Carl Mears on Climate Data vs Models

January 26, 2016

Part 3 from my interview with Dr Mears, whose work was prominently misused during the recent hearing chaired by Senator Ted Cruz.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Carl Mears on Climate Data vs Models”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    How could the RSS data be misused. It is right there in front of you http://www.remss.com/research/climate
    I see four, count them, grafts. Global no rise, tropical cooling, stratosphere cooling, and arctic warming slightly. Take a look a the black lines, the yellow blog is the model.

    • Torsten Says:

      Tom, it seems you didn’t actually listen to what Mears had to say. Or you didn’t understand it.

      There is good reason to be suspicious of the satellite-derived temperatures, regardless of who’s doing the deriving. The RATPAC trends and RSS and UAH trends have been departing for some time now. Also, the size of the difference in the UAH 5.6 and RSS trends suggests someone is doing something wrong. Who can you trust? UAH used to be the darling of the denier crowd, but now it is RSS. Oh, but now UAH 6.0 looks a lot more like RSS. What do think the error bars are on the satellite temperatures, Tom?

      You seem unaware that if global warming is being driven by greenhouse gases, then we expect stratospheric cooling. By mentioning the stratospheric cooling trend in your comment, you demonstrate that you don’t know what climate theory predicts.

      Also, the fact that the RSS north polar TLT shows a greater trend than the RSS global TLT is consistent with polar amplification predicted by the models.

      By the way, they’re called graphs, or charts. And I think you mean “yellow band”, not “yellow blog”.

    • neilrieck Says:

      It was Ted Cruz who was saying “believe these numbers”. Mears and others said that the satellite measurements should not be taken seriously because they only infer the temperature from measurements of radio emissions by Oxygen molecules -AND- that these final numbers never match actual temperature measurements made over land and water (ground stations as well as radiosonde). Then to make a case for his arguments to downplay satellite inferences, Mears provided this flowchart of the man-made tweaks involved in processing EM satellite data:

      which can be found in this article:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm


  2. Tom, I wonder how you came to these conclusions:

    “Global no rise, tropical cooling, stratosphere cooling, and arctic warming slightly.”

    If one looks at the entire time period, all three tropospheric graphs show an increase (though of different sizes). Did you cherry-pick some parts of the graphs, by any chance?

  3. grindupbaker Says:

    To: Dr. Carl Mears,

    If I’m understanding the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure correctly, then it measures a different physical aspect of Earth’s atmosphere than is measured by a thermometer (either liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance) and it measures a lesser physical aspect. The underlying reason for the difference is that there is no long-wave radiation (LWR) inside a solid such as a platinum-resistance thermometer. I’ve never heard a climate scientist mention this.

    If the lower tropospheric (for example) atmosphere warms then there is an anomaly in these forms of energy:
    – molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat),
    – LWR energy,
    – molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form).

    The warm target in a MSU/AMSU is a solid blackbody whose temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers embedded in it. The microwave flux density from it is used to scale microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere. The issue I see is that this onboard calibration procedure causes the instrument to scale such that it measures only molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) in the atmosphere and excludes LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs in the atmosphere. This means that differentiation over time of this proxy measures only heat anomaly.

    A liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer placed in the atmosphere at elevation 2m (for example) above ocean or land surface measures:
    – molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) plus
    – LWR energy plus
    – molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form)
    because LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs are transmuted to molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) upon impacting upon the molecules of the solid and I understand that there is no transverse electromagnetic radiation inside a solid. Placement of the thermometer inside an enclosure does not exclude the LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs due to GHG molecule collisions.

    Thus, differentiation over time of the liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer proxies for temperature measures the sum of all three anomalies but differentiation over time of the microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere at the example elevation of 2m measures only the molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) anomaly with the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure as described. In order for the MSU/AMSU to measure the same physical aspect as a liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer it would be necessary to calibrate with the warm target being atmospheric gases in close proximity to a solid whose temperature is measured by platinum-resistance thermometers, or a compensating adjustment could be made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR energy + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere.

    Please inform whether:
    1) I’m misunderstanding the physics, or
    2) I’m not including another aspect of STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure that deals with this issue, or
    3) A compensating adjustment for this is made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere, or
    4) The ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere is so negligible (far less than uncertainties) that no compensating adjustment for it is required for analysis such as RSS and UAH.

    Thanks


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: