2015 Global Temperatures

[csnavywx]

It's still growing.  Those are two different sources.  the CPC sub-surface OHC is still rising and is quite high again.

 

 

From just the TAO data:

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid warming. But this is to be expected given the very strong and long-duration WWB(s) and record smashing (4.85 sigma!) MJO event that preceded this (source).

 

I would expect it to continue to increase for at least a week or two before slowing down as the pattern relaxes back towards the mean (even the early stages of the 97-98 Nino saw a couple of periods of where the easterly trades re-exerted themselves). 

 

Edited (3/28) to fix broken links.

[LakeEffectKing]

From just the TAO data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected then.  The different sources were just "different" enough to give the illusion of a slight cooling (especially the 4 degree C contour).  My bad.

[skierinvermont]

There was a recent study that debunked UAH. It has a modest cold bias, take a look for yourself.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming

 

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

 

Fascinating, this really deserves its own thread. It's been obvious for years that the satellite datasets are not reliable given the massive revisions that occur regularly, the massive discrepancies from one source to another (RSS vs UAH), and the temporal discrepancies. 

[csnavywx]

I stand corrected then.  The different sources were just "different" enough to give the illusion of a slight cooling (especially the 4 degree C contour).  My bad.

Totally understandable. The TAO color scale doesn't match the solid contours either, which is odd and a bit aggravating. Plus, you've got the fact that the CPC graph is really a model, which makes comparing it and the 5-day running mean from the TAO buoy graphs less straightforward than it could be.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Fascinating, this really deserves its own thread. It's been obvious for years that the satellite datasets are not reliable given the massive revisions that occur regularly, the massive discrepancies from one source to another (RSS vs UAH), and the temporal discrepancies.

This is simply not true, as any scientist with a remote sensing education will tell you.

Not only do surface datasets undergo much more frequent revisions than the satellites, but when aggregated, they're just as large if not larger. Furthermore, surface datasets are open to a lot more contamination..land use changes, UHI, station relocations, lack of coverage in unpopulated geographical realms, etc.

[nflwxman]

This is simply not true, as any scientist with a remote sensing education will tell you.

Not only do surface datasets undergo much more frequent revisions than the satellites, but when aggregated, they're just as large if not larger. Furthermore, surface datasets are open to a lot more contamination..land use changes, UHI, station relocations, lack of coverage in unpopulated geographical realms, etc.

I have a remote sensing education and certification.  The uncertainty band on measuring a layer of the atmosphere is much higher than that of the global network used by GISS, NOAA, and Hadley on an annual basis.  In fact, there have been several instances where remote sensing derived seasonal data from the tropical pacific has been fully tossed due to disruptive cloud cover or moisture gradients.  Think about it.  If one surface station gets "tainted" you have thousands more that offset it in a global dataset.  If one portion of the measurement of the AQUA or NOAA imaging is drifting or malfunction, the entire global dataset can be brought into question.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264066142_Monitoring_of_the_Sea_Surface_Temperature_in_the_Saemangeum_Sea_Area_Using_the_Thermal_Infrared_Satellite_Data

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223321855_Accuracy_and_uncertainty_of_thermal-infrared_remote_sensing_of_stream_temperatures_at_multiple_spatial_scales

[chubbs]

This is simply not true, as any scientist with a remote sensing education will tell you.

Not only do surface datasets undergo much more frequent revisions than the satellites, but when aggregated, they're just as large if not larger. Furthermore, surface datasets are open to a lot more contamination..land use changes, UHI, station relocations, lack of coverage in unpopulated geographical realms, etc.

 

Sound familiar?

 

 

As I mentioned about 7 or 8 months ago regarding the upcoming adjustement downwards of UAH (spurious warming signal evidenced in the degrading radiometer), it appears the scientists are going to correct the spurious signal sooner rather than later upon looking at their readme file: http://www.nsstc.uah...eadme.01Dec2011

New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011 demonstrating the relatively small error bars of the UAH satellite data. http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/

In that case the error bars are now small enough to where even assuming the largest possible error, the data still does not feature the atmospheric warming profile progged by all GCMs. The error bars are now small enough to where we can adequately determine the atmospheric profile in temperature. So that is something that in both UAH and RSS have been prevolent. Observations do not verify the modeling, and by the scientific method, everyone knows what really has to happen now...you never invent reasons to alter observations simply in altering the error bars on the datasets to claim "it may still be there".

Now, modeling needs to be corrected to accurately represent valid observational data, in continuous peer reviewed validation studies by the operators of the satellite data.

[LakeEffectKing]

I have a remote sensing education and certification.  The uncertainty band on measuring a layer of the atmosphere is much higher than that of the global network used by GISS, NOAA, and Hadley on an annual basis.  In fact, there have been several instances where remote sensing derived seasonal data from the tropical pacific has been fully tossed due to disruptive cloud cover or moisture gradients.  Think about it.  If one surface station gets "tainted" you have thousands more that offset it in a global dataset.  If one portion of the measurement of the AQUA or NOAA imaging is drifting or malfunction, the entire global dataset can be brought into question.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264066142_Monitoring_of_the_Sea_Surface_Temperature_in_the_Saemangeum_Sea_Area_Using_the_Thermal_Infrared_Satellite_Data

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223321855_Accuracy_and_uncertainty_of_thermal-infrared_remote_sensing_of_stream_temperatures_at_multiple_spatial_scales

The fact remains, ground datasets, do undergo substantial revisions which call "entire global datasets" to be "brought into question"...and then revised....case in point, GISS for US:

 

[AvantHiatus]

Must be a conspiracy, to artificially boost temperatures. I know that is not what you are implying but some of the less informed may reach such a conclusion.

[LakeEffectKing]

Must be a conspiracy, to artificially boost temperatures. I know that is not what you are implying but some of the less informed may reach such a conclusion.

Not only is it not what I'm implying, but it doesn't go to my point either...

[ORH_wxman]

The ground observations are always revised. Almost continuously. It affects all major data sets because the revisions are usually done on GHCN and all sfc data sets use GHCN data...so they aren't independent of each other like some climate weenies on other blogs like to claim.

That said, the satellites definitely have their own issues as has been shown over the years. Despite this, the satellite and sfc data sets are pretty close to each other in trend since 1979 when we started tracking satellites. The satellite trend is only slightly smaller. Maybe by 10%. That's within the margin of error.

[LakeEffectKing]

The ground observations are always revised. Almost continuously. It affects all major data sets because the revisions are usually done on GHCN and all sfc data sets use GHCN data...so they aren't independent of each other like some climate weenies on other blogs like to claim.

That said, the satellites definitely have their own issues as has been shown over the years. Despite this, the satellite and sfc data sets are pretty close to each other in trend since 1979 when we started tracking satellites. The satellite trend is only slightly smaller. Maybe by 10%. That's within the margin of error.

In reality it is all semantics,  both methodologies deserve scrutiny, and are welcomed.  We have warmed....warming slowed down/paused, and averaging the various datasets' trends, yields this....

[chubbs]

RSS minus UAH updated through Feb 2015. Non-random effects include a 10+ year relative cooling for RSS plus some  cyclic variability with a 10-12 month period that has developed in the past few years.

 

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

The fact remains, ground datasets, do undergo substantial revisions which call "entire global datasets" to be "brought into question"...and then revised....case in point, GISS for US:

I was about to say. The revisions to both GISS and the CRUTEMP/HADCRUT datasets have been much larger than the revisions to the satellite data to this point. It's not even close when the changes are aggregated in value.

Like the majority of pseudoscientific rumors do, the idea that surface datasets are superior to satellite data originated in the blogosphere.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I have a remote sensing education and certification. The uncertainty band on measuring a layer of the atmosphere is much higher than that of the global network used by GISS, NOAA, and Hadley on an annual basis.

Where do you work, if I may ask? As far as I know, based on the literature I've read and what the remote sensing experts here say, this is more of an issue on a monthly resolution, rather than a multi-decadal one, due to short term changes in cloud water content/etc that need to be calibrated for.

If one portion of the measurement of the AQUA or NOAA imaging is drifting or malfunction, the entire global dataset can be brought into question.

Actually, AQUA has experienced sensor degradation and is no longer used in the manner it was before to collect measurements.

[nflwxman]

I was about to say. The revisions to both GISS and the CRUTEMP/HADCRUT datasets have been much larger than the revisions to the satellite data to this point. It's not even close when the changes are aggregated in value.

Like the majority of pseudoscientific rumors do, the idea that surface datasets are superior to satellite data originated in the blogosphere.

 

That's kind of a red herring to the argument.  The uncertainty bands of each post processed dataset are quantified in many papers.  The magnitude of adjustment over time is well within that uncertainty band.  Unless of course you are talking about TOBS bias and the processing method of older temperature data..that's been discussed at length here and not worth even addressing.

 

GISS has a measurement uncertainty well defined after TOBS adjustments.  And yes, the measurement uncertainty grows larger as you go back in time.  However, if you really think that raw data from 1920 should not be adjusted, then you aren't paying attention.

[nflwxman]

Where do you work, if I may ask? As far as I know, based on the literature I've read and what the remote sensing experts here say, this is more of an issue on a monthly resolution, rather than a multi-decadal one, due to short term changes in cloud water content/etc that need to be calibrated for.

Actually, AQUA has experienced sensor degradation and is no longer used in the manner it was before to collect measurements.

Yes, I know.  That was part of my point.

[chubbs]

I was about to say. The revisions to both GISS and the CRUTEMP/HADCRUT datasets have been much larger than the revisions to the satellite data to this point. It's not even close when the changes are aggregated in value.

Like the majority of pseudoscientific rumors do, the idea that surface datasets are superior to satellite data originated in the blogosphere. i

 

LOL - Christy's own post below provides evidence on how unreliable the satellites have been in the past for identifying global trends. They are better now (hopefully) but still have lower signal to noise ratio than surface temps due to ENSO sensitivity and shorter record. If we get a moderate/strong El Nino this year they will spike high and their "blogosphere" supporters will at least temporarily abandon ship.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 

-

[skierinvermont]

The fact remains, ground datasets, do undergo substantial revisions which call "entire global datasets" to be "brought into question"...and then revised....case in point, GISS for US:

 

 

 

I was about to say. The revisions to both GISS and the CRUTEMP/HADCRUT datasets have been much larger than the revisions to the satellite data to this point. It's not even close when the changes are aggregated in value.

Like the majority of pseudoscientific rumors do, the idea that surface datasets are superior to satellite data originated in the blogosphere.

 

 

These are not revisions. They are adjustments that regularly occur as part of a consistent methodology. Revisions in methodology have occurred with the surface datasets to improve it, but the difference is quite small. 

 

What has occurred with satellite datasets is quite different. Large revisions and differences in methodology and the associated results have been common. I could cite you half a dozen different sources and versions of satellite data that show a huge variation in results. Not at all confidence inspiring. 

 

Nor is the assertion that surface datasets a 'blogosphere rumor.' It is a position supported throughout the literature based on the larger error bars found in the satellite data sets, and in the uncertainty found in studies such as the one that started this conversation.

 

This is simply not true, as any scientist with a remote sensing education will tell you.

Not only do surface datasets undergo much more frequent revisions than the satellites, but when aggregated, they're just as large if not larger. Furthermore, surface datasets are open to a lot more contamination..land use changes, UHI, station relocations, lack of coverage in unpopulated geographical realms, etc.

 

This is not the same as 'revisions' these are adjustments which are part of a consistent unchanging methodology. What occurs regularly with satellite data is revisions to historical data because the present methodology has been revised. UAH and RSS have both had major revisions, and outside groups have also produced significantly different results from UAH or RSS (STAR among others). 

[skierinvermont]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 

-

uah1997.gif

 

Wow reading that really makes you call into question Christy's credibility. Adamant to the end that no warming occurred 1979-1997 and that his results are extremely accurate. What was it, a year later, that he was forced revise to a substantial warming trend?

 

I mean I knew he held those positions, but reading how adamant he was and how 'extremely accurate' he thought UAH was, really drives home the point.

 

Maybe that's SOC's problem - he thinks Christy and Spencer comprise all of or a significant portion of the remote sensing community - when in reality they should barely be considered scientists at all. Christy's unfounded confidence in his results is completely unscientific and unprofessional. 

[AvantHiatus]

Not to bring in semantics but we all know about Roy Spencer. He has a history of skepticism of the mainstream AGW theory.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Maybe that's SOC's problem - he thinks Christy and Spencer comprise all of or a significant portion of the remote sensing community - when in reality they should barely be considered scientists at all. Christy's unfounded confidence in his results is completely unscientific and unprofessional.

I've never met Spencer or Christy, but I have met about a dozen other remote sensing gurus here on campus. I have no idea what you're talking about, honestly. It also sounds like you're blindly accepting the conclusions of a week-old paper that you admitted to not having read yet. It might very well be flawed itself..these RS papers are almost always rebutted.

My take is, unless you have a postgraduate degree in remote sensing, you probably don't have the knowledge base to question the integrity of scientists who do, especially if you're basing it all on a week-old paper you admitted to not having not read. I'm not that well versed in RS, either, so I keep my head low. You should probably do the same.

I'm going to try and refrain from starting another back and forth, but I can say with certainty that a lot of what is said here regarding the satellite datasets is flat out crap, with excessive hyperbole thrown in for good measure.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Oh, and "adjustments" = statistical revisions. They're the same thing.

[nflwxman]

I've never met Spencer or Christy, but I have met about a dozen other remote sensing gurus here on campus. I have no idea what you're talking about, honestly. It also sounds like you're blindly accepting the conclusions of a week-old paper that you admitted to not having read yet. It might very well be flawed itself..these RS papers are almost always rebutted.

My take is, unless you have a postgraduate degree in remote sensing, you probably don't have the knowledge base to question the integrity of scientists who do, especially if you're basing it all on a week-old paper you admitted to not having not read. I'm not that well versed in RS, either, so I keep my head low. You should probably do the same.

I'm going to try and refrain from starting another back and forth, but I can say with certainty that a lot of what is said here regarding the satellite datasets is flat out crap, with excessive hyperbole thrown in for good measure.

 

Wow if this was mentality of the general public when it came to climate change, we'd be in much better shape these days...

[skierinvermont]

Oh, and "adjustments" = statistical revisions. They're the same thing.

 

No there is a very clear difference. If you can't understand that, or if you're just going to brush it under the rug because it's inconvenient, you have a serious problem

 

The adjustments to GISS are done according to a consistent methodology that does not change because of biases in the raw data. Periodic revisions to the methodology do occur, but they have only very small effects on the trend (the largest example would probably be the change from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4 which now includes arctic temperatures).

 

The revisions to satellite data occur due to significant changes in the methodology itself because the methods are highly uncertain and experimental.

 

There is a very significant difference.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The adjustments to GISS are done according to a consistent methodology that does not change because of biases in the raw data. Periodic revisions to the methodology do occur, but they have only very small effects on the trend (the largest example would probably be the change from Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4 which now includes arctic temperatures).

There is a very significant difference.

It's not "GISS's methodology", it's the ever changing homogenization techniques in UHCN et al and independent aggregated interfaces that are largely responsible for the significant changes to the observed surface temperature trend(s) at the surface. Not only did the cumulative "adjustments" to the global surface station network since 1979 lead to a larger overall change in the temperature trend, but they were also much more frequent.

Whether you call them "revisions" or "adjustments" is irrelevant.

The revisions to satellite data occur due to significant changes in the methodology itself because the methods are highly uncertain and experimental.

Are you trolling? This couldn't be more inaccurate.

Satellites interpolate temperature using microwave radiometers to measure microwave radiation emitted by molecular O^2 in it's the 50 to 60 GHz absorption band. Unless the laws of physics have changed since 1979, this is pretty basic stuff..

The adjustments are made for factors like orbital drift (long term problem) and cloud water contamination (short term problem). In the long run, only drift and sensor degradation can significantly affect the long term trend in the data. They're also the most annoying to correct for, but it can be done quite easily.

In reality, the "revisions" to the surface station network are just as large and interpolative as those to the satellite network. My hunch is that you're reading too much blog science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

LOL - Christy's own post below provides evidence on how unreliable the satellites have been in the past for identifying global trends. They are better now (hopefully) but still have lower signal to noise ratio than surface temps due to ENSO sensitivity and shorter record. If we get a moderate/strong El Nino this year they will spike high and their "blogosphere" supporters will at least temporarily abandon ship.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn maybe those guys are not being forthright and honest.

[skierinvermont]

It's not "GISS's methodology", it's the ever changing homogenization techniques in UHCN et al and independent aggregated interfaces that are largely responsible for the significant changes to the observed surface temperature trend(s) at the surface. Not only did the cumulative "adjustments" to the global surface station network since 1979 lead to a larger overall change in the temperature trend, but they were also much more frequent.

Whether you call them "revisions" or "adjustments" is irrelevant.

Are you trolling? This couldn't be more inaccurate.

Satellites interpolate temperature using microwave radiometers to measure microwave radiation emitted by molecular O^2 in it's the 50 to 60 GHz absorption band. Unless the laws of physics have changed since 1979, this is pretty basic stuff..

The adjustments are made for factors like orbital drift (long term problem) and cloud water contamination (short term problem). In the long run, only drift and sensor degradation can significantly affect the long term trend in the data. They're also the most annoying to correct for, but it can be done quite easily.

In reality, the "revisions" to the surface station network are just as large and interpolative as those to the satellite network. My hunch is that you're reading too much blog science.

 

No, the methodology for the adjustments to surface data have not changed much.

 

The methodology for satellite data has and continues to change significantly. As recently as 1997 Christy and Spencer were claiming the earth was cooling. 

 

These are just facts borne out in the literature. If interpreting raw satellite data is 'so easy' and 'such basic stuff' how come the methodology and results have been revised so frequently and are so different from one satellite methodology to another? There's no agreement between sources. There's no agreement even from the same source depending on the version of that source you're looking at. Scientific conclusions are best supported when their is agreement from multiple sources and methods, and when the version is not constantly changing the results. That's how good science works. In the case of satellite temperature data, it is clearly lacking. 

 

 

If you want to say that the corrections for biases in raw data = revisions then satellite data trends are revised like 10 C/decade because raw satellite data before massive drift corrections is completely useless.

 

Revisions are changes in methodology. Adjustments/corrections/interpretation of raw data is something completely different. Raw satellite data is completely useless. Adjustments to correct this are not the same thing as revisions. Revisions are when the methodology that's been used is changed or challenged by an outside source and it has been and is still occurring with satellite data. 

[skierinvermont]

The second sentence of section 2.4.4.4 in the AR5 is:

 

"Structural uncertainties (for satellite TLT data) are larger than at the surface, but it can still be concluded that globally the troposphere has warmed."

 

 

It looks like yet again you are flying in the face of mainstream science and accusing me of using 'blog science' that is actually stated plainly in the AR5.

 

The AR5 also states that "substantial disagreement exists between datasets for tropospheric temperature"

 

It also states "advances since the AR4 have highlighted the substantial degree of uncertainty in both satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde records."

 

"Several studies have attempted to highlight the degree of parametric uncertainty more rigorously. These various data sets and analyses have served to highlight the degree of uncertainty in the data and derived products."

 

Mears et al. 2011 concluded that the structural uncertainty in TLT and TMT data is on the order of .1C/decade. Which means that the true TLT trend could be anywhere from nearly zero to .25C/decade.

 

Again, to be clear, the AR5 directly supports my assertion and directly contradicts yours. You have two choices. Admit you are wrong (which you will never do). Or continue further down the road of denialism and contesting fundamental conclusions of numerous studies cited in the AR5 and the AR5 itself.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The second sentence of section 2.4.4.4 in the AR5 is:

"Structural uncertainties (for satellite TLT data) are larger than at the surface, but it can still be concluded that globally the troposphere has warmed."

Uh, do you know what the reference to "structural uncertainties" actually means? You're looking at a lot more than aggregated height-based trends here.

Mears et al. 2011 concluded that the structural uncertainty in TLT and TMT data is on the order of .1C/decade. Which means that the true TLT trend could be anywhere from nearly zero to .25C/decade.[/b]

I had to do an analysis on that paper back in 2013. Is there a reason you put your faith in Mears et al 2011, despite the fact that it found the largest potential TLT error of any published paper since 2006? It's not exactly "mainstream".