Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if you cherrypick the data enough you can find virtually ANY rate of increase!
You probably don't realise why that statement doesn't even make sense. Maybe it's from slapping your head too hard too many times?
But how about you go see if you can find any research showing a similar rate of increase in CO2 and global temperature in the past, as that which has occurred in the last 100 years.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance and avoidance of the issues raised in both that article and by Carl Mears from RSS. What are satellites actually measuring? What are the issues? The derived satellite information is very useful but is all too often misrepresented by those who don't have a clue what is being measured or how complex the methods and adjustments are to derive any data. (or used dishonestly by those who do have a clue)
Would you change your tune if the satellite data was showing more robust warming?
Quote:
I'm sure Christie 'disputed' the corrections other scientists had to make to his mistakes in the past:
Go find out about Spencer and Christie's UAH data from the 1990's. It took them almost 10 years to correct their mistakes until they were forced to do so, and their refusal to allow other scientists to see their data and adjustment methods and algorithms slowed down the science.
"Once we realized that the diurnal correction being used by Christy and Spencer for the lower troposphere had the opposite sign from their correction for the middle troposphere sign, we knew that something was amiss. Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place. They first implemented it in 1998 in response to Wentz and Schabel, which found a previous error in their methodology: neglecting the effects of orbit decay."
Mears, Carl A., and Frank J. Wentz. "The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature." Science 309.5740 (2005): 1548-1551.
Wentz, Frank J., and Matthias Schabel. "Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends." Nature 394.6694 (1998): 661-664.
Yes scientists make errors. How many countless times has the GISS data been readjusted to correct errors?
Quote:
Here's the type of issue with the satellite data you probably won't find your favourite blogs and tweets talking about. I doubt you even know the significance of a cooling stratosphere.
"From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1–3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of ~0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming.
We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is ~1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate."
Fu, Q., Johanson, C. M., Warren, S. G., & Seidel, D. J. (2004). Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429(6987), 55-58.
Sure there are issues, and the methods required to improve the accuracy of the data are fully and transparently explored in published research papers. But ignoring the issues with satellites just because you prefer what you think they show is rather disingenuous (or just wilfully ignorant). I note that you choose to ignore the fact that Christie and Spencer from UAH have made a rather large adjustment to their data with version 6 beta but haven't even published their methodology yet for review, yet you use their figures as 'gospel'.
When have I ignored that corrections have been made? And the version 6 beta correction actually brings the UAH data set closer to the RSS.
Many other scientists would disagree, and if you can please comment on this map showing how much of the land area is void of thermometers, and how that is a more robust analysis of global temps then what satellite data can provide, that would be great
What percentage of land globally would yyou say has no thermometer.
FromURL="http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature"]RSS[/url] "We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees (or south of 70S for TLT) due to difficulties in merging measurements in these regions"
UAH does report the data, but as I said in my earlier post, poleward data isn't as robust
Quote:
The ‘warmest’ place throughout 2014 was just south of the North Pole along the International Date Line. Temperatures there averaged 1.65 C (about 2.97 degrees F) warmer than normal for the year
In fact: Your link has nothing to do with RSS or a satellite 'recording' a 'temperature spike at 90N'. It was interpreted from a weather model based on satellite data. Read it again with your eyes open.
Yes satellite data is recording temperature at the poles and NCEP interprets the data using modeling.
The so called "hybrid" temperature reconstruction uses satellite data from the poles to fill in gaps missed in the land thermometers
Nope, nothing in that link about "The last 19 years the trend is basically flat in the satellite records" or a trend of .11C per decade.
You're probably not used to people actually reading and fact-checking the links you toss about.
Um you wanted to know where I got the data showing decadal trends from the last century right? I showed you. The UAH satellite data version 6 showis a decadal warming of 0.11C https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...5vE1w0dVFTky8Q
I wish you people would stop your cherry picking....Here are a bunch of graphs to look at since you seem to like them so much.... More Temperature Figures
By the way the global combined temperature has increased by 0.4 C since 1996, and by 0.8 C since 1950....That is not what I would call flat. RSS data tells us very little, since over 90% of warming is absorbed by the oceans.
Do you have a link for that or a quote from the text book. Were the plates moving in the 1600's, if so why was there no temperature increase.
I don't keep my old textbooks, I sell them back. The closer the continents get to each other, the faster the temperature increases, at least according to the geography experts and my professor who had a masters in geography.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
