From Dec 2013 – Warming departure in UAH lower troposphere satellite temperatures compared to RSS over the period 2005-2006 – I emailed UAH at the time and their responses are in the link. Now Their beta V6.0 warms much more that V5.6 over Australia – go figure. Data from KNMI using the Australia mask. Both UAH versions warm more that the BoM ACORN data while RSS does not see that extent of warming.
The trends by Excel for the 37 years 1979-2015 are –
RSS = 0.26
BoM ACORN = 0.49
UAH V5.6 = 0.58
UAH v6.0 beta = 0.88
Now of course the warmistas at The Conversation are dining out on this. Ignoring RSS.
So they ignored what you pointed out 2 years ago – now their Australian trend in the V6.0 looks stupid. Can you post some graphics?
Whichever record was showing the greatest warming, would be completely covered in desperate Warmistas looking for comfort in bleak times. When you have a record over 37 years that shows a wide variation like :
RSS = 0.26
BoM ACORN = 0.49
UAH V5.6 = 0.58
UAH v6.0 beta = 0.88
That is results in ratios of 1:1, 1 : 1.88, 1:2.23, and 1:3.3. Clearly something is wrong with at least 3 of these results. Normally in Science there would be an immediate investigation, but as this is Politics, you just need to pick you preferred result and run with it. Using the ‘stick your head out the window’ test, I favour RSS.
A predictable warmist line from long-time BoM employee Nicholls. Interesting mainly for what it leaves out, namely:
1. All other evidence, not just the RSS satellites but also balloon data. Why compare the BoM to only one other dataset? The article is over 700 words long – there was plenty of space to get in a few more facts.
2. Any mention of the fact that the UAH data that he does choose shows, at global level, trends far lower than surface aggregates and even further below model projections, where the discrepancy is so large as to constitute clear disproof of model IPCC model reliability: see docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf. If UAH data are so great, why not point out their most important finding, i.e. that global warming is exaggerated both in surface temperature aggregates, and especially in IPCC models?
3. Any comment on the fact that the UAH data, even for Australia, are NOT warming as fast as the BoM’s in recent years. Check Nicholls’ graph since the 1998 El Nino. The BoM still has a warming trend, hottest year 2013. The UAH line has gone flat – hottest year still 1998. UAH was higher than the BoM all seven years from 1998 to 2004, but has been lower all three of the latest years – 2013-15.
Also interesting that after just two days the moderator, having already deleted numerous comments, wrote:
“Comments on this article are now closed. They were open for two days and the issues have been well ventilated so we’re closing things down to make time for other articles.”
Yeah sure. All the issues except the real ones.
Over land the lower troposphere should warm less than the surface. Here Gavin Schmidt explains:
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/exchange-with-gavin-schmidt-on.html
Dr. Klotzbach,
I read your new paper (in press at JGR-A) with some interest. In it you make use of the expected amplification of the MSU-LT data over surface temperature data by a factor of about 1.25. This number comes from global calculations across the AR4 models reported in CCSP and, as you know, is related mainly to the expected tropical amplification of surface warming over the oceans.
However, I am puzzled by your claim in the paper that the same amplification number holds for the metrics calculated over land only….
In a transient simulation with land temperatures rising faster than the global mean, the moist adiabat in the tropics is tied mostly to the ocean temperatures. Noting also the fact that most of the land is not in the tropics, I would have expected the amplification to be substantially less over land than globally.
To test this, I took the GISS-ER results from 1979-2005 (20C3M runs, five ensemble members) and calculated the global, ocean and land averages (using the model’s landmask) for the surface air temperature and the pseudo-MSU-LT diagnostics. As might be expected, the land temperatures rise faster than the global mean or ocean values (0.26 deg C/dec vs. 0.17 deg C/dec and 0.14 deg C/dec). For the annual values (as you use in your paper), I then calculated the expected amplification using a linear regression….
Steven Goddard has a new program to chart data, also includes 1000 stations in Australia: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/australian-stations-now-available/
I haven’t worked out how to use it yet.
Same here Tom – I looked at it – wasted a few minutes messing around – could not figure out how it works – if anybody makes it pick a different station let me know how you did it please.
Bearing in mind GHCN has always been riddled with errors.