The second, following a slight cool - down, began in 1975 and rose at quite a constant rate until 1998, a strong Pacific Ocean El Niño year... although this later warming is reported only
by surface thermometers, not satellites, and is legitimately disputed by some.
When they corrected the error, Wentz and Schabel derived a warming trend of about 0.07 °C per decade, more in line
with surface thermometers and climate models.
Based mostly
upon surface thermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).
Unlike the deployed small number of geographically -
sparse surface thermometers, satellites essentially cover the entire world on a continuous basis.
JC: They rely on readings
from surface thermometers, but those have often been affected by developments like urbanization and deforestation, so they are not a precise proxy for what's going on in the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases are supposed to have their largest effect.
Using a record ending in 1995, Wentz showed a slight warming trend of 0.07 ⁰ C / decade, about half of what was being observed
by surface thermometers.
But even when
the surface thermometer shows higher temperature and despite any heating problems, the new iPad is a good device.
I have always been surprised that the satellite and
surface thermometer - based series are so similar, because they measure different things over the oceans.
which is consistent with
the surface thermometer observations, and exactly opposite the Steig et al result.
1: Where has the warming that
the surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years come from?
Nevertheless, contrarians continue that the lower atmosphere isn't warming as fast as it should be, or that
the surface thermometer measurements are biased hot (recent research has shown they actually have a cool bias).
«Why does official science track only
the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?»
The surface thermometers, on the other hand, are wildly different from all the other results.
RCS tree rings: cooling for 1979 - 1995 STD tree rings: cooling for 1979 - 1995 NCEP analysis (pressure transducers) for the 1000 - 925 mb layer: cooling of 0.04 C / decade for 1979 - 1997 MSU 2r analysis: cooling of 0.04 C / decade for 1979 - 1997
Surface thermometers: warming of 0.16 C / decade for 1979 - 1997
Also just noticed Table VI in the Chase paper where they give the trends for
the surface thermometers.
This report reassesses the apparent differences between the temperature changes recorded by satellites and
the surface thermometer network on the basis of the latest available information.
While satellites clearly have some advantages over
the surface thermometer record, such as better sampling, measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem.
While the satellite data record is shorter than
the surface thermometer record, it has several strengths.
While year - to - year temperature variations measured by the satellite sensors closely match those measured by
both surface thermometers and weather balloons, it is the long - term warming trend on which the satellites and the surface thermometers disagree, Spencer said, with the surface warming faster than the deep layer of the atmosphere.
The satellite data most commonly compared to
surface thermometers is actually the derived average temperature through the lowest several kilometres of the atmosphere.
Some differences between the satellite record and
the surface thermometers are understood and to be expected — being directly related to the difference between the climate of the air near the surface and that of the lower troposphere.
So, why are
the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures?