Evidence that Global Temperarue Trends have been Overstated

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated

Since 1979, when satellite observations of global atmospheric temperature became available, trends in thermometer-estimated surface warming have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes as discussed in a recent Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report [Karl et al., 2006]. Santer et al. [2005] presented three possible explanations for this divergence: i) an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations; ii) a real difference due to natural internal variability and/or external forcings; or iii) a portion of the difference is due to the spatial coverage differences between the satellite and surface temperature data. Santer et al. [2005] focused on the second and third explanations, finding them insufficient to fully explain the divergence. They suggest in conclusion that, among other possible explanations, “A nonsignificant trend differential would also occur if the surface warming had been overestimated by 0.05°C per decade in the IPCC data.”

We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature datasets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface datasets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric datasets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures (e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006; 2008, Connolley, 2008). The differences between surface and satellite datasets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination due to various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Lin et al., 2007; Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.

We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer-estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by the first possible explanation offered by Santer et al. [2005]. Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the datasets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations. These findings indicate that the reconciliation of differences between surface and satellite datasets [Karl et al., 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.

One of several papers that strongly suggest that there is a serious problem with temperature data collection and the spuriously high temperature trends derived from them.
 
Pielke is in the pocket of BigFossil, tears the tags off of mattresses and eats kittens for breakfast. :rolleyes:

hahaha, you may be right!

also from the above paper-
Again, this does not mean that increasing carbon dioxide is not a problem, nor does it mean that efforts to decarbonize the economy do not make sense. Our paper has not led me to alter the climate mitigation and adaptation policies that I advocate one bit. It does mean that there remains plenty of questions to ask and answers to find – some perhaps surprising – about the relationship of human activities and the global earth system.

of course every paper that casts doubt on any portion of AGW needs to have the usual disclaimer that it does not cast doubt on AGW
 
Last edited:
Really!

September 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.60 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now look at that graph. All satellite derived temperatures from Dr. Roy Spencer.

Right now the 13 month running mean equals that of 1998. From 2002 to 2007, the running mean was never below any prior high of the mean, except of that of 1998. The low of 2008, in spite of a strong La Nina, and the quietest sun since 1910, was higher than any other low since 2009 and was even higher than one of the previous high points.

So, you, and the blogger, state that the satellite temperature is a bit lower than the surface readings. Yet the rate of change is the same for both. For the graph lines for both are the same. Now a couple of tenths of a degree means little when the results are so apparent in the glaciers and polar ice.
 
Dont you ever look at the links Old Rocks? It is a peer reviewed paper. I link to blogs because they are not behind paywalls.

Has there been a increase or decrease in temperature trends since 1998?
 

Forum List

Back
Top