Hottest Year? Not According To Satellites
August 30, 2015
By Paul Homewood
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the much more comprehensive and accurate satellite data shows nothing of the sort.
Below are the average annual anomalies for 1998 through 2014, along with 2015 YTD.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta3
For UAH to surpass the record, the average anomaly for the last five months of the year would need to be 0.88C, a virtual impossibility since the July figure was just 0.18C.
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul love your work – any chance on doing something that looks at the different methodology used between that satellites and the ground temp measurements to come up global temperatures.
Two large differences are:
1) The surface land data is extremely sparse, whilst the staellite cover every square inch effectively, with the exception of the poles.
2) The surface land data is then mixed together with sea surface temps, which is rather like adding together apples abd oranges. The actual SST’s are only a minute part of the ocean as a whole, from top to bottom.
Although there are always lags and short term variations, it is a law of physics that warmer seas will evaporate more, and therefore transfer that excess heat to the atmosphere, which makes the divergence between satellite and surface illogical.
I think Roy Spencer summed it up when he said last year:
In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.
The statement “the satellite cover every square inch effectively, with the exception of the poles” appears to be incorrect by a long shot. In my opinion, satellites do a wonderful job at allowing their data to be manipulated by painting the landscape with a wide and coarse brush; the satellites just cannot measure every square inch of the atmosphere as it zooms at over 17,000 some mph. Additionally, what’s the satellite measuring? The temperature of a clump of atmosphere? At what height?
You would need to discuss that with Roy Spencer, but they don’t work in the way you suggest.
How can I contact Roy Spencer?
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/index.html
The satellites measure much, much more area than the network of ground thermometers, so that critique falls rather flat. And, 17,000 mph is a paltry fraction of the speed of light at which the measurements are made.
Well, as “the measurements are made” a satellite traveling at 17000 mph, and say 100 miles over head, the satellite has moved about 4 meters. In other words, if you were looking through powerful enough binoculars at a 1 m circle target it surely would be blurred, thus the coarse brush effect. What about what’s the satellite measuring the temperature of?
I think you’re basically right.
What Roy Spencer implies is that he can measure every cubic inch within a cubic km on an average basis, but not every cubic inch individually.
This may be “blurred”, but compare to surface data where one station may cover hundreds of square km.
Thanks, Paul.
Now we shall see the divergence not only between climate models and reality, but between thermometer temperatures and satellite temperatures. This is a reflection of the divergence between a scam and reality.
Do these scientists have any idea the magnitude of what they are doing to “science”? In the 1970’s I encountered colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Environmental Sciences playing a bit fast and loose with data and pronouncements. I told them at the time: “If you misrepresent findings or fudge data, when the general public catches on–and they will–academia will be forever trying to get their reputation back.” We jumped over than line years ago. The general pubic is beginning to see the lies from climate scientists, biologists, weathermen, talking heads and the medical community. It is not only serious, it is dangerous.
It amazes me that of all the real and present dangers in the world the Indy is still leading with these scare stories of hypothetical events; using dodgy comments from discredited sources like Hanson and Jones with such salivating relish while dismissing any good news like the satellite data which are indicating a leveling off in global temperatures – it’s against their religion I guess.But on the other hand the more the public reads of this hype the more unbelievable it appears.There is also a definite sense of panic among scaremongers knowing that COPT 21 in December is make or break time for their cause, which explains their keenness to get the year end scare stories out 4 months early.
What really annoys me is that serious Scientists studying anything related to Climate and it’s affects are having their work ruined by the fudging of the Land and Sea based Temperature data.
Any work carried out in the past has now had any findings totally destroyed by new sets of data (Sea Level & Acidity included) which negates any correlation they may have found before.
Apart from the difference between NOAA and satellite data, the numbers quoted in the article don’t quite add up.
“Other scientists agree that the scene is now set for another record hot year that breaks last year’s high by a significant amount – as much as 0.1C higher than the 2014 annual average temperature record of 14.57C. 2015 is currently on track to hit 14.68C.”
The article states it the 2014 absolute temp. was only 14.57c giving an increase of 0.11c assuming a 2015 figure of 14.68c.
However, according to NOAA the mean global temperature from 1901-2000 was 13.9c, and the 2014 anomaly was 0.74c, which would make the 2014 absolute temp. 14.64c, not 14.57c.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2015.csv
If the 2015 temp. is 14.68c the increase over 2014 (based on actual data) would be only 0.04c.
Of course the article figures could be based on an entirely different base figure.
The article also states:
“Normally when global average temperature records are broken, it is by a tiny fraction of a degree – about 0.01C or 0.02C. However, this year the record is likely to be broken by 10 times this margin, said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist at Noaa.”
Actually previous recent records have been:
1979 0.23c
1980 0.27c +0.04c
1981 0.30c +0.03c
1983 0.34c +0.04c
1987 0.37c +0.03c
1988 0.38c +0.01c
1990 0.43c +0.05c
1995 0.46c +0.03c
1997 0.52c +0.06c
1998 0.64c +0.12c
2005 0.66c +0.02c
2010 0.70c +0.04c
2014 0.74c +0.04c
Which makes the current increase nothing unusual.
All of these, are of course, based on “adjusted” NOAA figures.
It is worse than you think, because NCDC quoted the Absolute temperature for 1997 as 62.45 F which is 16.92 C in 1998. See
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
Everybody uses the excuse that the baseline was different, but 62.45 is an absolute, ie baseline + Anomaly and of course the Anomaly is the difference between the ACTUAL Temperature the baseline.
I don’t know what to say about satellites…. I only know that in Romania, where I live, last evening at 8 PM, we had 39 Celsius degrees in the city. I also know that today we’ll have an orange code, meaning 37 degrees in the shade and that scientists say that it is the hottest beginning of September since 1946. So, the hottest since the World War II…. I wonder if there is any correlation betwen those two data?……
What happened in 1946?
9 mths later I was born !!
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.