoy says: If the data does not show warming it must be adjusted!

  5. northernont says:

    It’s so warm, that the Great Lakes are 13% more covered with ice then the same time last year with it’s record setting second highest ice coverage on record.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/01/16/great-lakes-ice-makes-a-leap-after-january-cold-snap/

  6. gator69 says:

    Baconboy has me thinking about posting my Gore Pigs parody, but would I offend? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s