This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
( William M. Connolley 19:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I've moved here text from the hist t page and the gw page that were about the sat t record. Both pages were starting to accrete similar material and the sensible place to put it was here.
This page gets to have some balloon stuff on it too, since its closely linked.
Mears has no source, and V+G link requires "authorization".
Also, this is the first I've heard of anyone challenging Christy's claim that the satellite record shows hardly any warming. Where'd they get 0.13 degrees?
And I heard somewhere that the .22 to .26 is too recent for Christy to even respond. Why is that going in an encyclopedia article?
If you put back Vinnikov, please do this:
--
Uncle Ed 17:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The differing conclusions come from the different ways the information was analyzed.
In his calculations, Christy adjusts satellite readings for inaccuracies he says are introduced by the fact that the satellite instrument is heated up by the sun.
"They did not remove this effect," said Christy, who was in Washington this week to attend a National Academy of Sciences meeting on remote sensing.
"They allowed it to remain in the data and it corrupted all of their calculations, like a computer virus."
In an interview, Grody said he and Vinnikov were not convinced that Christy's adjustments should have been made at all.
He said that even if the data should be adjusted to eliminate the effect of the sun, he is not convinced Christy's approach is correct.
Christy said the temperature readings obtained by his adjustments are borne out by temperature readings collected by weather balloons.
Grody, a research physicist at the NOAA center in Camp Springs, Md., said he and Vinnikov used information provided by the manufacturer of the heat-detecting instruments to eliminate the effect of the sun's heat from the measurements.
(Sorry, I forgot to include a web link for this... -- Uncle Ed 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Should the article be edited to show that S&C May 2005 show a sudden jump to:
[quote=" http://climate.uah.edu/may2005.htm"] Global Temperature Report: May 2005
Global temperature trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade [/quote]
and
[quote] Notes on data released June 10, 2005:
UAH is reprocessing the complete global temperature dataset to include a new correction, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"The April and May 2005 results include that new correction," Christy said. "We expect to have the complete dataset available in time for the June Global Temperature Report." [/quote]
or is it best to wait for the recalculation?
Scientists Find Errors, Satellite Data Now Matches Balloon Data [4]. In a nutshell, the satellites were drifting in orbit and increasingly reporting night-time temperatures as daytime data. Once the drifts were detected and measured, and the data adjusted, the satellite data now measures a temperature rise consistent with balloon data.
Is this the error discussed above? Simesa 15:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There seems uncertainty ranging from 0.12 to 0.26. Is it appropriate to show 7 decimal places???? (The UAH only show 2 dp in the reports I have seen.)
30June 13:59UTC
On the caption of the new figure showing the RSS MSU data it says that the trend is 0.0129 oC/decade. Shouldn't this be 0.129 oC/decade?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Jackson ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 June 2005 (UTC)
It would be useful if someone could better explain why and how the satellite data was adjusted. As the article stands it looks to me as though people were concerned that the satellite data was not supporting their hypothesis so instead of changing their hypothesis, they simply changed the data. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but the current explanation sure paraphrases as "the data didn't show the warming we expected so we revised the data upwards". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyusrex ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone consider a few changes:
1. Mears et al is quoted as .133 but is linked to [5] which shows .134 for TMT and .192 for TLT. Is TLT a better comparision to S&C UAH .123 trend?
2. Can the effect of cherrypicking table that uses 5.1 be updated to 5.2? [6] contains some figures. Are these good enough (There seems a discrepancy between .116 and .123)? Even if not, it is clear the analysis has not only been completed but also published.
3. Radiosondes - would it be sensible to include something along the lines of Michael Tobis's comments on Real Climate
"Neither the sonde programs nor the MSU units were designed to detect long-term trends. They are enormously useful in other applications. The design and deployment of these instruments should not be criticized on the grounds that they are not especially useful for purposes for which they were not designed.
The fact that the NCEP reanalysis is implicitly calibrated to a drifting (biased) instrumental record is something I had not heard discussed previously, though. It seems this should be a matter of some concern in studies of the long-term record. "
Can we also add the finding that there was a trend in solar heating bias of -.16K per decade (from Real Climate again) which is enough to make it compatable with surface warming, (however there could be other issues with this data)?
4. The article references NOAA-9 as the problem satellite. The recent issue seems to be with NOAA-11 (see [7]). Does this need correcting or adding?
crandles 13:09
I removed the anons addition of junkscience. For one thing, its junk. For another, its a top-level link and doesn't address the satellite record. William M. Connolley 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
The previous version of the introductory paragraphs implied that the +0.123 °C/decade UAH trend has been increased by the +0.035 °C/decade correction- actually the +0.123 (updated to +0.129) figure is from v5.2 and already includes this correction.
Also, regarding the second paragraph, I'm pretty sure that the correction was applied only to the LT dataset, and not the T2 channel (which is why the latter is still on version 5.1). So I've changed the discussion to reflect this. Brian Jackson 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Climate Audit has a plotted graph of some new MSU data on their site:
The differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are interesting.
-- JSleeper 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm out of my element with this. Can someone fix the article to account for v5.2 clearly in both the summary and in the "Discussion of the satellite temperature record" section. Also, the 5.1 data link is broken. The "table" doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't include the years that the paragraph says it does. I don't think it's useful in its current form. I'd be willing to help generate a graphic if there is a point to be illustrated here. Mishlai 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
It's funny, this is from the executive summary of the CCSP report. The report also reports that from 1979 to 2004, the discrepancy exists. How can anyone trust these people? 67.141.235.203 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Though we clearly have a problem here. KDP: this [8] is wrong: the problem is between the various obs (inc the MSU) and the models/sfc obs.
Anon: please don't modify direct quotes as you did here [9].
As to how the problem should be described: given that the report concludes These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation the conclusion appears to be that it isn't a serious problem. "potential serious inconsistency" appears to be POV, as it could just as easily be "potentially non-serious incons"
William M. Connolley 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of corrections to the page. It is confusing because there are two issues. But pick any data set you wish, and the discrepancy between observations and the models are significant. All but one are 'very significant'. Saying "we've figured out the discrepancy and it's not as bad as before the reanalyis is fine". BUT, the models are still way off. And if the energy is not in the trop.(observations), the trop can't be heating the surface, period. 65.12.145.148 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
An Anon made some updates of the MSU and RSS data - but i've found some discrepancy [11] says what the Anon changed to 0.184°K/decade - but on the same page there is a paper about the changes from v2.1 to v3 [12] stating the old value 0.208°K/decade - now my question is: Which one is correct? Or is it both - depending on what timeseries average you choose? -- Kim D. Petersen 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to delete this:
An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al [5] finds trends (up to the end of 2004) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set [6]. A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.22°C to +0.26°C per decade (Oct. 03) [7], [8].
Using just the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through February 2006) a trend of +0.135 °C/decade [9]. Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.054 °C/decade [10].
It's dated, irrelavant and more confusing than informative. 67.141.235.203 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't delete them. The information is far from irrelevant. If its confusing, then it needs to be further explained, not removed William M. Connolley 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to second William's request not to delete the data. - Friendly Neighbour 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The data presented here is about 3 years old now. When is it going to be updated? Periander6 ( talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This [13] needs a ref, please William M. Connolley 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hegerl, Gabrielle. Influence of Patterns of Climate Variability on the Difference between Satellite and Surface Temperature Trends. J. Clim 2002.
Hansen, J. Climate forcings in Goddard Space Studies SI2000 Simulations J. Geophys. Res. 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ? ( talk • contribs)
Also, why does the Global Troposphere heat more than the Tropical Troposphere? Polar Amplification, go for it there may be a Nobel in it for you.... 67.141.235.203 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict and reset indent) Ah, I see now. Looks like .203 is misinterpreting "surface" to mean global mean surface temperature in both parts of the statement. In that light then indeed it's simply 1.2 < 1.5 But in this context "surface" means the surface beneath the local atmospheric column; i.e., "globally the troposphere..." and then "in the tropics the troposphere...". But in the tropics the surface doesn't warm up much, so we're taking 1.5x a relatively small number. On a global average the surface warms a lot more than in the tropics, so we're taking 1.2x a larger number. Raymond Arritt 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to mess with wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, but the US CCSP quote appeared to give the impression that all model/temperature problems had been resolved with the UAH 5.2v correction. I quoted a bit out of Chapter 5 to help clear this up. 65.91.20.162 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you interpret that for me? Rod Serling 2001 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through February 2006) a trend of +0.135 °C/decade[9]. Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.054 °C/decade
Isn't this statement kind of taking sides between UAH and RSS regarding which channels properly represent the troposphere and how they should be weighed? I think we should remove the part in parenthesis. 65.91.20.162 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Where did this table come from? At best, it's unsourced. At worst, it's original research. Oren0 ( talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see they corrected their data. Thus the inconsistency from 12/07 to 1/08. A 'heads up' would have been nice.
Version 3.1 Channel TLT - January, 2008
TLT 3.1 corrects a processing inconsistency in TLT 3.0: the production code changed between processing AMSU years 1998-2006 and year 2007. For TLT 3.1, all AMSU data have been reprocessed for full version consistency. The effect on TLT decadal trend was minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article conflicts with this published paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers states:
"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR."
Sorry that you don't like it. =) too bad. 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the graph to include data since 2006? Dan Pangburn ( talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if anyone knows how to update a graph here is a more current one. http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin I'm not holding my breath. 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Aqua sattelite was launched to end the need for questionable adjustments. Since it has been launched, the measured temperature has been falling, not rising. This may be real, or [incivility deleted - WMC] 124.148.69.18 ( talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that NOAA has read the graph for you, you might believe it. [19] 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The graph starts in a reconstruction of what is probably a cool period except that we do not really have globa
124.148.69.18 ( talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's really pathetic that the graph on this article is outdated by four years. Would someone please update it? 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
We must have different understandings of the term "out of date". 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Every month John Christy and Roy Spencer of UAH post an update to the temperature record on this website: [21]
Remote Sensing Systems also posts their satellite measurements on this website: [22]
I would like to see this incorporated into the article. There have been some complaints about updating the main graphic for the article, and perhaps since it's such a nice composition it should remain somewhere, but I think this article would be better served if the lead focused on graphs and/or summaries of the measurements of the two sets of data. Right now it is too focused on trends.
I also think the discussion of trends in the lead should be demoted to the body of the article. For one, the subject of the article is satellite temperature measurements, not satellite temperature trends. Accordingly, discussion about the trends should be a subsection of the article while the main thrust of it, and the lead section, should only address the measurements themselves. Perhaps a single sentence in the lead summarizing the trends would be appropriate, but no more than that.
For two, all the various citations of different trend calculations from Fu, Vinnikov, Hurrell, etc. are quite overbearing to be included in a summary. I am not a climate expert, nor are most of the folks who visit this page (presumably experts have more expert sources), so comparisons of varying calculations of trends from different scientists is inappropriate for the lead section.
Thoughts?
Zoomwsu ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on folks. It is now half way through 2009 -- time to get it updated. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Like: how about this one? [ UAH_glob_temp.svg] SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Based upon no objections, I have added the wikipedia public domain satellite image which contains the data through 2008. Ideally we should have an updated image showing both RSS and UAH updated to the present date but one is not available. As the data sets are public domain I guess anyone could load them into Excel and generate a chart graphic and make it public domain and upload it to wikipedia. But since RSS and UAH are highly congruent I guess this is fine for now. SunSw0rd ( talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
William Connolley reverted the RSS and UAH satellite comparisons asserting it was a "pointless dupl image". However it is not a pointless duplicate image because in fact it does not congruently map to the image provided by Dragons_flight. The released to public domain image I posted is directly based on the public domain data from RSS (link provided on image page) and UAH data (link provided on image page) -- whereas there is no evidence provided from where or how the image that Robert A. Rohde (aka Dragons_flight) was generated. As the images do NOT in fact map accurately to one another, and as the image I provided IS directly from the RSS and UAH data with no manipulation or processing whatsoever (including no calculated trendlines) I am reverting Mr. Connolley's revert -- AND -- if it is reverted again I will formally request moderation. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
User Atmoz reverted new graphic stating: "there is no information in this graph not present in the other graph in lead". However this is not quite accurate on two counts. First the other graphic only had data through 2005 but was suddenly updated on July 31st 2009 after I posted the new public domain image. It now has data extending to present -- but look at the raw RSS and UAH data (from the links). The Dragons_flight graphic is NOT accurate for RSS and UAH monthly global temperature anomalies -- I don't know what the processing was that was used to generate the image but it is inaccurate. If anything based on this change the original image should be deleted. Second as Kim Petersen pointed out (above) trend lines are not part of the actual data set -- I deliberately did not include any trend lines in the new image for this reason (and it is a valid one). Thus I am reverting back. Please note -- due to the problems notes with the original (Dragons_flight) image if one must be deleted the new image is the one that accurately reflects the current RSS and UAH public domain data sets without any image manipulation or unknown effects processing. Thank you. SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
+++
RSS has just released the July 2009 anomaly -- jumped up to .410°C. When UAH releases I will update the image and, if the related public domain data source links from RSS and UAH are new files, I will update the file links on the image page. Please note that changes to source image will be automatically reflected on page when viewed (standard HTTP effect) therefore no page edits will be required to show the up to data global temperature anomalies from RSS and UAH. I will update and upload the image monthly as new data is released each month. Regards to all, SunSw0rd ( talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
+++
The fundamental issues here that I see are these. (1) The current (lead) graphic has apparently been processed in such a way that it is inaccurate. For example -- look closely at the period between 1980 and 1985. In the raw data the high anomaly for RSS is 0.271 (March of 1983), and the high anomaly for UAH is 0.245 (also March 1983). Now look at the Dragons_flight image. It references for example the same UAH data set here but the image shows rather than 0.245 something that appears to be just less than 0.4 at that point in the graph. The reason for the discrepancy is not explained. In fact at multiple points the lead image does not appear to map to the data set referenced. I am open to an explanation as to what is happening here.
(2) A second difference relates to the RSS source files. Dragons_flight asserts that the source data for RSS is here, whereas the source file for the public domain image I uploaded is here. The difference is notable, and the distinction appears in two ways. First, the Dragons_flight source file is suffixed _v03_0.txt, whereas the one I reference is suffixed _v03_2.txt. The one I reference maps very congruently to UAH, whereas the version Dragons_flight references not only does not map to RSS, but it does not appear to map to the Dragons_flight image either. Again, compare the month of March for 1983 for a common reference point. As best as I can determine, no column in the RSS data file referenced by Dragons_flight maps to the Dragons_flight image.
It is for these reasons that I generated a public domain image from the public domain referenced data sets. Anyone can look at the image I provided and month by month validate that it accurately corresponds to the column one global temperature anomalies for both data files for both RSS and UAH. There have been comments that the image I posted is "amateurish". I would assert that the image as it exists now (see [ here]) is very clear, easy to read, and easy to visually map the displayed data points to the corresponding data points in the referenced text files.
Please provide an explanation as to the discrepancies in the current "lead image" with the referenced data files for that image. Thank you. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Finally made it. Just a couple issues I have to fix: somehow little lines ended up underneath the degree symbols, and the lines for the data are too narrow IMO. It also doesn't have the complementary traditional measurements that Dragons Flight has in their image. But before I address those issues, is it basically acceptable in your collective opinions or not? Awickert ( talk) 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It looks good. I looked at the file history for your image and it shows a lot of good work incorporating the suggested changes. It appears good to go. SunSw0rd ( talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I will create a new figure if the community wants one. I am putting a brief questionnaire after this. I will answer for myself first: Awickert ( talk) 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please choose:
(a) Do you want a new fig or DF's one? (if you answer DF, you're done)
(b) Do you want
Dude. It doesn't matter what you do. They aren't going to let you post the new graphic. No matter how many hoops you jump through. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Several years ago, there were error bars on the data. I looked through the article history, but it doesn't appear to go back far enough. Should we get these restored? I recall them being pretty large and thusly, perhaps germane.
I know Cristy originally supplied error bars, although I have no idea how they've changed since his earlier versions. 66.195.102.82 ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
( William M. Connolley 19:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I've moved here text from the hist t page and the gw page that were about the sat t record. Both pages were starting to accrete similar material and the sensible place to put it was here.
This page gets to have some balloon stuff on it too, since its closely linked.
Mears has no source, and V+G link requires "authorization".
Also, this is the first I've heard of anyone challenging Christy's claim that the satellite record shows hardly any warming. Where'd they get 0.13 degrees?
And I heard somewhere that the .22 to .26 is too recent for Christy to even respond. Why is that going in an encyclopedia article?
If you put back Vinnikov, please do this:
--
Uncle Ed 17:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The differing conclusions come from the different ways the information was analyzed.
In his calculations, Christy adjusts satellite readings for inaccuracies he says are introduced by the fact that the satellite instrument is heated up by the sun.
"They did not remove this effect," said Christy, who was in Washington this week to attend a National Academy of Sciences meeting on remote sensing.
"They allowed it to remain in the data and it corrupted all of their calculations, like a computer virus."
In an interview, Grody said he and Vinnikov were not convinced that Christy's adjustments should have been made at all.
He said that even if the data should be adjusted to eliminate the effect of the sun, he is not convinced Christy's approach is correct.
Christy said the temperature readings obtained by his adjustments are borne out by temperature readings collected by weather balloons.
Grody, a research physicist at the NOAA center in Camp Springs, Md., said he and Vinnikov used information provided by the manufacturer of the heat-detecting instruments to eliminate the effect of the sun's heat from the measurements.
(Sorry, I forgot to include a web link for this... -- Uncle Ed 18:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Should the article be edited to show that S&C May 2005 show a sudden jump to:
[quote=" http://climate.uah.edu/may2005.htm"] Global Temperature Report: May 2005
Global temperature trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade [/quote]
and
[quote] Notes on data released June 10, 2005:
UAH is reprocessing the complete global temperature dataset to include a new correction, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"The April and May 2005 results include that new correction," Christy said. "We expect to have the complete dataset available in time for the June Global Temperature Report." [/quote]
or is it best to wait for the recalculation?
Scientists Find Errors, Satellite Data Now Matches Balloon Data [4]. In a nutshell, the satellites were drifting in orbit and increasingly reporting night-time temperatures as daytime data. Once the drifts were detected and measured, and the data adjusted, the satellite data now measures a temperature rise consistent with balloon data.
Is this the error discussed above? Simesa 15:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There seems uncertainty ranging from 0.12 to 0.26. Is it appropriate to show 7 decimal places???? (The UAH only show 2 dp in the reports I have seen.)
30June 13:59UTC
On the caption of the new figure showing the RSS MSU data it says that the trend is 0.0129 oC/decade. Shouldn't this be 0.129 oC/decade?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Jackson ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 June 2005 (UTC)
It would be useful if someone could better explain why and how the satellite data was adjusted. As the article stands it looks to me as though people were concerned that the satellite data was not supporting their hypothesis so instead of changing their hypothesis, they simply changed the data. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but the current explanation sure paraphrases as "the data didn't show the warming we expected so we revised the data upwards". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyusrex ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone consider a few changes:
1. Mears et al is quoted as .133 but is linked to [5] which shows .134 for TMT and .192 for TLT. Is TLT a better comparision to S&C UAH .123 trend?
2. Can the effect of cherrypicking table that uses 5.1 be updated to 5.2? [6] contains some figures. Are these good enough (There seems a discrepancy between .116 and .123)? Even if not, it is clear the analysis has not only been completed but also published.
3. Radiosondes - would it be sensible to include something along the lines of Michael Tobis's comments on Real Climate
"Neither the sonde programs nor the MSU units were designed to detect long-term trends. They are enormously useful in other applications. The design and deployment of these instruments should not be criticized on the grounds that they are not especially useful for purposes for which they were not designed.
The fact that the NCEP reanalysis is implicitly calibrated to a drifting (biased) instrumental record is something I had not heard discussed previously, though. It seems this should be a matter of some concern in studies of the long-term record. "
Can we also add the finding that there was a trend in solar heating bias of -.16K per decade (from Real Climate again) which is enough to make it compatable with surface warming, (however there could be other issues with this data)?
4. The article references NOAA-9 as the problem satellite. The recent issue seems to be with NOAA-11 (see [7]). Does this need correcting or adding?
crandles 13:09
I removed the anons addition of junkscience. For one thing, its junk. For another, its a top-level link and doesn't address the satellite record. William M. Connolley 17:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
The previous version of the introductory paragraphs implied that the +0.123 °C/decade UAH trend has been increased by the +0.035 °C/decade correction- actually the +0.123 (updated to +0.129) figure is from v5.2 and already includes this correction.
Also, regarding the second paragraph, I'm pretty sure that the correction was applied only to the LT dataset, and not the T2 channel (which is why the latter is still on version 5.1). So I've changed the discussion to reflect this. Brian Jackson 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Climate Audit has a plotted graph of some new MSU data on their site:
The differences between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are interesting.
-- JSleeper 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm out of my element with this. Can someone fix the article to account for v5.2 clearly in both the summary and in the "Discussion of the satellite temperature record" section. Also, the 5.1 data link is broken. The "table" doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't include the years that the paragraph says it does. I don't think it's useful in its current form. I'd be willing to help generate a graphic if there is a point to be illustrated here. Mishlai 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
It's funny, this is from the executive summary of the CCSP report. The report also reports that from 1979 to 2004, the discrepancy exists. How can anyone trust these people? 67.141.235.203 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Though we clearly have a problem here. KDP: this [8] is wrong: the problem is between the various obs (inc the MSU) and the models/sfc obs.
Anon: please don't modify direct quotes as you did here [9].
As to how the problem should be described: given that the report concludes These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation the conclusion appears to be that it isn't a serious problem. "potential serious inconsistency" appears to be POV, as it could just as easily be "potentially non-serious incons"
William M. Connolley 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of corrections to the page. It is confusing because there are two issues. But pick any data set you wish, and the discrepancy between observations and the models are significant. All but one are 'very significant'. Saying "we've figured out the discrepancy and it's not as bad as before the reanalyis is fine". BUT, the models are still way off. And if the energy is not in the trop.(observations), the trop can't be heating the surface, period. 65.12.145.148 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
An Anon made some updates of the MSU and RSS data - but i've found some discrepancy [11] says what the Anon changed to 0.184°K/decade - but on the same page there is a paper about the changes from v2.1 to v3 [12] stating the old value 0.208°K/decade - now my question is: Which one is correct? Or is it both - depending on what timeseries average you choose? -- Kim D. Petersen 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to delete this:
An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al [5] finds trends (up to the end of 2004) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set [6]. A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.22°C to +0.26°C per decade (Oct. 03) [7], [8].
Using just the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through February 2006) a trend of +0.135 °C/decade [9]. Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.054 °C/decade [10].
It's dated, irrelavant and more confusing than informative. 67.141.235.203 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't delete them. The information is far from irrelevant. If its confusing, then it needs to be further explained, not removed William M. Connolley 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to second William's request not to delete the data. - Friendly Neighbour 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The data presented here is about 3 years old now. When is it going to be updated? Periander6 ( talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This [13] needs a ref, please William M. Connolley 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hegerl, Gabrielle. Influence of Patterns of Climate Variability on the Difference between Satellite and Surface Temperature Trends. J. Clim 2002.
Hansen, J. Climate forcings in Goddard Space Studies SI2000 Simulations J. Geophys. Res. 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ? ( talk • contribs)
Also, why does the Global Troposphere heat more than the Tropical Troposphere? Polar Amplification, go for it there may be a Nobel in it for you.... 67.141.235.203 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict and reset indent) Ah, I see now. Looks like .203 is misinterpreting "surface" to mean global mean surface temperature in both parts of the statement. In that light then indeed it's simply 1.2 < 1.5 But in this context "surface" means the surface beneath the local atmospheric column; i.e., "globally the troposphere..." and then "in the tropics the troposphere...". But in the tropics the surface doesn't warm up much, so we're taking 1.5x a relatively small number. On a global average the surface warms a lot more than in the tropics, so we're taking 1.2x a larger number. Raymond Arritt 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to mess with wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, but the US CCSP quote appeared to give the impression that all model/temperature problems had been resolved with the UAH 5.2v correction. I quoted a bit out of Chapter 5 to help clear this up. 65.91.20.162 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you interpret that for me? Rod Serling 2001 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through February 2006) a trend of +0.135 °C/decade[9]. Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.054 °C/decade
Isn't this statement kind of taking sides between UAH and RSS regarding which channels properly represent the troposphere and how they should be weighed? I think we should remove the part in parenthesis. 65.91.20.162 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Where did this table come from? At best, it's unsourced. At worst, it's original research. Oren0 ( talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see they corrected their data. Thus the inconsistency from 12/07 to 1/08. A 'heads up' would have been nice.
Version 3.1 Channel TLT - January, 2008
TLT 3.1 corrects a processing inconsistency in TLT 3.0: the production code changed between processing AMSU years 1998-2006 and year 2007. For TLT 3.1, all AMSU data have been reprocessed for full version consistency. The effect on TLT decadal trend was minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article conflicts with this published paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states:
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers states:
"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR."
Sorry that you don't like it. =) too bad. 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. -- Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone update the graph to include data since 2006? Dan Pangburn ( talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if anyone knows how to update a graph here is a more current one. http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin I'm not holding my breath. 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Aqua sattelite was launched to end the need for questionable adjustments. Since it has been launched, the measured temperature has been falling, not rising. This may be real, or [incivility deleted - WMC] 124.148.69.18 ( talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that NOAA has read the graph for you, you might believe it. [19] 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The graph starts in a reconstruction of what is probably a cool period except that we do not really have globa
124.148.69.18 ( talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's really pathetic that the graph on this article is outdated by four years. Would someone please update it? 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
We must have different understandings of the term "out of date". 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Every month John Christy and Roy Spencer of UAH post an update to the temperature record on this website: [21]
Remote Sensing Systems also posts their satellite measurements on this website: [22]
I would like to see this incorporated into the article. There have been some complaints about updating the main graphic for the article, and perhaps since it's such a nice composition it should remain somewhere, but I think this article would be better served if the lead focused on graphs and/or summaries of the measurements of the two sets of data. Right now it is too focused on trends.
I also think the discussion of trends in the lead should be demoted to the body of the article. For one, the subject of the article is satellite temperature measurements, not satellite temperature trends. Accordingly, discussion about the trends should be a subsection of the article while the main thrust of it, and the lead section, should only address the measurements themselves. Perhaps a single sentence in the lead summarizing the trends would be appropriate, but no more than that.
For two, all the various citations of different trend calculations from Fu, Vinnikov, Hurrell, etc. are quite overbearing to be included in a summary. I am not a climate expert, nor are most of the folks who visit this page (presumably experts have more expert sources), so comparisons of varying calculations of trends from different scientists is inappropriate for the lead section.
Thoughts?
Zoomwsu ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on folks. It is now half way through 2009 -- time to get it updated. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Like: how about this one? [ UAH_glob_temp.svg] SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Based upon no objections, I have added the wikipedia public domain satellite image which contains the data through 2008. Ideally we should have an updated image showing both RSS and UAH updated to the present date but one is not available. As the data sets are public domain I guess anyone could load them into Excel and generate a chart graphic and make it public domain and upload it to wikipedia. But since RSS and UAH are highly congruent I guess this is fine for now. SunSw0rd ( talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
William Connolley reverted the RSS and UAH satellite comparisons asserting it was a "pointless dupl image". However it is not a pointless duplicate image because in fact it does not congruently map to the image provided by Dragons_flight. The released to public domain image I posted is directly based on the public domain data from RSS (link provided on image page) and UAH data (link provided on image page) -- whereas there is no evidence provided from where or how the image that Robert A. Rohde (aka Dragons_flight) was generated. As the images do NOT in fact map accurately to one another, and as the image I provided IS directly from the RSS and UAH data with no manipulation or processing whatsoever (including no calculated trendlines) I am reverting Mr. Connolley's revert -- AND -- if it is reverted again I will formally request moderation. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
User Atmoz reverted new graphic stating: "there is no information in this graph not present in the other graph in lead". However this is not quite accurate on two counts. First the other graphic only had data through 2005 but was suddenly updated on July 31st 2009 after I posted the new public domain image. It now has data extending to present -- but look at the raw RSS and UAH data (from the links). The Dragons_flight graphic is NOT accurate for RSS and UAH monthly global temperature anomalies -- I don't know what the processing was that was used to generate the image but it is inaccurate. If anything based on this change the original image should be deleted. Second as Kim Petersen pointed out (above) trend lines are not part of the actual data set -- I deliberately did not include any trend lines in the new image for this reason (and it is a valid one). Thus I am reverting back. Please note -- due to the problems notes with the original (Dragons_flight) image if one must be deleted the new image is the one that accurately reflects the current RSS and UAH public domain data sets without any image manipulation or unknown effects processing. Thank you. SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
+++
RSS has just released the July 2009 anomaly -- jumped up to .410°C. When UAH releases I will update the image and, if the related public domain data source links from RSS and UAH are new files, I will update the file links on the image page. Please note that changes to source image will be automatically reflected on page when viewed (standard HTTP effect) therefore no page edits will be required to show the up to data global temperature anomalies from RSS and UAH. I will update and upload the image monthly as new data is released each month. Regards to all, SunSw0rd ( talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
+++
The fundamental issues here that I see are these. (1) The current (lead) graphic has apparently been processed in such a way that it is inaccurate. For example -- look closely at the period between 1980 and 1985. In the raw data the high anomaly for RSS is 0.271 (March of 1983), and the high anomaly for UAH is 0.245 (also March 1983). Now look at the Dragons_flight image. It references for example the same UAH data set here but the image shows rather than 0.245 something that appears to be just less than 0.4 at that point in the graph. The reason for the discrepancy is not explained. In fact at multiple points the lead image does not appear to map to the data set referenced. I am open to an explanation as to what is happening here.
(2) A second difference relates to the RSS source files. Dragons_flight asserts that the source data for RSS is here, whereas the source file for the public domain image I uploaded is here. The difference is notable, and the distinction appears in two ways. First, the Dragons_flight source file is suffixed _v03_0.txt, whereas the one I reference is suffixed _v03_2.txt. The one I reference maps very congruently to UAH, whereas the version Dragons_flight references not only does not map to RSS, but it does not appear to map to the Dragons_flight image either. Again, compare the month of March for 1983 for a common reference point. As best as I can determine, no column in the RSS data file referenced by Dragons_flight maps to the Dragons_flight image.
It is for these reasons that I generated a public domain image from the public domain referenced data sets. Anyone can look at the image I provided and month by month validate that it accurately corresponds to the column one global temperature anomalies for both data files for both RSS and UAH. There have been comments that the image I posted is "amateurish". I would assert that the image as it exists now (see [ here]) is very clear, easy to read, and easy to visually map the displayed data points to the corresponding data points in the referenced text files.
Please provide an explanation as to the discrepancies in the current "lead image" with the referenced data files for that image. Thank you. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Finally made it. Just a couple issues I have to fix: somehow little lines ended up underneath the degree symbols, and the lines for the data are too narrow IMO. It also doesn't have the complementary traditional measurements that Dragons Flight has in their image. But before I address those issues, is it basically acceptable in your collective opinions or not? Awickert ( talk) 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It looks good. I looked at the file history for your image and it shows a lot of good work incorporating the suggested changes. It appears good to go. SunSw0rd ( talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I will create a new figure if the community wants one. I am putting a brief questionnaire after this. I will answer for myself first: Awickert ( talk) 23:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please choose:
(a) Do you want a new fig or DF's one? (if you answer DF, you're done)
(b) Do you want
Dude. It doesn't matter what you do. They aren't going to let you post the new graphic. No matter how many hoops you jump through. SunSw0rd ( talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Several years ago, there were error bars on the data. I looked through the article history, but it doesn't appear to go back far enough. Should we get these restored? I recall them being pretty large and thusly, perhaps germane.
I know Cristy originally supplied error bars, although I have no idea how they've changed since his earlier versions. 66.195.102.82 ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)