Satellites or Thermometers?

[IanC]

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers?
"
Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures
The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.
While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.
The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.
Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.
"

satellite measurements appear to be on the 'hit' list right now. just remember that the problems for one satellite are the problems for all satellites. if you want to toss out temperatures then you have to toss out sea level rise and ice mass as well. at least with satellite temps there are two distinct groups, with different affiliations, keeping an eye on each other. the other types of satellite measurements, not so much.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sorry Ian.....the AGW religion has made it clear that satellites are fake measures of temperature!!

 

[IanC]

They seem to have made it a priority to cast doubt on them. And weather balloons too. It is easier with the balloons, just release a new and 'improved' reanalysis and send the old data down the memory hole.

 

[mamooth]

satellite measurements appear to be on the 'hit' list right now. just remember that the problems for one satellite are the problems for all satellites.

That's a particularly stupid statement. It's every bit as stupid as claiming that we can't trust spy satellite pictures because the satellite temperature model outputs have been proven to be drifting to the cool side.

But then, that kind of desperation move is all the deniers have left. Ian in particular has become a master-cherrypicker, one who responds to any evidence that contradicts his beliefs with "It's part of the conspiracy, so ignore that data!".

 

[Billy_Bob]

satellite measurements appear to be on the 'hit' list right now. just remember that the problems for one satellite are the problems for all satellites.

That's a particularly stupid statement. It's every bit as stupid as claiming that we can't trust spy satellite pictures because the satellite temperature model outputs have been proven to be drifting to the cool side.

But then, that kind of desperation move is all the deniers have left. Ian in particular has become a master-cherrypicker, one who responds to any evidence that contradicts his beliefs with "It's part of the conspiracy, so ignore that data!".

The only ones showing desperation are the alarmists like you snagletooth.

The accuracy of satellite data is far superior to ground based thermometers simply because they CHECK THEIR READINGS AND VERIFY THEM. The HCN is so badly tampered with it is no longer suitable for use in science. The massive divergence from reality by the HCN is now prim-a-facia evidence of fraud which you and your ilk want make go away..

Tell me snagletooth, your not happy with the first 700 meters of atmospheric data that disproves your CAGW meme, but your happy with the reading of the oceans from those same devices?

 

[SSDD]

satellite measurements appear to be on the 'hit' list right now. just remember that the problems for one satellite are the problems for all satellites.

That's a particularly stupid statement. It's every bit as stupid as claiming that we can't trust spy satellite pictures because the satellite temperature model outputs have been proven to be drifting to the cool side.

But then, that kind of desperation move is all the deniers have left. Ian in particular has become a master-cherrypicker, one who responds to any evidence that contradicts his beliefs with "It's part of the conspiracy, so ignore that data!".

The only ones showing desperation are the alarmists like you snagletooth.

The accuracy of satellite data is far superior to ground based thermometers simply because they CHECK THEIR READINGS AND VERIFY THEM. The HCN is so badly tampered with it is no longer suitable for use in science. The massive divergence from reality by the HCN is now prim-a-facia evidence of fraud which you and your ilk want make go away..

Tell me snagletooth, your not happy with the first 700 meters of atmospheric data that disproves your CAGW meme, but your happy with the reading of the oceans from those same devices?

And the satellite data closely matches a million radiosondes sent up that don't require constant readjustment....of course the ground stations wouldn't require constant readjustment if they weren't trying to support a narrative to keep the money flowing.

 

[Wuwei]

... if you want to toss out temperatures then you have to toss out sea level rise and ice mass as well....

Why would you have to toss sea level and ice mass too? Temperature is measured by IR. Sea level and ice mass is measured by satellite altimetry. If the spectroscopy is inaccurate does that necessarily mean the altimetry fails too? ...Two different technologies.

 

[Billy_Bob]

... if you want to toss out temperatures then you have to toss out sea level rise and ice mass as well....

Why would you have to toss sea level and ice mass too? Temperature is measured by IR. Sea level and ice mass is measured by satellite altimetry. If the spectroscopy is inaccurate does that necessarily mean the altimetry fails too? ...Two different technologies.

Both have issues with elongated pass as it circles the earth.. One you folks use and are OK with, the other you say is garbage. The problem you cite to make one unreliable are the one in the same. One you think is ok in sea level measurements but not ok for temperature.

You cant have it both ways.. It is either a problem for both or its not.. which is it?

And NASA adds 2mm/yr to its measurements by satellite to get the "expected" outcome even though it is not supported by physical measurements of historical sea level gauges, which show no significant rise, in line with unadjusted satellite measurements.. So it must be ok if you are allowed to adjust it to meet your expectations... The stupid.. It burns..

 

[Crick]

And NASA adds 2mm/yr to its measurements by satellite to get the "expected" outcome even though it is not supported by physical measurements of historical sea level gauges, which show no significant rise, in line with unadjusted satellite measurements.. So it must be ok if you are allowed to adjust it to meet your expectations... The stupid.. It burns..

11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations In contrast to the sparse network of coastal and mid-ocean island tide gauges, measurements of sea level from space by satellite radar altimetry provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world�s oceans, thereby allowing the determination of regional sea level change. Satellite altimeters also measure sea level with respect to the centre of the earth. While the results must be corrected for isostatic adjustment (Peltier, 1998), satellite altimetry avoids other vertical land movements (tectonic motions, subsidence) that affect local determinations of sea level trends measured by tide gauges. However, achieving the required sub-millimetre accuracy is demanding and requires satellite orbit information, geophysical and environmental corrections and altimeter range measurements of the highest accuracy. It also requires continuous satellite operations over many years and careful control of biases. To date, the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite-altimeter mission, with its (near) global coverage from 66°N to 66°S (almost all of the ice-free oceans) from late 1992 to the present, has proved to be of most value to direct estimates of sea level change. The current accuracy of TOPEX/POSEIDON data allows global average sea level to be estimated to a precision of several millimetres every 10 days, with the absolute accuracy limited by systematic errors. Careful comparison of TOPEX/POSEIDON data with tide gauge data reveals a difference in the rate of change of local sea level of -2.3 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Mitchum, 1998) or -2 ± 1.5 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1999). This discrepancy is caused by a combination of instrumental drift, especially in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) (Haines and Bar-Sever, 1998), and vertical land motions which have not been allowed for in the tide gauge data. The most recent estimates of global average sea level rise from the six years of TOPEX/POSEIDON data (using corrections from tide gauge comparisons) are 2.1 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Nerem et al., 1997), 1.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1998; Figure 11.8), 3.1 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999) and 2.5 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999), of which the last assumes that all instrumental drift can be attributed to the TMR. When Cazenave et al. allow for the TMR drift, they compute a sea level rise of 2.6 mm/yr. Their uncertainty of ± 0.2 mm/yr does not include allowance for uncertainty in instrumental drift, but only reflects the variations in measured global sea level. Such variations correlate with global average sea surface temperature, perhaps indicating the importance of steric effects through ocean heat storage. Cazenave et al. (1998) and Nerem et al. (1999) argue that ENSO events cause a rise and a subsequent fall in global averaged sea level of about 20 mm (Figure 11.8). These findings indicate that the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability. [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY][TR][TD]

Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: center"]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[TBODY]

​

​

[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Other reports in this collection[/FONT]​

[/TD][/TR][/TBODY]​

​

[/TD][/TR]
[/TBODY][/FONT]

 

[IanC]

... if you want to toss out temperatures then you have to toss out sea level rise and ice mass as well....

Why would you have to toss sea level and ice mass too? Temperature is measured by IR. Sea level and ice mass is measured by satellite altimetry. If the spectroscopy is inaccurate does that necessarily mean the altimetry fails too? ...Two different technologies.

the satellite is the platform on which the instrument rests. lately satellite temps have been called into question for the adjustments made due to orbital defects. altimetry and gravity effects are even more susceptible to this. plus they lack the redundancy and length of time that satellite temp calculations have.

 

[IanC]

11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations​

In contrast to the sparse network of coastal and mid-ocean island tide gauges, measurements of sea level from space by satellite radar altimetry provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world�s oceans, thereby allowing the determination of regional sea level change.​

dontcha love the way the IPCC simply handwaves away the tide gauge data? that is often many decades to hundreds of years long. and positioned where the effect of sea level rise is important?

compare that to temperature measurement by thermometers to satellites. yes, thermometers win on length of service. but what about global coverage? how many (reliable) thermometers are active in the continent of Africa over the last 100 years? Africa is a significant portion of the land mass, yet it is poorly sampled. should the global temp error bars be as large as the most poorly sampled area measured? is it correct to mix Africa's temperature history together with the much more accurate and precise US and Europe temperature histories, especially when Africa actually carries more weight because of the larger land area?

here is a map of satellite sea level rise. look at all the dark blue areas that are immediately adjacent to dark red areas. we are being asked to believe that ocean levels have been going up 10 millimeters a year for 20 years, in locations that are right next to areas that have been sinking at 10mm/yr for 20 years in a row. what stops the water from spilling from one place to the other? are the satellites picking up some other signal than just sea level height?

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says...

... fer takin' rectal temperature...

... he'd prefer a thermometer...

... unless mebbe dey got one o' dem nanosatellites fer dat.

 

[Wuwei]

here is a map of satellite sea level rise. look at all the dark blue areas that are immediately adjacent to dark red areas. we are being asked to believe that ocean levels have been going up 10 millimeters a year for 20 years, in locations that are right next to areas that have been sinking at 10mm/yr for 20 years in a row. what stops the water from spilling from one place to the other?

My take on that is that the ocean ranges from ripples to global swells. Nothing stops the water from spilling from one place to the other. It just takes time. Eddy currents would also cause rises and dips. These are two out-of-context images from IPCC. They show differing altitudes maps. I don't have the patience to find the text associated with it, but they show that the ocean has global time varying changes. That certainly makes it harder to find a reliable measure for ocean rise. I would think that continuous frequent observations would lower the uncertainty, but how much uncertainty is the question.

 

[mamooth]

The satellite is the platform on which the instrument rests. lately satellite temps have been called into question for the adjustments made due to orbital defects. altimetry and gravity effects are even more susceptible to this. plus they lack the redundancy and length of time that satellite temp calculations have.

The orbits are not the issue, as they're known down to the sub-millimeter, for all the satellites. The issue comes with how the satellite temperature models use those orbits.

That is, Ian and all the deniers are just failing at the science again. To think they actually wonder why everyone ignores them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And NASA adds 2mm/yr to its measurements by satellite to get the "expected" outcome even though it is not supported by physical measurements of historical sea level gauges, which show no significant rise, in line with unadjusted satellite measurements.. So it must be ok if you are allowed to adjust it to meet your expectations... The stupid.. It burns..

11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations In contrast to the sparse network of coastal and mid-ocean island tide gauges, measurements of sea level from space by satellite radar altimetry provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world�s oceans, thereby allowing the determination of regional sea level change. Satellite altimeters also measure sea level with respect to the centre of the earth. While the results must be corrected for isostatic adjustment (Peltier, 1998), satellite altimetry avoids other vertical land movements (tectonic motions, subsidence) that affect local determinations of sea level trends measured by tide gauges. However, achieving the required sub-millimetre accuracy is demanding and requires satellite orbit information, geophysical and environmental corrections and altimeter range measurements of the highest accuracy. It also requires continuous satellite operations over many years and careful control of biases. To date, the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite-altimeter mission, with its (near) global coverage from 66°N to 66°S (almost all of the ice-free oceans) from late 1992 to the present, has proved to be of most value to direct estimates of sea level change. The current accuracy of TOPEX/POSEIDON data allows global average sea level to be estimated to a precision of several millimetres every 10 days, with the absolute accuracy limited by systematic errors. Careful comparison of TOPEX/POSEIDON data with tide gauge data reveals a difference in the rate of change of local sea level of -2.3 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Mitchum, 1998) or -2 ± 1.5 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1999). This discrepancy is caused by a combination of instrumental drift, especially in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) (Haines and Bar-Sever, 1998), and vertical land motions which have not been allowed for in the tide gauge data. The most recent estimates of global average sea level rise from the six years of TOPEX/POSEIDON data (using corrections from tide gauge comparisons) are 2.1 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Nerem et al., 1997), 1.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1998; Figure 11.8), 3.1 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999) and 2.5 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999), of which the last assumes that all instrumental drift can be attributed to the TMR. When Cazenave et al. allow for the TMR drift, they compute a sea level rise of 2.6 mm/yr. Their uncertainty of ± 0.2 mm/yr does not include allowance for uncertainty in instrumental drift, but only reflects the variations in measured global sea level. Such variations correlate with global average sea surface temperature, perhaps indicating the importance of steric effects through ocean heat storage. Cazenave et al. (1998) and Nerem et al. (1999) argue that ENSO events cause a rise and a subsequent fall in global averaged sea level of about 20 mm (Figure 11.8). These findings indicate that the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability.​ [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I guess you missed this part of why the real rise is substantially less than their fantasy level increase..

"These findings indicate that the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability."

I guess you have a reading problem along with a comprehension problems as well. They explained why their measurements are inflated and why they have a low confidence level of being correct.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The satellite is the platform on which the instrument rests. lately satellite temps have been called into question for the adjustments made due to orbital defects. altimetry and gravity effects are even more susceptible to this. plus they lack the redundancy and length of time that satellite temp calculations have.

The orbits are not the issue, as they're known down to the sub-millimeter, for all the satellites. The issue comes with how the satellite temperature models use those orbits.

That is, Ian and all the deniers are just failing at the science again. To think they actually wonder why everyone ignores them.

You have no clue how the model extrapolates the data... Continue to show your ignorance.. Its amusing..

 

[IanC]

here is a map of satellite sea level rise. look at all the dark blue areas that are immediately adjacent to dark red areas. we are being asked to believe that ocean levels have been going up 10 millimeters a year for 20 years, in locations that are right next to areas that have been sinking at 10mm/yr for 20 years in a row. what stops the water from spilling from one place to the other?

My take on that is that the ocean ranges from ripples to global swells. Nothing stops the water from spilling from one place to the other. It just takes time. Eddy currents would also cause rises and dips. These are two out-of-context images from IPCC. They show differing altitudes maps. I don't have the patience to find the text associated with it, but they show that the ocean has global time varying changes. That certainly makes it harder to find a reliable measure for ocean rise. I would think that continuous frequent observations would lower the uncertainty, but how much uncertainty is the question.

Are you saying my map is incorrectly captioned? It seems pretty specific.

Your two maps are several years apart. You can tell because the resolution is different.

 

[Wuwei]

Are you saying my map is incorrectly captioned? It seems pretty specific.

Your two maps are several years apart. You can tell because the resolution is different.

Oops. I only noticed the caption at the top of the picture, not at the bottom. It seems like an 18 year average. Is there text to go along with that picture to explain (or hypothesize) the large regional differences? It seems the only explanation would involve a decade long change of eddys or streams. I do know that the thin blue along the US east coast follows the path of the gulf stream. It may have started changing it's course.

 

[IanC]

Are you saying my map is incorrectly captioned? It seems pretty specific.

Your two maps are several years apart. You can tell because the resolution is different.

Oops. I only noticed the caption at the top of the picture, not at the bottom. It seems like an 18 year average. Is there text to go along with that picture to explain (or hypothesize) the large regional differences? It seems the only explanation would involve a decade long change of eddys or streams. I do know that the thin blue along the US east coast follows the path of the gulf stream. It may have started changing it's course.

there are many reasons for uneven distribution of water. there are many fewer reasons for uneven trend in the distribution of water. 20 years is a long time for a standing wave to remain in the exact spot in the ocean, growing in magnitude every year.

 

[IanC]

11.3.2.3 Mean sea level change from satellite altimeter observations

In contrast to the sparse network of coastal and mid-ocean island tide gauges, measurements of sea level from space by satellite radar altimetry provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world�s oceans, thereby allowing the determination of regional sea level change.

12.3.4.5 Mean global temperature measurement by satellite MSU observations

In contrast to the sparse network of thermometers for land and ocean surfaces, measurements of temperature by satellite MSU instruments provide near global and homogenous coverage of the world's surface, thereby allowing the determination of regional temperature change.

the warmers have double standards, that's for sure