New satellite data reveals Earth is warming 30 percent faster than scientists previously thought
By Alina Fishman, Angle, Science and Environment News Agency
In December 2015, As part of a hearing in the Senate that dealt with climate change, Ted Cruz, a member of the Republican Party who competed in the last election for the party's nomination against Donald Trump, summarized the seven arguments that he believes are proof that there is no global warming. One of the arguments was that according to satellite data, the Earth is not warming.
This claim was based on the fact that until now, the data obtained from temperature measurements by satellites showed a warming trend at a lower rate than observed in temperature measurements on the surface of the ground. The satellite data indicated lower temperatures in the troposphere, which is the lowest layer of the atmosphere that extends from the Earth's surface to an altitude of about 15 kilometers, than those measured on the Earth's surface. In the past, scientists had difficulty explaining this gap, but since the data indicated a general trend of warming and the measurements on the surface of the ground were also consistent with those obtained from measuring the sea surface temperature and with the predictions of the climate models, The inevitable conclusion was, and still is, that the earth is getting warmer.
In a new study, which was published just a few weeks ago in the Journal of Climate, not only reveals the main reason for the gap that existed between the temperature data received from satellites and those measured on the ground, but it also turns out that the updated satellite data indicate that the rate of global warming is greater than we thought.
The warming is 30 percent faster than before
The reason for the discrepancy in the data, it turns out, stems from small changes that occur over time in the orbits in which the satellites orbit the Earth, due to friction with the upper atmosphere. The change in the satellite's orbit means that every day the satellite will be above a certain point in front of the Earth at a different time, so that if there is a significant deviation in the orbit of a satellite that measures temperature at a certain point at 14:00 p.m., a few years later the measurement of the temperature at that point will already be done at 18:00 p.m. or Even 20:00 p.m. Obviously, this has a significant effect on how temperature changes over time are displayed, because midday temperatures are much higher than afternoon or evening temperatures. Therefore, an incorrect analysis of the measurements will give a false representation that shows that there is no warming over the years, or even worse - that there is cooling.
The models for analyzing the satellite data have been revised and improved a lot over the years, starting in 1979, when the temperature data from satellites began to be collected and analyzed. "Every measuring device has a period when it is out of calibration, from resetting, and then small measurement errors begin to appear," explains Prof. Yoav Yair, Dean of the School of Sustainability at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. "Therefore, once in a while its calibration and resetting must be repeated. When you're in space, it's easier to do it by using universal, standardized, laboratory-tested calibration techniques, so all readings can be corrected in a more accurate and reliable way."
The new analysis of the data shows quite alarming results, indicating that the warming is 30 percent greater than previously shown from analysis of this data. That is, if in the past the data indicated a warming of about 0.134 degrees Celsius per decade, now after the correction, we see that the warming is of the order of 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade starting in 1979. Also, the warming observed from the analysis of the data in the corrected version shows even more warming than that observed from the analysis of the temperature data measured on the ground, but still less than what the climate models predict. In any case, it cannot be denied anymore - the ball is getting hotter.
"Satellite observations cover large areas of the earth, where we do not have the possibility to make temperature measurements on the surface", adds Prof. Yair. "Two-thirds of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans, and we have almost no samples of temperature measurements in the oceans, nor in the poles or in the uninhabited areas. In fact, on the surface of the earth we have reliable and continuous temperature measurements in only a very few places. That's why satellites enable total coverage of the entire planet and also allow us to create a series of reliable and continuous measurements over a period of decades. So if you operate an array of remote sensing satellites for a long period of time, the resulting data base will be very reliable and of high quality."
Reverse, Ted, reverse
The group of researchers who published the article, led by Dr. Carl Mears, belongs to the research institute RSS dealing with data analysis of measurements made by satellites. Ironically, in the same Senate hearing, Ted Cruz used data taken from previous RSS work to prove his false claim that satellite data shows that there has been no global warming trend since 1998. But of course, the results of the current study prove that the opposite is true, and unfortunately, since 1998 the rate of global warming only increased.
In the video Published about a year and a half ago, Dr. Mears explains how Cruz distorts the results so that they align with his positions. The graph that Dr. Mears created shows measurements of the temperature in the troposphere over time, starting in 1979, when temperature measurements using satellites began, and up to today. Mears explains that Cruz chose to focus on the part of the graph that begins in 1998, when abnormal temperatures above average were measured due to a significant El Nino event - a climatic phenomenon that causes warming in large parts of the earth. When Cruz ignores the pre-1998 part of the graph, he is actually presenting a false picture that shows a warm starting point followed by an apparent relative cooling. But as mentioned, if you look at the graph starting in 1979, you can see that throughout the decades there is a distinct trend of warming. And all this before the need to correct the data was discovered.
The results of the new study, which indicate that there has been a significant increase in global warming in recent decades, line up with the many other observations that scientists have been following for several decades, such as An increase in the temperatures measured on the surface of the earth, The warming of the oceans, An increase in the rate of melting of the glaciers in the Southern Ocean, Changes in sea level, Changes in the flowering periods of plants, Changes in animal migration seasons, and more. Even if there are still a few who argue about measuring temperatures, the effects of climate change are already seen here and now.
See more on the subject on the science website:
16 תגובות
my father
Every day there is a rise and fall in temperature. Every year there is an ups and downs. And you will be surprised - there are also cycles of several years.
So let's take the data in Israel, between August and February. Amazing! There is a drop all the time!!!
The problem is how to measure and where to measure, and that's what the deniers got dressed up for. Please, my father - and all the other deniers - look at the following graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Beyond that - as I have already described and others have described - we see with our own eyes that the climate is warming in most of the world.
for miracles
The fact that the deniers also manage to show an opposite slope to these graphs if you start the measurement from another place... it just means that the correlation coefficient is not exactly 1.
The graph zigzags. There are periods when the graph shows a decrease and there are periods when the graph shows an increase.
In such a case you have to show what the slope and the correlation coefficient are, it doesn't mean that you have to give all the numbers and calculations in an article on a popular science website.
But it is appropriate to clarify what this means, to explain that there is a certain uncertainty, that the trend is estimated with such and such a probability, and that there are periods in which the trend reverses... and not to bring it as a Sinaitic Torah.
my father
There is a precise explanation. But he contradicts your agenda.
Not Ben Ner - regarding the glacier in Iceland.
The effect of the warm soil in Iceland - this is not related to global warming.
Global warming is supposed to affect the upper part, it is clear that when the glacier melts the water seeps downwards and flows under the glacier and melts the lower part along the way. I understood that the glacier that was in the video is on solid ground and not above the sea.
In any case, it is a little difficult to understand how such a small change (an average of 0.17 degrees in ten years, 0.017 degrees per year) has such an effect on the mass of glaciers in a place where most of the year the temperatures are well below the freezing point of water.
I understand that there are observations where you see that the glaciers are melting more than in the past.
At the same time there is global warming.
And the logic of the duck connects them (what looks like a duck, walks like a duck...)
But there is no real scientific explanation of how it is that such a small change in temperature of 0.17 degrees per decade is so evident in the field.
my father
You always bring "proofs" that there is no warming, but when you are shown what a fool you are, you immediately say "I do not deny that the earth is warming".
are you in kindergarten Can I talk to your mother for a moment?
My mistake for not writing a full sentence.
Regarding a single measurement, there really is a change in the average and not in the error, but if you look at all the measurements, then some will move to the cool hours of the evening and lower the measurement and some will move from the cool morning to midday and increase the measurement. All in all there should be no change.
Arguing with Troll again?
After all, it is clear that as soon as he writes "I think" it does not matter what the facts show,
It is not important what the data show, it is not significant what surveys and studies show,
There is no need to consider what most scientists and researchers have determined,
The only thing that matters is what the troll "thinks"...
I have no doubt that the earth is warming and the theory of global warming is correct.
There is no doubt that we need to look for alternative energy and preserve forests.
But I think the other environmental pollutants are much more problematic than CO2. And they are the ones who should take the top priority.
To Yoash, the sentence you wrote to say:
"..Exiting reset should change the error without changing the average..." It is wrong and the opposite of right.
You should have written:
"..a (small!!!) departure from reset should change the average without changing the error..."
D.
A large departure from zero can change both the mean and the error.
To my father
Regarding your second comment; Today there is not a single serious scientist who denies global warming in the last 80 years.
The measurements indicating this are very numerous and reliable.
The open question is now asked, what is the reason, or what are the reasons for global warming?
It is true that opinions differ on this and there are several theories, however, it must be recognized that the vast majority of scientists,
The pollution of the atmosphere and the oceans are attributed to being the first causes of global warming.
Now, let's assume for a moment, purely hypothetically, that the pollution of the atmosphere and oceans does not affect global warming at all, even then it is impossible to deny the extremely negative effect of environmental pollution on
The health of life according to KDA, including human life.
Isn't this a good enough reason to act vigorously and systematically to reduce environmental pollution?
To my father
Regarding your first comment referring to the height of the glacier in Iceland, to say: "...that is, from 2010 until today, some considerable meters have been added to the glacier. (About 30 meters or more in height), how does this fit with the theory that the glacier is melting, and is going to disappear? - They didn't really get into it."
From your argument comes the conclusion that the glacier in Iceland is growing, the apparent view is that from 2010 until today it has been added at a height of about 30 m.
Of course this is a mistake. The ice in the glacier melts mainly at its bottom (!!!) under the influence of the hot volcanic soil in Iceland.
Of course, this type of mass is not related to and does not arise from the issue of global warming.
In about 7-10 years, there will no longer be a trace of the gray ice layer in the glacier, which will decrease in height to the bottom of the glacier, and melt.
The marine glaciers are also melting, mainly at the bottom (but not only) due to the melting by the warm northern ocean waters due to the gulf stream. The smaller part of the melting of the sea glaciers is under the influence of the atmosphere.
As a result of global warming and the increased mass of the glaciers from above, the thickness of the glaciers is also decreasing in the Arctic Circle.
And regarding the proportions: 0.17 degrees in 10 years, that's 1.7 degrees in a hundred years.
And what will happen if the Earth warms by 1.7 degrees in a hundred years:
1. In a hundred years, the predictions show that the carbon sources of energy will run out and they will have to switch to alternative energy.
2. In any case, the world is already going in the direction of alternative energy, and a hundred years is enough time.
3. 1.7 degrees global average is also not yet a global catastrophe or disaster.
4. Probably in a hundred years there will be such technologies that will be able to deal with global warming and maybe also with things worse than that.
5. Trump will not be president anyway, not even in eight years.
About Ted Cruz
If Ted Cruz found in the graph a point from which the earth cools down, this means that the opposite opinion also found a point from which the earth warms up, that is, this graph is a graph of ups and downs from which you can choose points from which there is either warming or cooling...
What needs to be examined in such a graph is its slope and correlation coefficient - um, none of the parties is able to give us these data, a sign that this graph does not show clear and reliable results.
This does not mean that the earth is not warming or that Ted Cruz is right.
It also does not mean that the Trampiada is a good government.
It just means that the zeal to prove global warming at all costs and the political zeal to screw the Trump administration outweighs scientific logic.
And that means that this debate has turned from science to ego wars between politicians and groups of scientists, and interested parties, so if it becomes clear to scientists in the future that there is another reason for global warming, or that for some reason the trend has reversed... they will not rush to publish it, and worse than that, they will hide it.
Really scary.
Instead of 0.12 degrees in ten years, it is 0.17 degrees in ten years...
I wonder what the accuracy and uncertainty are in the measurements of temperature from a satellite (but they don't tell us that).
By the way, two or three days ago on the travel channel I saw a program about a tunnel in Iceland that is dug inside a glacier.
The narrator explained at length that the glacier is melting and the glacier with this tunnel in... years will pass...
In the wall of the tunnel there were stripes like rings in a tree, every year such a ring is formed.
At a height of about a meter from the ground there was a thicker stripe - what is this stripe? asked the announcer
"It's dark-colored snow because of dust from the last eruption of the Ayilipi volcano...killer..." explained the expert.
Above this layer is the cave at a height of about seventeen meters and above it a few more meters of ice... the eruption of the volcano in Iceland Ayaylifiko... this Tal was as I remember in 2010. –
That is, from 2010 until today, some considerable meters have been added to the glacier. (about 30 meters or more in height)
How does this fit with the theory that the glacier is melting, and going to disappear - they didn't really go into it.
It is worth remembering that according to the Milankiewicz cycle the ball should be in the cooling stages,
However, measurements since 1979 show a warming of 0.174 degrees per decade
That means an increase of about 0.6 degrees, this is when the intention is to try and limit the increase
For a maximum of 2 (two) degrees, it is possible that there is hope...
interesting.
Exiting reset should change the error without changing the average. Or with satellites it's different.
I was expecting more from a knowledgeable website.