Updated Satellite Data Shows Even Less Global Warming Than Before

satellite weatherUniversity of Alabama climatologists have released the newest version of their satellite temperature datasets. Interestingly enough, the updated satellite data came with a surprise: it lowered the Earth’s warming trend.

Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record, wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend.

This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”

“Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.

Source: Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell at the University of Alabama, Huntsville

“Note that in the early part of the record, Version 6 has somewhat faster warming than in Version 5.6, but then the latter part of the record has reduced (or even eliminated) warming, producing results closer to the behavior of the [Remote Sensing Systems] satellite dataset,” the scientists wrote.

“This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite,” the scientists added. “Even though our approach to that adjustment (described later) is empirical, it is interesting to see that it gives similar results to the RSS approach, which is based upon climate model calculations of the diurnal cycle in temperature.

Version 6 also shows that land areas have warmed faster than ocean areas. Land areas have warmed at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade while ocean areas have only warmed at 0.08 degrees per decade — both of these, however, are below warming trends shown by surface thermometer data.

The updated UAH satellite temperature data comes as scientists are looking into allegations of data tampering by government climate agencies, like NASA and NOAA. Scientists skeptical of man-made global warming argue that data adjustments made by climate agencies may not be scientifically justified.

“Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising,” Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said in a statement released by The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Skeptics argue that NOAA, for example, makes adjustments that artificially cool past temperature data while warming more recent records. This creates a significantly bigger warming trend than is borne out in the raw temperature data, argue skeptics.

“While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested,” said Kealey, who has been appointed chairman of the foundation’s investigative task force. “We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”

NOAA justifies these adjustments by saying they are necessary to correct for “biases” in the raw data. Corrections made by NOAA help make the data more accurate, they argue. NOAA’s temperature readings are based on surface thermometers from weather stations, buoys and such.

Spencer himself has questioned climate data adjustments made by NOAA, but acknowledges adjustments to raw data (whether from weather stations or satellites) are necessary for accuracy. That is, if the problem can be proven to exist.

“Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data … when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists,” Spencer wrote in March.

“But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs,” Spencer and his colleagues wrote. “In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.”

Satellite data also needs adjustments, hence the recent update. For example, satellites need to be recalibrated, their orbits change, and they experience channel failures. This also means software and methodology updates as well.

“After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many,” the scientists wrote. “That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.”

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (17)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    The high temps from NOAA and NASA are not surprising as they are part of the CAGW scam.
    It is long past the time to clean house at all the government agencies that have been systematically infiltrated with left wing political activist that are skewing data and controlling anything that may be exposing their lies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonic Resonance

    |

    If global warming has halted, climate change has not.

    In Arizona, it’s forcasted to reach 100 F this week–the earliest ever. SOMETHING is changing, and has been for years now.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      WOW

      What incredible astonishing proof.

      Have you called the Royal Academy, NASA, the Nobel committee, etc. ?

      Call them. See how astonished they are.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Yeah, 4.5 Billion years… :zzz
      And not one single alarmists model passes the scientific method when tested by experiment.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sonic Resonance

        |

        There isn’t really a precedent. It doesn’t count if humans weren’t in existence, and we have ice core samples that predate us. It there’s a precedent, it’s in the last 200k? years, not 4.5 billion.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Sonic – baby, how nice of you to display your reasoning ability once again.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          [quote]There isn’t really a precedent. It doesn’t count if humans weren’t in existence, and we have ice core samples that predate us.[/quote] Just because you say so Just Some Script Kiddie?

          Where in the scientific method is this stated? [quote] EXPERIMENT

          This is the part of the scientific method that tests your hypothesis. An experiment is a tool that you design to find out if your ideas about your topic are right or wrong.
          [/quote] All the Models failed this step! Sorry. 😥

          Of course it “counts”. And we have Ice Core Samples and Tree Rings that prove the last 5000 years were warmer than today. In fact these warmer periods were times when humans had less war and more food. So much so they were known to as “Climatic Optimums”.

          [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png[/img]

          [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr11.png[/img]

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

          Three Peer Reviewed Papers discuss how it was 2-3 degrees warmer during the Medieval Climactic Optimum. http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/14/millar-et-al-the-sierra-nevada-mwp/

          And we have Archeological evidence that supports this.
          [quote]The find is final proof that the first Vikings to live in Greenland did grow barley – the most important ingredient in brewing beer, making a form of porridge or baking bread, traditionally seen as staple foods in the Vikings’ nutritional diet.[/quote]
          http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

          Maybe some alarmist can “adjust” up some “data” and make a Model that refutes the artifacts in museums around the globe. 😀

          Once again Just Some Sonic the Script Kiddie shows his complete and utter failure to follow or comprehend the Scientific Method.

          Reply

    • Avatar

      squidly

      |

      [b]105F[/b] : [b]April 29th[/b], 1992, Phoenix, AZ – [b]record high[/b]

      90F : Average high for April 29th, Phoenix, AZ

      I see absolutely [b]nothing [/b]out of the ordinary. Phoenix is forecast for 100F on Thursday, April 30th, and 101F on Friday, May 1st.

      [b]This is nowhere near a record, nowhere near unusual, and is not anywhere close to being the “earliest ever”[/b]

      You are a liar!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        squidly

        |

        Sonic Resonance,

        Do they have Weather.com where you live? How about Accuweather.com? .. or any of the other weather websites? … Do they have Google where you live? … Try using them, you will be amazed at what you can find, like your lies for example!

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Squidly, facts are NEVER going to get in the way of Sonic’s resounding unfounded ravings of leftist crap.

          He’s already said so. He says he has no burden of proof. Ergo , all he need do is rave like the village idiot and scribes will note his profundities.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Sonic Resonance

            |

            I don’t quite follow your logic. Your conclusion is a far cry from that necessary logical conclusion, if it even exists.

            And for every leftist pig there’s a rightwing lunatic. I think you may be my counterpart.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            It’s not my fault you are incapable of logic !!!!!!

      • Avatar

        Sonic Resonance

        |

        My bad. Blew it up a bit. What IS true, is that historically, the first 100F day was May 14 (that’s the average for all the years it’s been recorded, iirc) now we see as early as the end of April.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          You lied ?

          How strange.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [b]STOP THE PRESS![/b]

    It’s HOT in Arizona!…
    We’re all doomed!…

    Oh how could we have been so wrong to doubt Al Gore?!!! sob… sob… sob…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The global warming religion have three main objectives :

    1. A steady stream of cash that can be delivered through carbon taxes and transfers from willing governments .

    2. Massive population reductions ,appropriately called a reduction in carbon footprints .
    The greenies see the world population as the enemy .A few Billion less “CARBON FOOTPRINTS “in the very near term are necessary to hit their sustainable earth view . Prorated contributions from countries foolish enough to participate . will be required . How they achieve their targets will of course be optional .

    3. Last but certainly not of least importance are centralized powers to direct sovereign states to comply with their agenda . UN initially to help the medicine go down .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    Not so surprising, since now UAH series more closely matches the RSS series.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.