It is hardly a secret. If you don't know something, then you should not hesitate to ask. That is always a better option than being obnoxious. (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar don'tcha know.) A quick look at woodfortrees can verify: Look at the divergence at about the year 2000. Look at the difference in the trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...
Here is Carl Mears who developed the RSS Satellite reconstruction: "...surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." - http://www.remss.com/blog/rece...
The guy who developed one of the two satellite reconstructions says that the surface station record is more reliable. So no, we shouldn't disregard the surface station data in favour of the satellite data. The satellite records do not agree with the raw surface station data as the GGP had asserted (but the corrected surface station records DO), in fact, the satellite data do not even agree with each other.
different means and different algorithms to convert that data into temperature
Right. Which one is correct? The GGP says that we should trust satellite reconstructions over ground station reconstructions because the satellite records agree with the unmodified surface station data. That is not true. The satellite records do not agree with surface station data. They do not even agree with each other. You know what does agree with the unmodified surface station data? The modified surface station data. They are indistinguishable over the satellite period: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Carl Mears, the guy who developed the RSS satellite reconstruction says: "they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.
And yes, you need a model to convert the information to temperature trends. There are many confounding factors that the model needs to account for. I agree that there is nothing wrong with correcting for known issues, but to suggest that satellite data is somehow a gold standard, untouched by those sneaky scientists, is wrong. It is also wrong to suggest that the satellite data agrees with the uncorrected surface data. it does not. In fact, the two satellite records do not even agree with each other.
The folks who developed the satellite reconstruction disagree. They say that there are substantial uncertainties. Certainly, the two major satellite reconstructions do not agree with each other or with radiosonde data. They recommend using the satellite reconstructions as one piece of data among dozens rather than treating them as a gold standard that somehow trumps all others.
"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties." - Carl Mears of RSS
It's actually a pretty good site in spite of the shitty (ha ha) name. Would you trust Carl Mears who developed the RSS satellite record? He is quoted here:
"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."
Senator Cruz focuses on one data set (mine) from one type of instrument (satellite) and he ignores all of the other evidence. For example the surface temperature record, things like the arctic sea ice declining, things like the time of year that plants flower or leaf out. All of those sorts of things he's ignored in favour of this one piece of evidence that supports the story that he wants to tell.
1 degree LESS warming in the adjusted data. If you prefer the raw data then you need to accept that the Earth has warmed MUCH more than we believe it has.
In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard.
Yes, I know. A fourth conspiracy theory. This is why it is rather pointless to talk with you.
Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly [wordpress.com] that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.
Well, the adjustments he objects to were made after the record was validated against the radiosonde data. The adjustments put the satellite data way out of sync with radiosonde data. You are a fan of the validation against the radiosonde data because you feel that this shows the satellite reconstruction to be strong and valid. You are also a fan of the satellite adjustments that now put the satellite reconstruction way out of sync with the radiosonde data. They say that wisdom is the ability to hold multiple conflicting truths in your head without budging. I`m not so sure...
What are you talking about? What is 'unadjusted UAH'? You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments. Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version? They are both quite different. Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard? Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?
Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets. That is true. The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . Tamino shows that RSS satellite record does not line up with tropospheric temperature measurements. Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?
You are right that method of adjustment on satellite data is in flux. The difference in trend between each version is quite large. How do you know that the current adjustments are the right one if they are always in flux? And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
Your best bet is to consider all available evidence. Deniers would like to ignore the record warming that we're measuring on the surface in favour of the tropospheric temperatures obtained by the satellites... but not the UAH satellite data set because that shows rapid warming too. And not the tropospheric measurements obtained by RATPAC because they show rapid warming too. They would prefer you look only at the RSS data set. That is pure as the driven snow.
Regarding ocean warming... We've accumulated 150 zetajoules of warming in the oceans over the last 18 years. It took over 130 years prior to accumulate the same amount. The rate of increase is now the equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs per second. It's not the amount that should worry us though as much as the acceleration. - http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
Well, I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing this with someone who rejects radiative physics, believes that the twin towers were an inside job, and thinks that Obama faked his birth certificate, but... Here is radiosonde measurements minus the satellite data. Note the rapid divergence around 2000? Suddenly satellite data took a nose dive relative to the radiosonde measurements. What happened there? https://tamino.files.wordpress...
Here are the corrected vs uncorrected temperature reconstructions. There is really no difference in the trend between the two: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
and they don't agree with radiosonde data that takes actual measurements in the troposphere that the satellites are attempting to derive a temperature record for: https://tamino.files.wordpress...
temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites
The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for orbital decay, diurnal cycle, remove stratospheric signal, accommodate for sensor degridation, and you need to stitch data from multiple satellites. On top of that, satellites don't measure temperature, they measure radiance which needs to be reinterpreted as temperature using a model. Yes, they are very expensive, but that doesn't really mean that they are infallible or somehow a gold standard. Even Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite data set says he trusts surface temperature measurements much more than the satellite models. Watch the video in this link: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/...
Stations sample at a point. Adding more stations is adding more sample points. The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample,
That is not correct. Stations are grouped by grid boxes. The grid boxes are then averaged. Adding stations does not change the distribution, it just adds detail to a grid box.
Adjustments typically address known biases such as time of observation bias. These methods are published and thus far no fault has been found with them. In fact they are acknowledged as necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
It is hardly a secret. If you don't know something, then you should not hesitate to ask. That is always a better option than being obnoxious. (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar don'tcha know.) A quick look at woodfortrees can verify: Look at the divergence at about the year 2000. Look at the difference in the trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...
Here is Carl Mears who developed the RSS Satellite reconstruction: "...surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)." - http://www.remss.com/blog/rece...
The guy who developed one of the two satellite reconstructions says that the surface station record is more reliable. So no, we shouldn't disregard the surface station data in favour of the satellite data. The satellite records do not agree with the raw surface station data as the GGP had asserted (but the corrected surface station records DO), in fact, the satellite data do not even agree with each other.
different means and different algorithms to convert that data into temperature
Right. Which one is correct? The GGP says that we should trust satellite reconstructions over ground station reconstructions because the satellite records agree with the unmodified surface station data. That is not true. The satellite records do not agree with surface station data. They do not even agree with each other. You know what does agree with the unmodified surface station data? The modified surface station data. They are indistinguishable over the satellite period: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Carl Mears, the guy who developed the RSS satellite reconstruction says: "they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.
And yes, you need a model to convert the information to temperature trends. There are many confounding factors that the model needs to account for. I agree that there is nothing wrong with correcting for known issues, but to suggest that satellite data is somehow a gold standard, untouched by those sneaky scientists, is wrong. It is also wrong to suggest that the satellite data agrees with the uncorrected surface data. it does not. In fact, the two satellite records do not even agree with each other.
The folks who developed the satellite reconstruction disagree. They say that there are substantial uncertainties. Certainly, the two major satellite reconstructions do not agree with each other or with radiosonde data. They recommend using the satellite reconstructions as one piece of data among dozens rather than treating them as a gold standard that somehow trumps all others.
"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite data were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties." - Carl Mears of RSS
"they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties."
- http://www.theguardian.com/env...
He's also quoted in this video: https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk
Senator Cruz focuses on one data set (mine) from one type of instrument (satellite) and he ignores all of the other evidence. For example the surface temperature record, things like the arctic sea ice declining, things like the time of year that plants flower or leaf out. All of those sorts of things he's ignored in favour of this one piece of evidence that supports the story that he wants to tell.
1 degree LESS warming in the adjusted data. If you prefer the raw data then you need to accept that the Earth has warmed MUCH more than we believe it has.
In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard.
Yes, I know. A fourth conspiracy theory. This is why it is rather pointless to talk with you.
Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly [wordpress.com] that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.
Well, the adjustments he objects to were made after the record was validated against the radiosonde data. The adjustments put the satellite data way out of sync with radiosonde data. You are a fan of the validation against the radiosonde data because you feel that this shows the satellite reconstruction to be strong and valid. You are also a fan of the satellite adjustments that now put the satellite reconstruction way out of sync with the radiosonde data. They say that wisdom is the ability to hold multiple conflicting truths in your head without budging. I`m not so sure...
What are you talking about? What is 'unadjusted UAH'? You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments. Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version? They are both quite different. Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard? Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?
Are you sure you're not a 911 truther? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Are you sure you don't deny basic physics? http://dumbscientist.com/archi...
Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets. That is true. The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . Tamino shows that RSS satellite record does not line up with tropospheric temperature measurements. Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?
You are right that method of adjustment on satellite data is in flux. The difference in trend between each version is quite large. How do you know that the current adjustments are the right one if they are always in flux? And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
...At different altitudes.
How do you track sensor degradation? With only one satellite you would not even know if it was occurring.
Your best bet is to consider all available evidence. Deniers would like to ignore the record warming that we're measuring on the surface in favour of the tropospheric temperatures obtained by the satellites... but not the UAH satellite data set because that shows rapid warming too. And not the tropospheric measurements obtained by RATPAC because they show rapid warming too. They would prefer you look only at the RSS data set. That is pure as the driven snow.
Regarding ocean warming... We've accumulated 150 zetajoules of warming in the oceans over the last 18 years. It took over 130 years prior to accumulate the same amount. The rate of increase is now the equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs per second. It's not the amount that should worry us though as much as the acceleration. - http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...
Wait... I thought they were a constant?
Well, I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing this with someone who rejects radiative physics, believes that the twin towers were an inside job, and thinks that Obama faked his birth certificate, but... Here is radiosonde measurements minus the satellite data. Note the rapid divergence around 2000? Suddenly satellite data took a nose dive relative to the radiosonde measurements. What happened there? https://tamino.files.wordpress...
Then why do the two satellite records not agree with each other let alone with radiosonde measurements? The divergence is quite wide on these records.
Here are the corrected vs uncorrected temperature reconstructions. There is really no difference in the trend between the two: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Satellite models don't agree with each other let alone with the uncorrected surface trends: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/r...
and they don't agree with radiosonde data that takes actual measurements in the troposphere that the satellites are attempting to derive a temperature record for: https://tamino.files.wordpress...
temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites
The satellites are also not constant. You have to adjust for orbital decay, diurnal cycle, remove stratospheric signal, accommodate for sensor degridation, and you need to stitch data from multiple satellites. On top of that, satellites don't measure temperature, they measure radiance which needs to be reinterpreted as temperature using a model. Yes, they are very expensive, but that doesn't really mean that they are infallible or somehow a gold standard. Even Carl Mears who develops the RSS satellite data set says he trusts surface temperature measurements much more than the satellite models. Watch the video in this link: http://climatecrocks.com/2016/...
Here are corrected and the unadjusted data side by side. Both tell the same story: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... Add a constant to each year if you fear anomalies.
Trying to find a "top ten" list of the hottest and coldest years.
http://icons.wxug.com/hurrican...
Stations sample at a point. Adding more stations is adding more sample points. The distribution of the locations of the stations is no longer the same and that skews the sample,
That is not correct. Stations are grouped by grid boxes. The grid boxes are then averaged. Adding stations does not change the distribution, it just adds detail to a grid box.
Adjustments typically address known biases such as time of observation bias. These methods are published and thus far no fault has been found with them. In fact they are acknowledged as necessary.
It's the second order derivative that is worrisome.
Not likely
we add a meter to the floodwall every century
The issue is the cost. In Miami alone they are spending between $400-$500 million over the next five years to keep up with the rising sea level which is already causing salt water incursions into streets and fresh water supplies during high tide. And the costs will only accelerate along with sea level rise. Economists agree that a revenue neutral carbon tax is the most cost efficient way forward.