RSS Adjust Their Temperatures–Guess Which Way?
By Paul Homewood
For years, RSS have been an embarrassment to the climate establishment. Their satellite data has consistently shown the pause in global temperatures since 1998, which so many scientists have attempted to explain.
At the same time, the surface datasets of GISS, NOAA and HADCRUT have diverged, with the help of adjustments, to show much greater warming.
The pressure on RSS to conform has been immense, and now the inevitable has happened. Highly conveniently they have found huge errors in their previous version, and have now adjusted to a new version, v4, which miraculously finds that global warming has continued unabated after all!
Even more miraculously, virtually all of the “errors” identified have occurred since 2000, thus removing the pause.
The warmist website, Carbon Brief, has the detail:
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.
Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (e.g. 2.4 times faster) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.
Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced that observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than predicted in most climate models.
Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS.
Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.
Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
I’ve no doubt Roy Spencer or John Christy will soon weigh in with their technical assessment of this, but it gets clearer everyday that most official climate information has become untrustworthy and essentially worthless.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No doubt, great publicity will be given to this in the MSM.
Unbelievable. Literally.
I presume some body’s job was on the line;- “Prove Trump wrong or take an early bath”.
Simply staggering.
This isn’t science, its corruption.
The whole thing has been corrupt from the start, but then with the UN involved and the current stupidity of our political class, it is no surprise.
Disgraceful. These people are not scientists but paid-up job-worths, interested only in their salaries and pensions.
It’s interesting that NOAA reported in 1998 that the global temperature was 15°C and last year (2016) at 14.83°C. That doesn’t seem to fit the chart.
They reported 16.92C ( 62.45F) for 1997 in 1998 and even higher for 1998 in 1999.
The 1997 value has subsequently been lowered to 14.53C.
See
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
Now only the pesky balloon readings to sort out, UAH to eliminate and the job’s a good ‘un!
They will then have to ‘regretfully’ purge the Climate Psyentist fainthearts who agreed there actually was a ‘hiatus’ and tried 99 excuses to explain it. Sorry chaps, the gulag for you all!
Of course, if the science was REALLY settled, they wouldn’t need to pump out endless lies and evasions and to get the politicos and media to pimp for them!
They have already made one adjustment to the balloon data.
Well, one good thing about it is the RSS people will have to make their justifications public and subject to scrutiny.
Let’s see what the UAH people have to say about this.
They have already published a “peer” reviewed paper by all the usual suspects.
And they wonder why there is an ever growing band of sceptics. This will only increase the growing sceptisism and in areas of influence.
Isn’t it amazing how “corrections” always make the trend warmer?
I expect that NOAA’s Tide Gauge division is looking at how they could make adjustments to find accelerating SLR.
Well , some proof of how wrong the RSS is , will be delivered this summer-season .
After the 1980s Scotland started to grow strawberries on a large commercial basis .
Last year there was trouble to harvest the crop as it became too cool in august and september . This year the situation is progressing towards very fascinating . As from july 08 all longtermweatherforecasts are pointing towards too low temperatures to harvest strawberries any longer this summer .Well there is room for very unpleasant surprises , the brother of labour-leader Corbyn should be able to explain it a lot better . Anyway reality is pointing in a total different direction than the ecoloons are trying to demonstrate .
The Scottish strawberries I had a few days ago were fabulous, much larger, firmer and sweeter than the English ones I usually eat.
The Scottish strawberry is grown in a poly-tunnel at least the ones in Tayside are.
And you have to remember that there were shots fired at the UAH building, not far from Christy’s office. It will be interesting to see how much longer it takes before UAH changes its data. “Give me liberty or give me death” seems to be morphing into “Give me illegitimacy or I’ll give your death” in this “climate war.” Wonder if there were threats in California as well.
Predicted by Tony Heller https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/roy-spencers-prediction/
As reported by Tony Heller Roy Spencer predicted this back in January, see
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/another-correct-forecast-from-roy-spencer/
Bit of a knee jerk reaction here, surely this merely brings RSS closer to the UAH V6 temperatures?
(Wasn’t UAH adjusted uppards from V5 to V6. (Too lazy to look.)
No, V6 took UAH back to the old RSS
Yes, the UAH dataset relies on satellite technology for calibration, whereas RSS combines satellite and land-based technology.
Since RSS uses land-based technology to calibrate, it was expected the RSS dataset would be adjusted to fit land-based datasets.
In effect, RSS is now calibrated by datasets that do not represent the state of the atmosphere. This is why RSS and UAH datasets no longer match: they don’t measure the same thing.
“whereas RSS combines satellite and land-based technology. ”
AND climate models !!!!!!!!!!!!
The probability of warmist controlled datasets requiring historical temperatures correcting in a downward direction and recent temperatures requiring correcting in an upward direction must be vanishingly small. In reality, the probability is one. This must mean something.
I noticed several years ago that Mears had taken to calling the product of his company shite. Now it really is.
This is what they say in the Carbon Brief (my bold):
Changes in the new RSS record
The new RSS v4 TLT record makes a number of changes to the time of observation correction, as well as corrections for the change in instruments that measure temperature from microwave sounding units (MSU) to advanced microwave sounding units (AMSU) sensors, which occurred around the year 2000.
To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant. This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.
Seriously? A scientific body is using a number of models to “try and estimate what the temperature would have been”, after they have decided to change the time of observation? Seriously?
How can anyone call this objective data gathering? It makes this dataset version completely separate from the previous versions, so no comparison can be made. So there can be no 140% increase as they are comparing apples to oranges…
“they are comparing apples to oranges…”
that surely is, the perfect metaphor to depict climastrologists and their thinking and methodology.
How is Swansea football team doing, arfur?
Still in the Premiership.
But the older fans haven’t got over the sell out by Jenkins &Co.
Still hanging in there and I think cement is good, but I’m more of an Ospreys fan myself!
ps, who are you? 🙂
Sorry, for cement read Clement!
“…who are you..?.”
Just somebody who occasionally read the blog at R Spencer and remembers a discussion you had with somebody about South Wales and football, and how funny it was when Chelsea got whopped (by Swansea?) and the Chelsea manager reacted psychologically like a mad warmist!
Ah, well remembered bea! Unlike the warmists, most managers manage to recover from short term mental aberrations… 🙂
So what do you use to check that the models used to change the data work?
This is scientific voodoo. You simply cannot change data using something that cannot be shown to be correct.
It is nothing more than changing data to fit the theory.
Will we ever be allowed to see the figures and calculations…………………….not a chance.
More relevant is, to speculate on, who is behind this miraculously ever sooooooooooo convenient reassessment?
Now call me a cynic and I do, often.
Well lookee here! Surprise, Surprise!
Just moseying in and on down, there’s a G20 summit coming up [oh God not another useless talking shop of managers and hangers on] and this one is HAMBURG’s effort……………Lordy, the NWO is being led by that boss of the EU and duplicitous [what a deceptive, double dealing German political Chancellor…………no! never?] German munter and her new toy nodding dog plastic Macron, who has decided in her Hunish ways and infinite self proclaimed wisdom to secure and clarion the Paris climate emissions stitch-up, subtext: “you will be made to obey!”
Thus, the timing of this RSS sudden statistical legerdemain is indeed rather significant is it not?
Finally, I wonder are ‘they’, the UN and at the heart of it da crew; Gates, Soros, Goldman Sachs involved plus the fanatics of liberal America and their climate change stormtroopers NGOs – all forces brought to bear, to man the G20 world wide propaganda alarmist BS diffuser.
Could it be, waddaya think?
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
When it comes to adjusting recent temperatures you always know:
But when it’s the past you know it’s going:
😝😂
With a big thank you to Richard Black on Twitter for alerting me to this post
I noticed that the 2015 peak is around 0.15 deg C above where it was. What is the error margin on Satellite data?
The public has bought the snake oil already. So, what the hell?
There is no respectable science here for ME to consider. So, again, what the hell?
Trump will ignore it. Any good businessmen gets to the point where he simply ignores memos from twerps from the lower reaches of the company. As the old joke goes, “When I want your opinion, I will beat it out of you!”
This nonsense might have had some traction in 2016, during the El Nino-fuelled hottest year evahh. But now? To adapt Churchill, it is like being savaged by a sheep.
About 0.1C
…undocumented.
Dave,
Not Churchill, I think.
Rather Dennis Healey’s riposte “like being savaged by a dead sheep” to a finger wagging from Sir Geoffrey Howe, in 1978.
Incidentally, probably the second best aphorism concerning Howe.
My favourite being the legendary graffito:-
“She was only a grocer’s daughter, but she showed Sir Geoffrey Howe.”
Yes, you are right. I might have been thinking of “a sheep in sheep’s clothing” which Churchill said of Attlee. Actually, I have been bitten by a LIVE sheep and it hurt!
Was that a reference to Margaret Thatcher?
“…Thatcher…”
Yes. Her father owned two grocery shops in Grantham.
Oddly enough, Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister whom she pulled down in a sort of coup (to his wild resentment), was given the moniker “Grocer” by the magazine Private Eye. Thus, she symbolically stabbed her father to rise to power. Freudian, what?
Private Eye once had a cover showing Thatcher and Heath standing together awkwardly with fake smiles and the same bubble thoughts…
“You blue-rinsed bitch!”
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Anyone know where I can get hold of the “NEW™” data?
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
NOAA/GHCN, NASA/GISS are corrupt beyond hope of reform.
The only action that makes sense is setting their budgets to zero. Let’s hope the Trump administration knows how to issue pink slips.
It would appear a large proportion of ‘climate scientists’ are nothing but grant-troughing activists. Lower than a snakes belly. Respect for the data-fiddlers: zero.
You can buy a scientist. Ask one to prove your chosen story or embellish your prejudice and, low and behold. Is the whole thing about AGW a precursor to the death of science? People seem far happier with signs and portents.
“…the death of science…>”
Well, we have already had the deaths of literacy and numeracy.
One of the strengths of the RSS data is or was the close agreement with data from balloon ascents – or will those have to be adjusted/fiddled/homogenised also?
Actually, I believe this change brings RSS closer to the RATPAC radiosonde record, which was showing much more warming than the older version of RSS. From what I can tell, UAH is now the outlier. Of course, it could all be a big conspiracy.
Is that the original RATPAC, or the adjusted version?
UAH matches NOAA’s own satellites.
Why do you think NOAA refuses to use those satellites. 😉
The satellite series were also starting to diverge from the surface temperature series to a noticeable amount that caused one group to reject the surface data as being credible. What I have wondered about recently is exactly how accurate is the satellite data given that we know the surface data has been fiddled. A post on iceagenow showed the Thikypedia page for US highest and lowest temperature records by state. Now we are told the last few years have been the warmest evah so you would expect lots of records. How many are there set after 2000? TWO! Yes, just 2 and there have even been 2 record minimums. So if we move on to the site issues of the surface stations and the urban heat island effect, is the reality that if you remove the fiddling and correct for UHI – and that would be more than leading climate crook Jones of CRU claims as 1 degree – is the satellite record now actually too high and not showing that there has been cooling? On UHI, a crude measure I know but the difference should be valid, using my car’s thermometer I have seen the night temperature drop 6 degrees driving from the south London suburbs to my country home in around 30-45 mins and yet Jones claims it is just ONE degree.
The reaction here is slightly disappointing. A lot of people who call themselves “skeptics” were pleased to see Spencer and Christy adjusting their trend downward from UAH 5.6 to 6.0, but are furious that Mears and Wentz have similarly adjusted RSS upward.
It makes me question how many people who call themselves “skeptics” are genuinely “skeptical” as opposed to simply being firmly committed to one side.
I assume the pattern is reversed over on the other side of the climate webs, with people who gnashed their teeth over UAH v6 now cheering RSS v4. All very entertaining if one is in the mood to find the humor in it.
Ironically, for those of us who have been averaging UAH and RSS, this brings us back to where we were before either of the updates. As of right now, the average of the trends in the old versions is 0.15 C/decade … and the average of the trends in the new versions is ALSO 0.15 C/decade.
Round and round in circles we go.
Dont forget that UAH v5.6 increased the warming trend compared to v5.5
Not meaningfully. The change from v5.5 to v5.6 was +4%. The change from v5.6 to v6 was -21% … five times as large, and in the opposite direction.
As far as I can tell, a lot of people who like to call themselves “skeptics” were perfectly fine with an adjustment that resulted in a big downward revision of the UAH trend. If I’m wrong about that, and you can point me to a post of yours where you questioned the validity of that (downward) revision in the same way this post questions the validity of the RSS (upward) revision, I’ll happily applaud your intellectual consistency.
Rubbish. v6 simply took UAH back to where RSS was, so there was no reason to question it.
We now have a situation where RSS have conveniently found huge errors which disappear that oh so awkward pause which hundreds of scientists have spent years trying to explain.
And we aren’t supposed to be slightly suspicious?
Annie
for some reason you have now posted using at least three email addresses, all obviously fake.
Any more new ones will be automatically blocked
UAH matches NOAA’s own satellite data over the 1997 onward period.
Calm down, no one is really arguing that temperatures haven’t ever so slightly increased since the LIA, we have a big problem about data sets adjustments and jiggerypokery of all kinds, but even this fades into insignificance when set against the central premise of all this palaver and its consequent effort to combat its supposed ettect.
Where, sceptics argue that, the mild warming the planet has experienced during the recent decades stretching back to circa 1850 is all natural, the alarmists tell us it is mankind’s doing and yet can provide no proof of such unless by straining the T record by statistical method’s unknown and computer modelled ‘what if’ scenarios all of which are well shy of their predicted Armageddon.
You see, we have no burden of proof to provide, we say there is no threat, we say we can negate all proposed effects and use fossil fueled solutions in the meantime until we find viable and cheaper alternative sources of manufactured heat and light.
Alarmists just cause trouble, we are very sceptical of all of their mendacity, lies and ultimate motives.
What the “adjustments™©” do
And UAH match the NOAA star data very closely.