Temperature Data from Satellites: Inconvenient but Accurate
Posted by jennifer, November 14th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
IT is my prediction that in not so many years time weather station data will be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.
The recent debacle with the global temperature data set compiled by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) from thousands of thermometers in little white boxes all over the world will probably hasten the transition from a primary reliance on thermometer to satellite data.
While we have known for some time, including through the work of Anthony Watts, that many weather stations are poorly maintained and positioned in wrong places – including next to air conditioning outlets on bitumen – the recent GISS saga indicates how subjective the system of compilation can be. Indeed it appears that when Australia sends data in late, rather than wait, the team in New York might be inclined to best guess based on last month’s pattern and climatology.
A problem for those who have hitched their careers to claims that global temperatures will continue to rise is that the satellite data is much less subject to manipulation in favour of confirmation bias.
The latest UAH global temperature data from the satellites, with a trend line added from Klockarman, shows temperatures have gone down a total of 0.37° F. (or 0.205° C.) since the movie ’An Inconvenient Truth’ was released at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006.
Advertisement
158 Responses to “Temperature Data from Satellites: Inconvenient but Accurate”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 » Show All
Your final point, Jen, is a very important one. The climatistas are so immersed in modelling “scarenarios” that they no longer understand the concept of a “record of fact”, let alone the reasons they are required. When we have a situation where the global mean temp back in 2005 is still being “corrected” in late 2008 there is obviously a problem with data integrity.
Yet, at the same time, we are given temperature series like the one above which is used as the primary indicator of anthropogenic impacts but which continues to exclude the much more significant impacts of the El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo eruptions which produce a temperature series that has absolutely zero correlation with the climate muddles.
Note also from the graph that our current global mean temperature is exactly what it was in October 1979. And if we accept that it was entirely natural cyclical variation that has returned our temperature to the level it was in 1979 then by what perverted logic can the warm-mongers claim that the intervening temperature rise was purely human induced?
So if it goes up it is human induced and if it goes down it is natural? Yeah, right.
Thanks Ian.
Though I think I need to modify my above prediction to refer just to ‘regional’ and ‘global’ climate stats. There will continue to be a real need for locality specific data from quality weather stations. Trends from a few specific sites, should probably be reported, in the future, along with the regional and global data from the satellites.
I have just modified the first paragraph of this post to include reference to site-specific information.
Indeed there is no reason why one of the Central England weather stations with the continuous record back to 1659 (is it Rothamsted, Malvern, Squires Gate or Ringway) could not become one of several reference stations in the same way carbon dioxide is reported for Mauna Loa.
Hello? It’s the trend that matters, not one point in time.
I defy any rational, sane person to look at that chart and tell me that the overall trend since about 1985 is not clearly upward.
Talk about missing the wood for the trees.
“Your final point, Jen, is a very important one. The climatistas are so immersed in modelling “scarenarios” that they no longer understand the concept of a “record of fact”, let alone the reasons they are required. When we have a situation where the global mean temp back in 2005 is still being “corrected” in late 2008 there is obviously a problem with data integrity.”
Let me put this to you as simply and clearly as possible, Ian. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
“IT is my prediction that …”
Got any data or models that might back up you speculation?
“those who have hitched their careers”
Could we have some evidence to back up this libel on the reputations of hard working scientists all over the globe?
So this is what’s the blog is left with. Brief, ill considered attacks based on a whim. Perhaps if you did some actual work you might actually get some traction.
Show us the difference between RSS UAH and GISS… What is the real difference?
The history of RSS and UAH is one of cooperation rather than antagonism; not so with GISS which is secretive and esoteric; GISS simply is out of step with the other indices, even the land-based ones;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
And while it may be the case that when a standard base period is applied to all the indices some correlation of trend occurs, it remains a fact that GISS uses a different base period and unrevealed processes of adjustment to correct raw data, which as Watts has adequately shown, is dubious in the first instance. The killer for AGW though, is if one looks at the 20thC temp trends just using GISS then even then there is no consistency with AGW theory or predictions.
Cohenite,
“it remains a fact that GISS uses a different base period and unrevealed processes of adjustment to correct raw data,”
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa
Ok Cohenite, which base period came first? GISS or everyone else?
And of course because the processes are ‘unrevealed’ they are bad!