you are such a troll... f/c. the only people who use satellite data are deniers? What the hell is wrong with you. An intelligent response is that most likely the satellite data is slightly lagged in sensing the el nino we have warming up the earth... and that this warming in the oceans will carry over to the land and the satellites soon. I have shown you multiple times the satteli
I thought this was a interesting run down... of this situation. http://euanmearns.com/the-diverging-surface-thermometer-and-satellite-temperature-records-again/ The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records Again Posted on September 18, 2015 by Euan Mearns Joint post with Roger Andrews In my recent post titled The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records, Roger posted 4 charts in the comments that I felt were both interesting and important. For those not up to speed with the importance of comparing surface thermometer with satellite data it boils down to understanding the rate of global warming and whether or not the lower troposphere is still warming as all the climate models predict should be happening. The satellite data (UAH and RSS) shows little to no warming since 1997 – the famous pause – while all the surface thermometer records now show continued warming (e.g. GISS LOTI and HadCRUT4). One of the data sets must be faulty and Roger’s charts cast some further light on this issue. Here we deal with the charts in the reverse order from Roger’s comment. Figure 1 compares the UAH satellite (over sea only) and Hadley sea surface temperature (HadSST3) records. HadSST3 makes up 71% of HadCRUT4, the combined land-ocean record commonly used to define the Earth’s ‘surface temperature’. The grey trace shows the difference between these two data sets and shows a near flat line. There is literally no difference between surface temperatures and temperatures measured by satellites over the oceans. This suggests that both these data sets are reliable. Figure 1 Satellite over-sea temperature (UAH) compared with sea surface temperature (HadSST) data. The difference between the two is the grey trace at bottom which shows the gradient of satellite and surface data over oceans are the same. This points to the faulty data lying in the land based data. Why should the satellites work reliably over the oceans and not over land? We can’t think of a reason. But there is a good reason for suspecting the land based thermometers since these measure temperatures in a totally different way to the SSTs. Roger has long argued that SST and air temperature data over land should not be combined into a single index since they are measuring different things. If we do the same comparison over land we see there is a difference (Figure 2) with the land based Crutem4 index showing about 0.3˚C more warming than the UAH over-land data since 1980. One needs to recall that the difference between the gross satellite and surface data is tiny, of the order +0.15˚C since 1980. Since the land based data only accounts for 29% of the total, this difference between the land based data sets may account for about 0.09˚C of the gross difference, i.e. most of it. Figure 2 Comparing the satellite data over land with the land surface thermometer data shows a small difference with the surface thermometers running about 0.3˚C warmer. Enough to explain most of the difference between the global satellite and surface indexes. We can take this a step further. Comparing the UAH over-land and over-sea we find that the air over land does indeed appear to be warming marginally more rapidly than the oceans. I would feel inclined to put that down to non GHG related human activity such as urban sprawl, deforestation and irrigation. Figure 3 Comparing satellite data over sea and over land suggests that the land may be warming slightly faster. If we compare the surface records we see that the land is warming much faster than the oceans, of the order +0.5˚C since 1980. Does this mean that CO2 is a more potent GHG over land? We don’t think so. The different behaviour can be explained by either adjustments made to land surface thermometer records or by land surface thermometers being more sensitive to growing population and land surface changes than satellites. The thermometers are after all normally located close to human habitation. Figure 4 Comparing the surface thermometer data over land and over sea suggests that the air over land is warming much faster than the oceans. Finally, in the comments Luis pointed out that HadCRUT3 was largely in agreement with UAH since 1997. So I have checked this out. Figure 5 Comparison of HadCRUT3, 4 and UAH since 1997. HadCRUT4 re-writes the record books. Note the offset between HadCRUT and UAH is down to different datum / base periods used. It is indeed the case that since 1997, UAH has been on a flat, slowly declining trend (-0.13˚C per century). HadCRUT3 was on a flat, slowly rising trend (+0.18˚C per century). HadCRUT4 is on a much more steeply rising trend of +0.59˚C per century. With a stroke of the brush, the pause was written out of history. Concluding Comment Satellite and surface thermometer data agree over the oceans. They used to agree better over land until HadCRUT4 supplanted HadCRUT3, ending the pause and causing land surface thermometers to diverge from the satellite data sets. Share this:
so... after reading 2 very good articles on this... my take away is this. The satellite and the ocean temps are in good agreement. The land based temp is the one that seems to be rising faster. This could be because of urban sprawl... thermometer location and human fudge with the averaging of the temps... But it also seems to me all these sets are subject to a untrustworthy degree of human interpretation. finessing and statistical magic. Are the sets important... yes. useful... yes. Should we be spending money on them.. yes. 100% accurate in telling us what is happening with global temperature... nope. Conclusion... agw big govt loving trolls calling us liars and saying Hillary Clinton is trustworthy... need to get back on their meds.
My impression is CO2 has been used so far, until anything better, for measuring the potential impact and progress of this upcoming global issue - being called AGW. It'd be a bit just like using mercury-in-glass to measure temperature, when it was first introduced, before other approaches invented later. " The mercury-in-glass or mercury thermometer was invented by physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit in Amsterdam (1714)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-in-glass_thermometer Arguing merely about CO2 could be in vain! The best option to me: I would very much leave the issue to the highest office of science and learn what's the position of the chief scientist would say. Q http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=OCS USDA Science White Papers In 2012, the Office of the Chief Scientist released a summary of USDA's role supporting the science behind the Bioeconomy (PDF, 199KB) and peer-reviewed science papers that elaborate on USDA's Action Plan for science (PDF, 293KB) in several key areas: Education Listening Session Report (PDF, 3MB) USDA Roadmap for Plant Breeding (PDF, 1.2MB) Plant Breeding Listening Session (PDF, 2.4MB) Global Food Security (PDF, 113KB) Bioenergy (PDF, 201KB) Nutrition and Childhood Obesity (PDF, 82KB) Climate Change (PDF, 114KB) Food Safety (PDF, 113KB) Sustainable Agricultural Systems (PDF, 103KB) UQ
That last chart graphs anomalies, not actual temperatures. It clearly shows the vast majority of new records or above/below average temperature observations are on the high side, even if the peaks of the anomalies are no longer rising. So the warming continues, but "merely" linearly.
its seems to me you are making a lot of assumptions about your chart reading skills. It seems to me if you start with the 98 el nino the satellites are not showing any warming and the thermometers are showing a little... and I suspect most of that would be due to the "re fudging" the keepers of the data are continually doing.
Satellites don't measure the surface air temps. They partially measure stratosphere temps which are actually declining due to the physical greenhouse properties of CO2. In addition they are simply less accurate than thermometers. That's why NOAA and NASA and The MET Office and every climate org in the world, when they are showing global air temps, do not use the satellite records. They use data from thousands of actual thermometers that are actually in the place they are measuring.....in weather stations at the earth's surface. Only denier liars, like jerm and piezoe, who are trying to deceive use the satellite data. They both know better but prefer to lie instead.