Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 18, 2016

I have said this on here for years. The deniers that want to cherry pick RSS datasets don't realize that they are considered less reliable than other datasets. Even the RSS Senior Research Scientist says this:

As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems (this was from 2014 before the huge jumps in global temps in 2015 and 2016, but I am pretty sure it still applies.)

WCH · Dec 18, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Huge? Like it going from 80 degrees here to 22 inside of 10 hours?

Jack Hays · Dec 18, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
I have said this on here for years. The deniers that want to cherry pick RSS datasets don't realize that they are considered less reliable than other datasets. Even the RSS Senior Research Scientist says this:

[/FONT][/COLOR]
The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems (this was from 2014 before the huge jumps in global temps in 2015 and 2016, but I am pretty sure it still applies.)

Surface versus satellite; the temperature data set controversy | Energy ...

euanmearns.com/surface-versus-satellite-the-temperature-data-set-controversy/

Feb 10, 2016 - Surface versus satellite; the temperature data set controversy ... Figure 1 compares the HadCRUT4 global “surface temperature” series with the ...

In summary , the global UAH series is replicated by the RSS series, gives substantially the same results as the independently-derived HadAT radiosonde data set and HadAT also compares closely with the Ratpac radiosonde data set. It would be difficult to do much better. We can reasonably accept that the series is correct to within normally-accepted limits of error and go from there.
And where exactly do we go? Well, if the world insists on measuring the progress, or lack thereof, of “global” warming it needs a robust, coherent and global temperature data set to do it, and the only one it has is UAH (or RSS). UAH doesn’t measure temperatures at the surface, where global warming should ideally be measured, and it goes back only to 1979, but offsetting this defect is the fact that the surface data sets, in particular HadSST3, become progressively more corrupted by “adjustments” before 1979 to the point where their reliability before 1950/60 is questionable. And as shown in Figure 10 the Ratpac and HadAT2 radiosonde data might be good enough to allow us to project the series back to 1958 anyway (The 700mb data are plotted illustration purposes. “lower troposphere” temperatures would probably show less overall warming):

Figure 10: HadAT vs. Ratpac radiosonde data, 700mb level, all data since 1958.

But this of course isn’t going to happen. The world will continue to use the HadCRUT4 “surface temperature’ series as its global warming yardstick basically because it shows more global warming than the lower troposphere. But is this because HadCRUT4 overestimates surface warming or because the surface really has warmed more than the lower troposphere? I’ll leave that question open for discussion.

Tim the plumber · Dec 18, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
I have said this on here for years. The deniers that want to cherry pick RSS datasets don't realize that they are considered less reliable than other datasets. Even the RSS Senior Research Scientist says this:

As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.

Click to expand...

[/FONT][/COLOR]
The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems (this was from 2014 before the huge jumps in global temps in 2015 and 2016, but I am pretty sure it still applies.)

The problem is that the data sets don't match the models.

That is the data sets, all of them, don't show the warming the models expect.

That is the models are crap.

Lord of Planar · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Tim the plumber said:
The problem is that the data sets don't match the models.

That is the data sets, all of them, don't show the warming the models expect.

That is the models are crap.

They keep trying to bandage broken models, when they need to start from scratch.

Mithrae · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Quoted in the OP, Carl Mears suggests that for the satellite records "the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade." The difference in trends between HadCRUT4 and UAH5 (which gives more weighting to surface temperatures than UAH6 or RSS) is about 0.0135 K/decade - less than half of the uncertainty margin. Furthermore HadCRUT4 shows less surface warming between the early/mid 1970s and 2015 (<0.7 K) than the atmospheric HadAT and RATPAC data illustrated in post #3 (~0.8 K).

Not surprisingly, atmospheric temperatures are more sensitive to sort-term fluctuations (eg. volcanism) and ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges (eg. El Nino/Southern Oscillation) than land and sea surface temperatures are. It's easy to see how much 'spikier' the satellite temperature records are, particularly around major El Nino events like 1998 and 2010. So it's hard to tell whether the minor trend differences between the two are due to some residual influence of short-term fluctuations over the satellite records' relatively short 37-year existence, or to an actual small difference in warming rate of the surface and lower troposphere, or even simply measurement errors in one or both types of data set.

KLATTU · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
I have said this on here for years. The deniers that want to cherry pick RSS datasets don't realize that they are considered less reliable than other datasets. Even the RSS Senior Research Scientist says this:

[/FONT][/COLOR]
The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems (this was from 2014 before the huge jumps in global temps in 2015 and 2016, but I am pretty sure it still applies.)

From the link.
:As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors."
There's your money quote.
the guy is showing some humility as any true scientist SHOULD. As opposed to the AGW corw who INSIST they know everything, they are right and everybody else is wrong.

And he confirms that we really don't KNOW which data set is more accurate.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

KLATTU said:
From the link.
:As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors."
There's your money quote.
the guy is showing some humility as any true scientist SHOULD. As opposed to the AGW corw who INSIST they know everything, they are right and everybody else is wrong.

And he confirms that we really don't KNOW which data set is more accurate.

Actually, what the vast majority of scientists argue is that there are a huge number of studies, each backed by multiple lines of evidence, that back AGW theory. That is why basic AGW theory is practically universally accepted. However, those same scientists would also argue that there is a lot of debate surrounding AGW theory, specifically how much we will warm and how fast, as well as the severity of the environmental impacts.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Mithrae said:
Quoted in the OP, Carl Mears suggests that for the satellite records "the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade." The difference in trends between HadCRUT4 and UAH5 (which gives more weighting to surface temperatures than UAH6 or RSS) is about 0.0135 K/decade - less than half of the uncertainty margin. Furthermore HadCRUT4 shows less surface warming between the early/mid 1970s and 2015 (<0.7 K) than the atmospheric HadAT and RATPAC data illustrated in post #3 (~0.8 K).

Not surprisingly, atmospheric temperatures are more sensitive to sort-term fluctuations (eg. volcanism) and ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges (eg. El Nino/Southern Oscillation) than land and sea surface temperatures are. It's easy to see how much 'spikier' the satellite temperature records are, particularly around major El Nino events like 1998 and 2010. So it's hard to tell whether the minor trend differences between the two are due to some residual influence of short-term fluctuations over the satellite records' relatively short 37-year existence, or to an actual small difference in warming rate of the surface and lower troposphere, or even simply measurement errors in one or both types of data set.

Not to mention the fact that the deniers out there are trying to compare year over year variations to models with 20 to 30 year resolutions. The height of intellectual dishonesty on their part.

KLATTU · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
However, those same scientists would also argue that there is a lot of debate surrounding AGW theory, specifically how much we will warm and how fast, as well as the severity of the environmental impacts.

I wish that were the case.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

KLATTU said:
I wish that were the case.

That is the case. Ranges run between 2 to 3 degrees by the end of this century (which would be very serious but not catastrophic), and 5 to 7 degrees by the end of the century which would be be catastrophic.

Tim the plumber · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
Not to mention the fact that the deniers out there are trying to compare year over year variations to models with 20 to 30 year resolutions. The height of intellectual dishonesty on their part.

So why does the scientist say that there is a problem with the deviation of the models from the data?

And given that we have had 18 years since the predictions were made with no sign of it happening in line with those predictions what the hell is dishonest about pointing that out? Just like the scientist in the OP does.

Tim the plumber · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
That is the case. Ranges run between 2 to 3 degrees by the end of this century (which would be very serious but not catastrophic), and 5 to 7 degrees by the end of the century which would be be catastrophic.

1, I take it you are talking about degrees f. not c.

2, What is so bad about +3.2 degrees c? The maximum warming predicted by 2100 by the IPCC.

Lord of Planar · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
That is the case. Ranges run between 2 to 3 degrees by the end of this century (which would be very serious but not catastrophic), and 5 to 7 degrees by the end of the century which would be be catastrophic.

As dishonest as much of this has been, and all the times predictions were wrong, why would anyone with a rational mind believe the alarmist levels of temperatures?

Why?

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Tim the plumber said:
1, I take it you are talking about degrees f. not c.

2, What is so bad about +3.2 degrees c? The maximum warming predicted by 2100 by the IPCC.

3.2 degrees C is not the maximum they predict, its simply part of the range. However, even that would be a very high degree of warming. The differences in temperatures in 1900 and the last ice age was just 5 degrees C globally.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Lord of Planar said:
As dishonest as much of this has been, and all the times predictions were wrong, why would anyone with a rational mind believe the alarmist levels of temperatures?

Why?

Most of the models are lining up quite well when you include the warming over the past 3 years. This was shown in post 6. http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...than-surface-measurements.html#post1066673833

You are trying to take climate models with a 20 to 30 year resolution (meaning they are not supposed to be accurate until you get to a 20 to 30 year time frame), and trying to disprove them with year over year temperature fluctuations.

Tim the plumber · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
3.2 degrees C is not the maximum they predict, its simply part of the range. However, even that would be a very high degree of warming. The differences in temperatures in 1900 and the last ice age was just 5 degrees C globally.

As I pointed out your graph shows a +3.3c over present temperatures. F.ing numbers!!!!

What is so bad about that? [2]

ALiberalModerate · Dec 19, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Tim the plumber said:
As I pointed out your graph shows a +3.3c over present temperatures. F.ing numbers!!!!

What is so bad about that? [2]

1. You are taking the absolute lowest projection rather than the median.

2. 3.3 degrees celsius average annual temperature, averaged over the surface of the globe (which means greater increases the further you get from the equator), would be the equivalent of giving Chicago the climate of Atlanta. If you don't think that would mean some major ecological upheavals, then I don't know what to tell you.

Tim the plumber · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
1. You are taking the absolute lowest projection rather than the median.

2. 3.3 degrees celsius average annual temperature, averaged over the surface of the globe (which means greater increases the further you get from the equator), would be the equivalent of giving Chicago the climate of Atlanta. If you don't think that would mean some major ecological upheavals, then I don't know what to tell you.

1, No. I am talking about the line at the top of the graph. 8f above the 2f we have at the moment is +6f which is +3.3c.

2, I ask again, what bad things do you think would happen if Chicago had the climate of Nashville? Got to keep it a continental interior climate not a coastal one warmed by the gulf stream.[3]

ALiberalModerate · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Tim the plumber said:
1, No. I am talking about the line at the top of the graph. 8f above the 2f we have at the moment is +6f which is +3.3c.

2, I ask again, what bad things do you think would happen if Chicago had the climate of Nashville? Got to keep it a continental interior climate not a coastal one warmed by the gulf stream.[3]

1. You are correct, I was reading the graph wrong.

2. For the people who live in Chicago, probably won't be so bad. Though I would imagine it would manifest itself into regular intense heat waves given how far they are from an ocean. For glaciers, farming, forestry, low lying coasting communities, and many species, such a huge climatic change would most likely be catastrophic.

longview · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
1. You are correct, I was reading the graph wrong.

2. For the people who live in Chicago, probably won't be so bad. Though I would imagine it would manifest itself into regular intense heat waves given how far they are from an ocean. For glaciers, farming, forestry, low lying coasting communities, and many species, such a huge climatic change would most likely be catastrophic.

I am not sure why you would imagine the warming would manifest itself as regular intense heat waves?
The majority of the warming observed to date, has been in the winter evenings.
The increase in average temperature, has mostly been from an increase in the minimum temperatures.
While reducing the number of chill hours may not be without harm, it likely would not bother most people.

Lord of Planar · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

longview said:
While reducing the number of chill hours may not be without harm, it likely would not bother most people.

My apple tree might not bloom right.

ALiberalModerate · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

longview said:
I am not sure why you would imagine the warming would manifest itself as regular intense heat waves?
The majority of the warming observed to date, has been in the winter evenings.
The increase in average temperature, has mostly been from an increase in the minimum temperatures.
While reducing the number of chill hours may not be without harm, it likely would not bother most people.

I agree that most of the warming thus far has been at night and during the winter and spring. However, we are not going to warm by 3 degrees C worldwide and not have very significant summer warming, particularly for continental locations.

longview · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

Lord of Planar said:
My apple tree might not bloom right.

That is correct, many crops rely on chill hours.
The saving grace, is the time period the change would occur over, would exceed the life cycle of most of the crops.
So when your apple tree is too old to producer a consistent crop, you plant a new one
with lower chill hour requirements.

longview · Dec 20, 2016

Re: Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements

SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree that most of the warming thus far has been at night and during the winter and spring. However, we are not going to warm by 3 degrees C worldwide and not have very significant summer warming, particularly for continental locations.

Why? So far, we are about 50% into the input warming from doubling the CO2 level, and the majority of the warming has been in
the T-Min of the cooler months. This was part of the observation in 1896, and again in 1993, and also in 2016.
So again, why would you expect the pattern to change?
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

A great deal has been written on the influence of the absorption of the atmosphere upon the climate.
Tyndail in particular pointed out the enormous importance of this question.
To him it was chiefly the diurnal and annual variations of the temperature
that were lessened by the circumstance.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=natrespapers
Diurnal asymmetry to the observed global warming - Davy - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

Senior Research Scientist at RSS says its less reliable than surface measurements.

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

WCH

Believer

Jack Hays

Traveler

Tim the plumber

Lord of Planar

Mithrae

KLATTU

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

KLATTU

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

Lord of Planar

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

Tim the plumber

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

Tim the plumber

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

longview

Lord of Planar

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

longview

longview