Climate data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, often cited in climate denier publications, has been found to be biased by not taking into account changes in satellites during their lifetime. Researchers at the University of Washington have shown that if this variation is taken into account, a result close to other models is reached
A new study brings satellite data closer to global warming models
One climate data series that shows a smaller warming trend than other series contains a data calibration problem, and when the calibration is corrected, the results fall within the range of the other climate models and records. This is according to a study by the University of Washington.
This study is important because it helps confirm that the models simulating global warming are in agreement with the observations, says Stephen Po-Cheadley, a doctoral student in the field of atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper with Kiang Fu, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University Washington.
They identified a problem with the temperature data measured by satellites and fed into the model at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The researchers there were the first to publish the data in 1989 and it is widely cited on the websites of climate skeptics who use it to cast doubt on models showing the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
In the new study, published this month in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology of the American Meteorological Society, Poe-Chadley and Poe examine the Alabama data together with temperature data measured from satellites whose records were developed by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency NOAA and separately using remote sensing instruments .
Scientists like Poe-Chadley and Poe study the three databases because each draws different conclusions.
"There have been many debates for quite a few years about the differences in the results, but we didn't know which of the data had a problem," said Poe. "This discovery reduces uncertainty, which is particularly important.
When they applied their correction to the University of Alabama's climate data to the University of Washington's lower atmosphere measurements, the differences with the other studies disappeared.
Scientists have already noticed that there is something wrong with the Alabama data as reflected in the NOAA-9 satellite records, a satellite that collected temperature data for a short period in the mid-9s. But Poe-Chadley and Poe were the first to propose a calculation that corrects the NOAA-XNUMX findings, says Kevin Trandbeth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "This may improve the data records, as long as the University of Alabama at Huntsville accepts them." said.
To find a way to correct the data, Poe-Chadley and Poe examined the way the NOAA-9 data was interpreted and compared it to data collected from weather balloons, which also measured the temperature in the troposphere (the surface of the earth and the layer of air closest to it). They discovered that the Alabama researchers calculated various factors incorrectly, in order to overcome variability in the measurements of the NOAA-9 data itself, which affected the trend in these data.
Just as a baker uses the thermometer on the oven to estimate the correct temperature of the oven, and adjust the oven dial accordingly, the researchers may adjust the temperature data collected by the satellites. This is because the calibration of the instruments used to measure the Earth's surface from the satellite changes after the satellite is launched, and because the satellite readings are calibrated by the temperature of the satellites themselves. The three groups separately made adjustments by comparing the satellite data with those of other satellites that were in service at the time.
After the two made the necessary corrections the Alabama-Huntsville records show a warming of 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade in the tropics since 1979 instead of the previous figure which showed a warming of 0.07 degrees per decade. Measurements made on the surface in the tropics show a warming of 0.12 degrees per decade.
The remote sensing data and NOAA reports continue to reflect warming in the troposphere close to the surface measurements, at a rate of 0.14 degrees and 0.18 degrees respectively. The differences are due to the fact that the records consist of data from more than 10 satellites launched since 1978 that use microwaves to determine the temperature of the atmosphere. However, gathering the data collected from these satellites to find out how the climate has changed over time is a complicated task. Other factors that scientists must take into account include the drift of the satellites over time and the differences in the instruments designed to measure the air temperature on board these satellites.
The temperature reports mainly contain the heat measurements in the troposphere, which extends from the surface of the earth to a height of about 15 kilometers, a layer where most weather events occur. Climate models show that this region of the atmosphere will warm significantly due to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, scientists expect that in some areas, such as above the tropics, the troposphere will warm faster than the Earth's surface as a whole.
The new study does not solve all the problems with the compatibility between the data records and the researchers say they will continue to look for solutions to this inconsistency. "It will be interesting to see that these differences will be resolved in the coming years" says Feh-Chadli.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
20 תגובות
"There is no global warming" How old are you?
Yo, you're an idiot in August, you say there is warming without any doubt, and in May you wrote that warming is small for you, shut up, contradicting yourself, Patt, there is no warming, I haven't decided
Regarding TV forecasters
https://www.hayadan.org.il/half-of-weathermen-in-us-deny-global-warming-240112/
The Koch brothers finance in the US everything that moves and speaks against warming, from an attempt. Except that they bought the Republican Party, and there are forecasters and unfortunately also scientists who prefer what they mistakenly think is Republican ideology (which was hijacked as mentioned by the Koch brothers) over science.
There are many alternatives to fuel, I have already mentioned more than once that the solar radiation that reaches the earth in one hour is enough for all humanity for a whole year. The only problem is that it is not a renewable fuel, and there is not a single Teshuva style producer who will make money from it. It will turn into a commodity market (the panels), in which anyway it is a one-time expenditure that is enough for 20-25 years and until then it will be the children of the first seller who will be able to sell again, therefore this breaks the capitalist economic model of product addiction.
We won't cry about it. Milton Friedman's savage capitalism in which only tycoons have the right to exist has caused a lot of damage to the middle class it was supposed to promote, even in Israel.
Why an attack? They were just defending themselves from an attack on them...
Why a site of deniers? This is the site of a former TV weather forecaster…
How do you know the Koch brothers are funding him?
Do you have an alternative to Koch Brothers fuel as of today? Why can't we talk about things without cursing and descending into personal accusations?
Another attack on climate science?
I would have believed what was written if it hadn't appeared on a website of deniers. I suspect any website or organization funded by the Koch brothers wants us to keep burning their fuel.
Indeed a very sharp (and reasoned) response!
This is how they conclude: it seems to us to be a diversionary tactic we have seen before: create a strawman problem which will allow the next IPCC report to make a dismissive statement about the validity of an uncooperative dataset with a minimum of evidence. We hope that rationality instead prevails.
"We hope that rationality will rule"...
: )
The answer from the original authors of the article (Kristy and Spencer) from Alabama (two highly respected climate scientists):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/
Ross
It is difficult to cancel what he said above with a wave of the hand
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
As far as I know, Mars and Jupiter are still in the solar system, but they are cooling.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
The entire solar system is heating up, but the scientists in Israel do not see beyond their noses.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarming.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1
Yael
A fascinating lecture that mainly teaches how much we tend to believe inadvertently and out of knowledge,
Below is a long (but popular and entertaining) lecture by Natan Faldor. The lecture is about the difficulty of predicting global temperature changes, about temperature fluctuations in short and long time periods, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QPO0lmZPM
The lecture was given a few months ago at Ben Gurion University, provides food for thought.
Regarding the comments above:
* There is no evidence of the melting of glaciers today _above the ground of the poles_ (there are two-way fluctuating changes that are sure of time of hundreds of years).
* There are changes in glaciers on the North Sea, the aforementioned changes may be _two-way_ fluctuations, the changes are in time frames of decades. The shortness of time of these fluctuating changes is because the layer of glaciers above the sea is thin (and there are warm water currents in the oceans).
* Changes in snow on the peaks of the Himalayas are in two-way fluctuations, the changes are in time spans of decades. Again, the brevity of the aforementioned fluctuations is because the snow-ice layer on the Himalayas is a thin layer.
Oops, I didn't understand you.
I don't remember when and where you said...
And it seems quite unnecessary to search.
I must have been mistaken.
: )
Sure, the link in Nurit's response above.
And I added another link for Anati:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I don't remember ever saying anything like that or maybe you misunderstood me. Can you direct me to the comment in question?
Thank you Nurit - a fascinating lecture!
Father, didn't you ever tell me that Prof. Natan Faldor is one of the "best"? Because in February 2012, he sounded like a real denier-a-tharzen-from-the-bat...
I answered, where did you get the claim you wrote? Prof. Natan Faldor says in his lecture exactly the opposite!
The entire northern ice cap that was ice until the last 10000 years melted in the last summer of 2011
The whole issue of global warming is really unclear yet,
And in 2009 we even went below 0 for the first time into global cooling.
A highly recommended lecture on the uncertainties of global forecasting
In the following interesting and important lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEogpB-L_w
Since when do the deniers follow developments in scientific accuracy? I'm willing to bet this ad will continue to appear because who will even check it? Different types of deniers use inaccurate information, which is not tested or relies on research or hearsay, conjecture and even complete invention.
As Pauli said: "They are not even wrong".
And besides, women always deny. Ask any woman if she is always in denial and see what she says (this is a joke for those who missed it)