Updated: Satellite Temps, and the Ground Truth

January 29, 2016

The newest Yale Video is looking like one of the more impactful in the series, given that it lays a two by four upside of one of denialdom’s most cherished myths, that satellite temperature data, or more specifically, satellite data since the 1998 El Nino event, are the one and only gold standard measure of whether the planet is gaining heat.

I’ve made a few cosmetic changes in the version above, added in an updated temperature graph to reflect that we now have finalized 2015 – and some, I hope, helpful graphics and animations to emphasize a few points of science-speak. (and I’ve uploaded to the Climate Denial Crock of the Week channel on YouTube, because so many of those subscribers, bless their hearts, still don’t know that I’m working with Yale for the last 4 years…)

One of the main points made by Andy Dessler, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer, is that temperature records of any kind would be suspect if they were not congruent with the actual behavior of biological and physical systems on the planet – many of which can be measured completely independently of one another – and so provide a useful check on each other.

The best example of this in the science literature is a famous 2008 paper from NASA’s Cynthia Rosenzweig and her team, in which more than 29,000 data sets of physical and biological processes are analyzed.

NASA:

Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth’s poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

The team conducted a “joint attribution” study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.

 

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Updated: Satellite Temps, and the Ground Truth”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    Gary and Keihm 1991 showed that natural variability in only 10 years of UAH data was so large that the UAH temperature trend was statistically indistinguishable from that predicted by climate models.

    Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

    Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn’t account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

    Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling (which is also a result of greenhouse gas forcing) had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

    Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn’t account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

  2. miffedmax Says:

    How does one graduate from Princeton without being exposed to the basic elements of science or statistics?


  3. […] Posted by SirCharles More "jazz"… Also => Updated: Satellite Temps, and the Ground Truth Constantly posting FRAUDULENT data is fooling nobody….. Raw data – Data.GISS: GISS […]


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: