![]() | 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 |
Don't think I belive this [1] William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
William, Shine et al. 2003 [2] report this for the lower stratosphere: "At 100 hPa, the modelled cooling due to ozone depletion alone is in reasonable agreement with the observed cooling at all latitudes."
See also Randel 2008 [3] and the Thompson 2009 [4] paper which states: "Attribution experiments indicate that the long-term cooling in the global-mean lower-stratospheric temperatures is driven mainly by changes in stratospheric ozone (e.g.. Rosier and Shine 2000; Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf 2002; Shine et al. 2003;Langematz et al. 2003;Ramaswamy et al. 2006)" -- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone give more detail on this:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/ is worth noting William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across this wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into this article. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to the global warming/climate change articles, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with this name. My question is: Should the article be renamed, Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of this article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If this article will not focus over climate change it is definitively necessary to create a new article with the old content (MSU temperature measurement?) because people clicking on links to this article expect to find a discussion about msu trends and uncertainty. Also it would be better to use a subpage to make massive changes, currently T2 trend discussion is under "surface measurement".-- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
New page created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_temperature_measurements -- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead has this: "Surface measurements are derived from skin temperature, determined by thermal infrared imagery of weather satellites."
Sounds like pictures are taken of the satellites - anyway I'll remove it unless anyone objects, I only haven't done yet as I don't know what it means by in this context 'skin temperature'. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"The temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes as well as sea and land surface temperatures can be infered from satellite measurements. Weather satellites do not measure temperature directly but measure radiances in various wavelength bands. These measurements can be used to locate weather fronts, monitor the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, determine the strength of tropical cyclones, study urban heat islands and monitor the global climate. Wildfires, volcanos, and industrial hot spots can also be found via thermal imaging from weather satellites.
Since 1978 Microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Measurements of infrared radiation pertaining to sea surface temperature have been collected since 1967.
Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past four decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, both of which are in agreement with climate modeling of the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
I've been trying to make the Reconciliation with climate models section a bit more coherent. It seems that just about all the differences between the satellite record and models it was talking about were that the sat. data doesn't show a slightly greater warming at TLT than the surface, as would be expected, and that this effect is most marked/only occurs in the tropics. I fear it's now a bit repetitive as I couldn't find a source for the 1.2 and 1.5 times the warming at the surface statements but could source an absolute difference 0.3deg C from CCSP SAP1.1, so added that. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just moved the bit Giorgiogp2 added yesterday as I think it flows better there, hope this is OK. BTW, it says that some versions of the sat data show the amplification in the tropics - that's interesting - much better in so many ways though if we can say which ones? IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd changed a link In this sentence "Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)." to point to UAH satellite temperature dataset rather than University of Alabama in Huntsville. That was reverted by JJ.
I changed it because in the past when I first came to this article I was frustrated because when I clicked that link I got the general UAH wiki page which had and still has nothing on climate science at all and no link to any. This didn't help me. What I wanted (and I imagine most people clicking the link would want) was more information about the data set and/or the people compiling it. That is available now at the UAH satellite temperature dataset, which incidentally has a link to 'University of Alabama in Huntsville' for anyone interested in the general institution instead. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ian: Just a suggestion, but your latest edit might be clearer with an insertion like "corrections are necessary for the satellite's orbital drift and decay." -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ian: your most recent edit seems okay in itself. But it did seem rather furtive, in that you did not mention what you were doing, and it is very similar to the matter previously in issue here. Perhaps you could provide a little more "heads up" in the future? -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. Sorry, point taken.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Where did the data for the recent trend updates come from? The same sources as the previously? Then the access-dates should be updated. Otherwise it looks like they came out of thin air. Which I realize is more or less what the satellites do, but it should be documented. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
See here. Using the UAH and RSS data sets from 1980 to present, apply a linear trend analysis (similar to current chart image in the article). However run the linear trend from 1980 to 1997, then from 1998 to present. Reason -- because of the huge temperature spike attributed to the El Nino in 1998. If you do this, what jumps out of the data set is not a gradual 0.2C degree temperature increase by decade, but instead a huge step change jump. Do you all think this is a valid linear trend analysis compared to the current image linear trend? SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(Moved from own section to here):
It could be made a lot clearer exactly what the table in this section is supposed to show. It seems to purport to be the global decadal trend since Dec 1978 according to Christy et al. Is that with retrospective corrections or without?
Can anyone explain the jump in the values on the table in this section of the article
1997 0.040
1998 0.112
I know 1998 was hot but to to shift the trend over 20 years that much would take some doing!
IanOfNorwich ( talk) 10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Having seen SunSw0rd's earlier comment on this and following his link, it looks like the table is accurate and the jump is due to the anomaly in 1998 divided by 20 year being large compared to the trend. This is in good agreement with the table although the site uses up-to a given year so all the years differ from the chart by 1.
So the table does seem to correctly illustrate its point. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While on the subject of this section, it would be nice to have a table of the most up to date RSS and UAH decadal trends for each of the channels, how about this:
Channel | Start | End Date | RSS Global Trend (K/decade) [1] | UAH Global Trend (K/decade) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TLT | 1979 | 2011-01 | 0.163 | 0.140 [2] |
TMT | 1979 | 2011-01 | 0.099 | 0.052 [3] |
TTS | 1987 | 2011-01 | 0.008 | |
TLS | 1979 | 2011-01 | -0.306 | -0.391 [4] |
I was thinking to add something like this table to the
MSU temperature measurements article. As a side note, to avoid confusion with the data in the article, RSS trends updated to version 3.3 are available over the graphs at the end of the page,those at the middle of the page are still the v3.2 trends:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Changes description:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#version
tlt:+0.148
tmt:+0.091
tts:+0.001
--
Giorgiogp2 (
talk)
21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Giorgiogp2, I was just beginning to scratch my head as I'd seen tlt:+0.148 on the graph there. I'll adjust and add it to the MSU article. I'm for adding it to this page also. If there's room for a list of historic trends of UAH T2LT then there should be room for this.
While on that subject I'd like to see the RSS data in that table as well. If you look at this the change is from about 0.8 to 0.15, which is a similarly sized jump but gives a slightly different impression. (Perhaps that is now different in v3.3?) I don't know if one data set is better than the other, they both seem worthwhile. I can't, however, find that data in that form. Anyone know where the UAH historic global trend averages come from? I can't find it in any nearby ref. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked to add it to the MSU article but the data is currently in the lead and nowhere obvious to put it (I won't put a table in the lede). It's too late for me to be restructuring articles right now so it's not there. I have, however, added it to the 'Trends from the record' section. There is room for a table of the latest trends in that section! IanOfNorwich ( talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that it is 2013, go to the original link ( here) and you will see the step change even more clearly. I belive this gives a much more accurate perspective of the actual data than does the current image. Also of interest is that the 2 satellite data sets diverge after the break in opposite directions regarding trend. SunSw0rd ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
See here for an update showing HadCRUT compared to RSS from 1987 to present. Again the break can be seen clearly and you can see why there have been media reports about the lack of warming for the past 15 years. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Or see RSS MUS Lower Trop. Global Mean for the past 17 years. SunSw0rd ( talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See here. How valid is this? SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
See UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere (Version 5.6). Now compare to the graphic labelled "Surface and Satellite Temperatures" on the top right of the page (I don't include the link here because it makes a huge image, just click on current image on page to view). There is a discrepancy between the UAH record in the two graphics. Specifically the current graphic shows UAH (red) having many recorded results between +0.2 to +0.4 between 1980 and 1985. However the UAH graphic posted in the link I provided above shows no correlation to this and only exceeds +0.1 for a single data point in 1983. Looking back and forth between the graphics it appears the current Wikipedia graphic has shifted the UAH data upwards by approximately +0.3 for the years 1980 to 1985. What is the explanation? SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this RSS versus UAH graphic is more accurate than File:Satellite Temperatures.png because it correlates directly with File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg. The existing graphic lower down in the article File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg more accurately portrays the data specific to the article which is "Satellite temperature measurements". I recommend replacing File:Satellite Temperatures.png with File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg and then deleting File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg from its current location in the article. Comments? SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The article writes: "Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record.". Is this a case of climate models being used to actually predict the data successfully (i.e. before it was measured), or a case of climate models successfully fitting over past data? J1812 ( talk) 10:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to read their explanation as the RSS data to 2015 is not fit by any climate model as far as I am aware. But the link is broken so I guess the art. will have to be edited? How about this as being a bit more honest: "Although climate models initially agreed with the data they were tuned with, there was a gradual divergence between model projections and satellite measurements. This problem is not unexpected as no climate model has ever passed hindcasting tests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.249.189 ( talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Satellite temperature measurements. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
For some reason - despite the tremendous popularity of global warming discussion - no-one has updated the UAH-RSS comparison graphics for five years. For five years! There are people who probably stalk here and comment me in mere seconds, yet the graph is that old. -- 84.250.122.35 ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added the "out of date" template to this article. If someone updates the chart and regression, I would be delighted to see it removed. CometEncke ( talk) 18:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39 °C/decade; avg 0.2 °C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 - 0.08 °C/decade; avg -0.25 °C/decade).[41]"
Is that enough problems to convince editors that this could do with a rewrite by someone who understands this stuff? crandles ( talk) 01:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@ William M. Connolley: the statement you reverted back into the article is based on a citation from a 2006 publication [5] which was pre IPCC AR4 and AR5 and is way out of date. In the description of my edit removing the invalid statement based on this old cite, I cited a February 2016 peer-reviewed article from Nature Climate Change, [6] which explains the clear and well-known discrepancies between CMIP5 model runs and both the terrestrial and satellite datasets. Unless you have some other justification for your revert of my edit, I will change it back, and in the future please read what is written in the edit description before making reverts. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 22:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I will wait another day and then take your lack of response as consensus on this. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 15:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
@ Giorgiogp2: The new graph you added is problematic. First, the metadata does not match the graph which apparently runs from 1975 through 2016, but it says 1981-2010. It doesn't show any trend data, so it is a jumble of lines that doesn't tell the reader anything visually. Third, why does it show RSS TTT twice instead of RSS TLT once and RSS TTT once? Fourth, it uses UAH beta5 data instead of the current UAH 6.0 release data. Fifth, who created the graph? Sixth, how was the averaging of the surface datasets done? Your source for the RSS lower troposphere data appears to be the NOAA website and not the original RSS data. The TLT data is version 3.3 not 4.0. And I'm sure there are several more problems that I haven't noted here after my brief peek at it. Finally, I am in the process of creating what I believe will be a much better graph for the Global warming page, including surface, satellite, and radiosonde representatives that I think would also better serve the purpose here, so I would request that you wait on that and see what you think. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 06:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 08:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
1 and 2 Why? the previous graph too started from 1975. This ultimately is an article about satellite and it should focus on that, i wanted to emphasize satellite data and spread over the surface temperature. Trends can be plotted this way with uncertain bar: http://s17.postimg.org/ggmd032un/temperature_trends_comparison.png or better with a box plot if an ensemble is available (as far as i know rss and hadcrut provide this).
3 If the provider of the data tells me that there is a bias and they are working on a new version it doesn't make sense to plot the bad data just because it's widely used, i rather wait for the new version.
4 I will correct it but data are nearly identical except for 3 months that differ by 0.01.
5 yes but doesn't make any difference.
6 noaa is a reliable source and the methodology to derive the TTT channel doesn't have to change from 13 years ago, the linear combination of tmt and tls is still valid today, the original dataset does change and so the uwuah and uwrss timeseries. Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:How_to_create_charts_for_Wikipedia_articles NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:05, 7 February 2017 (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 |
Don't think I belive this [1] William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
William, Shine et al. 2003 [2] report this for the lower stratosphere: "At 100 hPa, the modelled cooling due to ozone depletion alone is in reasonable agreement with the observed cooling at all latitudes."
See also Randel 2008 [3] and the Thompson 2009 [4] paper which states: "Attribution experiments indicate that the long-term cooling in the global-mean lower-stratospheric temperatures is driven mainly by changes in stratospheric ozone (e.g.. Rosier and Shine 2000; Ramaswamy and Schwarzkopf 2002; Shine et al. 2003;Langematz et al. 2003;Ramaswamy et al. 2006)" -- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone give more detail on this:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/a-first-look-at-uah-5-3/ is worth noting William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across this wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into this article. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to the global warming/climate change articles, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with this name. My question is: Should the article be renamed, Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of this article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If this article will not focus over climate change it is definitively necessary to create a new article with the old content (MSU temperature measurement?) because people clicking on links to this article expect to find a discussion about msu trends and uncertainty. Also it would be better to use a subpage to make massive changes, currently T2 trend discussion is under "surface measurement".-- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
New page created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSU_temperature_measurements -- Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead has this: "Surface measurements are derived from skin temperature, determined by thermal infrared imagery of weather satellites."
Sounds like pictures are taken of the satellites - anyway I'll remove it unless anyone objects, I only haven't done yet as I don't know what it means by in this context 'skin temperature'. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"The temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes as well as sea and land surface temperatures can be infered from satellite measurements. Weather satellites do not measure temperature directly but measure radiances in various wavelength bands. These measurements can be used to locate weather fronts, monitor the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, determine the strength of tropical cyclones, study urban heat islands and monitor the global climate. Wildfires, volcanos, and industrial hot spots can also be found via thermal imaging from weather satellites.
Since 1978 Microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Measurements of infrared radiation pertaining to sea surface temperature have been collected since 1967.
Satellite datasets show there has been warming in the troposphere over the past four decades, and cooling within the stratosphere, both of which are in agreement with climate modeling of the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
I've been trying to make the Reconciliation with climate models section a bit more coherent. It seems that just about all the differences between the satellite record and models it was talking about were that the sat. data doesn't show a slightly greater warming at TLT than the surface, as would be expected, and that this effect is most marked/only occurs in the tropics. I fear it's now a bit repetitive as I couldn't find a source for the 1.2 and 1.5 times the warming at the surface statements but could source an absolute difference 0.3deg C from CCSP SAP1.1, so added that. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I just moved the bit Giorgiogp2 added yesterday as I think it flows better there, hope this is OK. BTW, it says that some versions of the sat data show the amplification in the tropics - that's interesting - much better in so many ways though if we can say which ones? IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd changed a link In this sentence "Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH)." to point to UAH satellite temperature dataset rather than University of Alabama in Huntsville. That was reverted by JJ.
I changed it because in the past when I first came to this article I was frustrated because when I clicked that link I got the general UAH wiki page which had and still has nothing on climate science at all and no link to any. This didn't help me. What I wanted (and I imagine most people clicking the link would want) was more information about the data set and/or the people compiling it. That is available now at the UAH satellite temperature dataset, which incidentally has a link to 'University of Alabama in Huntsville' for anyone interested in the general institution instead. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ian: Just a suggestion, but your latest edit might be clearer with an insertion like "corrections are necessary for the satellite's orbital drift and decay." -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ian: your most recent edit seems okay in itself. But it did seem rather furtive, in that you did not mention what you were doing, and it is very similar to the matter previously in issue here. Perhaps you could provide a little more "heads up" in the future? -
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. Sorry, point taken.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Where did the data for the recent trend updates come from? The same sources as the previously? Then the access-dates should be updated. Otherwise it looks like they came out of thin air. Which I realize is more or less what the satellites do, but it should be documented. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
See here. Using the UAH and RSS data sets from 1980 to present, apply a linear trend analysis (similar to current chart image in the article). However run the linear trend from 1980 to 1997, then from 1998 to present. Reason -- because of the huge temperature spike attributed to the El Nino in 1998. If you do this, what jumps out of the data set is not a gradual 0.2C degree temperature increase by decade, but instead a huge step change jump. Do you all think this is a valid linear trend analysis compared to the current image linear trend? SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(Moved from own section to here):
It could be made a lot clearer exactly what the table in this section is supposed to show. It seems to purport to be the global decadal trend since Dec 1978 according to Christy et al. Is that with retrospective corrections or without?
Can anyone explain the jump in the values on the table in this section of the article
1997 0.040
1998 0.112
I know 1998 was hot but to to shift the trend over 20 years that much would take some doing!
IanOfNorwich ( talk) 10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Having seen SunSw0rd's earlier comment on this and following his link, it looks like the table is accurate and the jump is due to the anomaly in 1998 divided by 20 year being large compared to the trend. This is in good agreement with the table although the site uses up-to a given year so all the years differ from the chart by 1.
So the table does seem to correctly illustrate its point. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While on the subject of this section, it would be nice to have a table of the most up to date RSS and UAH decadal trends for each of the channels, how about this:
Channel | Start | End Date | RSS Global Trend (K/decade) [1] | UAH Global Trend (K/decade) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TLT | 1979 | 2011-01 | 0.163 | 0.140 [2] |
TMT | 1979 | 2011-01 | 0.099 | 0.052 [3] |
TTS | 1987 | 2011-01 | 0.008 | |
TLS | 1979 | 2011-01 | -0.306 | -0.391 [4] |
I was thinking to add something like this table to the
MSU temperature measurements article. As a side note, to avoid confusion with the data in the article, RSS trends updated to version 3.3 are available over the graphs at the end of the page,those at the middle of the page are still the v3.2 trends:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Changes description:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#version
tlt:+0.148
tmt:+0.091
tts:+0.001
--
Giorgiogp2 (
talk)
21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Giorgiogp2, I was just beginning to scratch my head as I'd seen tlt:+0.148 on the graph there. I'll adjust and add it to the MSU article. I'm for adding it to this page also. If there's room for a list of historic trends of UAH T2LT then there should be room for this.
While on that subject I'd like to see the RSS data in that table as well. If you look at this the change is from about 0.8 to 0.15, which is a similarly sized jump but gives a slightly different impression. (Perhaps that is now different in v3.3?) I don't know if one data set is better than the other, they both seem worthwhile. I can't, however, find that data in that form. Anyone know where the UAH historic global trend averages come from? I can't find it in any nearby ref. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked to add it to the MSU article but the data is currently in the lead and nowhere obvious to put it (I won't put a table in the lede). It's too late for me to be restructuring articles right now so it's not there. I have, however, added it to the 'Trends from the record' section. There is room for a table of the latest trends in that section! IanOfNorwich ( talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that it is 2013, go to the original link ( here) and you will see the step change even more clearly. I belive this gives a much more accurate perspective of the actual data than does the current image. Also of interest is that the 2 satellite data sets diverge after the break in opposite directions regarding trend. SunSw0rd ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
See here for an update showing HadCRUT compared to RSS from 1987 to present. Again the break can be seen clearly and you can see why there have been media reports about the lack of warming for the past 15 years. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Or see RSS MUS Lower Trop. Global Mean for the past 17 years. SunSw0rd ( talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
See here. How valid is this? SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
See UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere (Version 5.6). Now compare to the graphic labelled "Surface and Satellite Temperatures" on the top right of the page (I don't include the link here because it makes a huge image, just click on current image on page to view). There is a discrepancy between the UAH record in the two graphics. Specifically the current graphic shows UAH (red) having many recorded results between +0.2 to +0.4 between 1980 and 1985. However the UAH graphic posted in the link I provided above shows no correlation to this and only exceeds +0.1 for a single data point in 1983. Looking back and forth between the graphics it appears the current Wikipedia graphic has shifted the UAH data upwards by approximately +0.3 for the years 1980 to 1985. What is the explanation? SunSw0rd ( talk) 19:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that this RSS versus UAH graphic is more accurate than File:Satellite Temperatures.png because it correlates directly with File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg. The existing graphic lower down in the article File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg more accurately portrays the data specific to the article which is "Satellite temperature measurements". I recommend replacing File:Satellite Temperatures.png with File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg and then deleting File:Radiosonde_Satellite_Surface_Temperature.svg from its current location in the article. Comments? SunSw0rd ( talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The article writes: "Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record.". Is this a case of climate models being used to actually predict the data successfully (i.e. before it was measured), or a case of climate models successfully fitting over past data? J1812 ( talk) 10:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to read their explanation as the RSS data to 2015 is not fit by any climate model as far as I am aware. But the link is broken so I guess the art. will have to be edited? How about this as being a bit more honest: "Although climate models initially agreed with the data they were tuned with, there was a gradual divergence between model projections and satellite measurements. This problem is not unexpected as no climate model has ever passed hindcasting tests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.249.189 ( talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Satellite temperature measurements. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
For some reason - despite the tremendous popularity of global warming discussion - no-one has updated the UAH-RSS comparison graphics for five years. For five years! There are people who probably stalk here and comment me in mere seconds, yet the graph is that old. -- 84.250.122.35 ( talk) 14:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added the "out of date" template to this article. If someone updates the chart and regression, I would be delighted to see it removed. CometEncke ( talk) 18:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39 °C/decade; avg 0.2 °C/decade) and a cooling of the stratosphere (models range for TLS/T4 -0.7 - 0.08 °C/decade; avg -0.25 °C/decade).[41]"
Is that enough problems to convince editors that this could do with a rewrite by someone who understands this stuff? crandles ( talk) 01:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@ William M. Connolley: the statement you reverted back into the article is based on a citation from a 2006 publication [5] which was pre IPCC AR4 and AR5 and is way out of date. In the description of my edit removing the invalid statement based on this old cite, I cited a February 2016 peer-reviewed article from Nature Climate Change, [6] which explains the clear and well-known discrepancies between CMIP5 model runs and both the terrestrial and satellite datasets. Unless you have some other justification for your revert of my edit, I will change it back, and in the future please read what is written in the edit description before making reverts. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 22:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I will wait another day and then take your lack of response as consensus on this. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 15:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
@ Giorgiogp2: The new graph you added is problematic. First, the metadata does not match the graph which apparently runs from 1975 through 2016, but it says 1981-2010. It doesn't show any trend data, so it is a jumble of lines that doesn't tell the reader anything visually. Third, why does it show RSS TTT twice instead of RSS TLT once and RSS TTT once? Fourth, it uses UAH beta5 data instead of the current UAH 6.0 release data. Fifth, who created the graph? Sixth, how was the averaging of the surface datasets done? Your source for the RSS lower troposphere data appears to be the NOAA website and not the original RSS data. The TLT data is version 3.3 not 4.0. And I'm sure there are several more problems that I haven't noted here after my brief peek at it. Finally, I am in the process of creating what I believe will be a much better graph for the Global warming page, including surface, satellite, and radiosonde representatives that I think would also better serve the purpose here, so I would request that you wait on that and see what you think. -- TheClarinetGuy talk 06:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 08:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
1 and 2 Why? the previous graph too started from 1975. This ultimately is an article about satellite and it should focus on that, i wanted to emphasize satellite data and spread over the surface temperature. Trends can be plotted this way with uncertain bar: http://s17.postimg.org/ggmd032un/temperature_trends_comparison.png or better with a box plot if an ensemble is available (as far as i know rss and hadcrut provide this).
3 If the provider of the data tells me that there is a bias and they are working on a new version it doesn't make sense to plot the bad data just because it's widely used, i rather wait for the new version.
4 I will correct it but data are nearly identical except for 3 months that differ by 0.01.
5 yes but doesn't make any difference.
6 noaa is a reliable source and the methodology to derive the TTT channel doesn't have to change from 13 years ago, the linear combination of tmt and tls is still valid today, the original dataset does change and so the uwuah and uwrss timeseries. Giorgiogp2 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:How_to_create_charts_for_Wikipedia_articles NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)