2 ms·

There are two sets of satellites that measure the temperature of the global troposphere, and have been doing so for over forty years. The data from one of them,

There are two sets of satellites that measure the temperature of the global troposphere, and have been doing so for over forty years. The data from one of them, UAH, is analyzed here.[0] It is increasing at 0.13C per decade, averaged over 44 years. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2023-0-37-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-...

anonymousiam 3y ago
Interesting that until Remote Sensing Systems revised their historical data six years ago, no warming trend was evident. How could they have been so wrong for such a long time? https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-da... https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss...
- defrost 3y ago
  RSSv3 showed warming, it's there on the graph. RSSv4 corrected against ground data (calibration) and normalised for time drift and incident angle also showed warming .. more warming as prior post processing results had an incorrect transfer function. As a point of order, their raw historic data has not been altered - instruments rarely directly produce values of interest, they must be calibrated against other sources to provide a transfer function between raw instrument product and final values of interest. Bimetallic strips don't measure "tempreture" - they show the expansion of metals in tension. They must be calibrated to show a "tempreture" relative to amount of bend. Traditional aircraft altimeters don't directly measure height above ground, they are aneroid barometers that reflect the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft. Calibration and barometric pressure on the ground are required to form a transfer function for height.
- jfengel 3y ago
  It's so damn weird that Dr. Spencer -- whose job is producing the data that shows climate change -- is a climate denialist. The link in the grandparent comment, showing .12C/decade, is the very same site with the denialist claim you link to. It's not just him, either. His colleague John Christy is also responsible for the UAH lab, and also a climate denialist. They are different kinds of denialist. Spencer is in the "It's real but it's not our fault" camp, while Christy is in the "It's real and our fault but not important" camp. They are, however, very popular with the camp of "it's not real", and I've never seen them reject those claims, even though they are the ones responsible for the data that prove it is real.
  - wrycoder 3y ago
    Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He believes that warming is real, and it's partially caused by human emissions. So, not different from the IPCC in kind, just in degree. It's not correct to call him a "denialist", given the above. But, he is quite skeptical of the computer models and the general state of climate science. His point is the actual temperature record of the global troposphere over the last forty years takes precedence over a number of computer models, given that many of the inputs to the models are variables which are not well-characterized. Those models are failing to predict actual events. He thinks that the 1.3C/century trend shown in the actual data is not a reason to panic and mangle the economy. He thinks that the overall benefit of global warming and greening due to CO2 may be net positive. His book is pretty even-handed.

anonymousiam 3y ago

Interesting that until Remote Sensing Systems revised their historical data six years ago, no warming trend was evident. How could they have been so wrong for such a long time? https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-da... https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss...

defrost 3y ago
RSSv3 showed warming, it's there on the graph. RSSv4 corrected against ground data (calibration) and normalised for time drift and incident angle also showed warming .. more warming as prior post processing results had an incorrect transfer function. As a point of order, their raw historic data has not been altered - instruments rarely directly produce values of interest, they must be calibrated against other sources to provide a transfer function between raw instrument product and final values of interest. Bimetallic strips don't measure "tempreture" - they show the expansion of metals in tension. They must be calibrated to show a "tempreture" relative to amount of bend. Traditional aircraft altimeters don't directly measure height above ground, they are aneroid barometers that reflect the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft. Calibration and barometric pressure on the ground are required to form a transfer function for height.
jfengel 3y ago
It's so damn weird that Dr. Spencer -- whose job is producing the data that shows climate change -- is a climate denialist. The link in the grandparent comment, showing .12C/decade, is the very same site with the denialist claim you link to. It's not just him, either. His colleague John Christy is also responsible for the UAH lab, and also a climate denialist. They are different kinds of denialist. Spencer is in the "It's real but it's not our fault" camp, while Christy is in the "It's real and our fault but not important" camp. They are, however, very popular with the camp of "it's not real", and I've never seen them reject those claims, even though they are the ones responsible for the data that prove it is real.
- wrycoder 3y ago
  Spencer is a "lukewarmer". He believes that warming is real, and it's partially caused by human emissions. So, not different from the IPCC in kind, just in degree. It's not correct to call him a "denialist", given the above. But, he is quite skeptical of the computer models and the general state of climate science. His point is the actual temperature record of the global troposphere over the last forty years takes precedence over a number of computer models, given that many of the inputs to the models are variables which are not well-characterized. Those models are failing to predict actual events. He thinks that the 1.3C/century trend shown in the actual data is not a reason to panic and mangle the economy. He thinks that the overall benefit of global warming and greening due to CO2 may be net positive. His book is pretty even-handed.