Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful

Just another "AGW is a hoax!" rant by the uninformed.

Satellite readings have known shortcomings. Which is why they aren't our only data source.

 

I just can't figure out why so many folks are so determined not to make this a better planet and save fossil fuels for future generations.
I don't mind making some adjustments to my lifestyle even if I am 55 yo. It helps that $7 a gallon gasoline doesn't concern me, but hey.

Other than "change" is a bad word- that's why I stopped talking about climate change and returned to global warming. I've been around long enough to know global warming is occurring. With nearly 7 billion people, I'm pretty sure of the anthropomorphic part too. The US mid-term campaign season had enough hot air expended to warm the planet.

 

Run! Run! While we were being distracted by talk of global warming, the Cordilleran Ice Sheet was quietly rebuilding just over the hills, and is now just about to run us over! Flash-flood-prone Lake Missoula will start refilling next week!

 

Even if the OP and his link are correct it really doesn't matter. (as drees has pointed out it is incorrect) Just because the temperature gauge in your car is broken, doesn't mean it is not boiling over when you see steam blowing out the rad cap!

 

Given that the estimated warming for the entire satellite era is like half a degree C, over-estimating temperature trend by 15 degrees is a heck of a trick.

Read the article. Those folks know nothing. Getting from the raw satellite data to a temperature estimate requires a lot of work, cross-calibration, and diligence.

Of course, the key question you might ask, before you blow this up, is the following: Are the data from that particular instrument actually used in the global warming temperature trend estimates ?

Oh, but finding that out would be horrifically difficult. Took me, like, a whole minute on Google to find this:

Here's what Roy Spencer says. He's the guy who puts together one of those satellite temperature series (the UAB series):

"Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.”"

So, duuuh. For the U. Alabama Birmingham (UAB ) temperature series, the answer is, they don't use that satellite because they considered it insufficiently reliable.

Just to be totally wonkish, why don't I take, what, another 30 seconds to look at the RSS site (RSS does the other temperature series of record from the satellite input), where they clearly state:

"Data from NOAA-16 AMSU are no longer used.
NOAA-16 data appear to be drifting relative to data from earlier satellites."

So, duuuh squared. RSS doesn't use that satellite either.

So, actual story: That instrument has had known problems for quite a while, which is why it isn't used to track temperature trends.

And if that's not enough, both satellite series track well with the with the ground-based thermometer measurements.




Now, the really hilarious thing here is the following. The same people who loudly bash researchers for the $Billions in federal funding for global warming research are now bashing NOAA for inadequate satellite coverage of the earth. The punch line, of course, is that almost all of those $Billions went for launching satellites. Bottom line: If you want a more accurate understanding of what's going on, then you need to be willing to fund it. Given what appears to be at stake vis-a-vis global warming, you'd think we could pony up for a replacement in the near future. But that's unlikely to happen. They'll have to make do with what they have.

 

Well, color me embarrassed.

Yes, it is true that neither satellite-based temperature series uses the NOAA-16 data. So the NOAA-16 satellite has nothing to do with the temperature series.

But I glossed right over a more important fact: The instrument that went wonky on NOAA-16 isn't used to track global temperatures anyway.

Re-read the quote from Roy Spencer above.

The instrument that went bad on the NOAA-16 is an Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). That measures infrared emissions, down to a very fine scale (like a kilometer or so) at the earth's surface. (Which it would have to be, given that they were using it to produce fine-scale temperature maps).

That's not what's used to track atmospheric temperature trends.

The instrument used to track global atmospheric temperature trends is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU). That measures the "brightness" of the atmosphere in several microwave bands, tracking emissions from oxygen molecules. The spatial resolution of that is nowhere near good enough to produce local-area temperature maps.

Completely different instruments, completely different parts of the spectrum, completely different spatial resolution.

So, not only does this satellite have nothing to do with global temperature trend measurements, the instrument that went bad is not the one used to measure global temperature trends in any case.

Guess that makes it duuuh cubed.

And, looking back at the article, it was posted back in August. So, apparently, I've been able to do more actual fact-finding in half an hour than the author of that piece could be bothered to do in a few months.

To recap:

The post was about bad data throwing doubt on global temperature trends. As it turns out, the data were from an instrument that is not used to construct the two satellite temperature series of record, on a satellite that is not used by either of the two satellite temperature series.

Go look at the hype in that original article, the outlandish claims, the sweeping generalizations about conspiracies and how this has been used for political purposes, to inflate global temperature trends. But, all of it, based on data that are not used to track global temperature trends. There's a good reason that posts like this tend to get met with skepticism.

 

Once again Chogan you are an inspiration to me. You diligence is to be applauded, as is your desire to debunk the myths of the denial community with well thought out, well documented facts.

Keep up the good work!

Icarus

 

Chogan, have you thought about a career as a seal clubber?