Why does the RSS Sat Data NOT agree with GISS?

Question

Specifically for the 2000-2008 time period as indicated on this chart of the Satellite TLT and TMT data-- about 1/2 way down the web page??? Now if you look at the temp chart for 2000-2008 it sure appears to me to be DROPPING! Why?

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

Answer 1

Anyone can see the models are flawed when you consider none of the models have any respect for the geothermal flux. How can any expert on any of the sciences related to global events like climate change think the geothemal flux is just not important when things like volcanos and earth quakes are powered by geothermal energy?

Answer 2

well, one chart is the true temprature trend of the earth, one of them is a scam.

I WOULD be biased, and say that the one that shows the earth is getting hotter is the scam, but I'm not going to be, and say that i really have no idea, and you should decide for yourself .

Answer 3

Plot SST in the eastern equatorial pacific over the time range that the TLT data shows decrease.  You will see there was a large la Nina, or cold-water event.  This lead to relative cooling in the equatorial tropics, causing the decrease in TLT.  

SST is now rising, so my prediction is the TLT data will show an increase for the latter part of 2008.

As an addendum, Santer doesn't discuss this because his comments are discussing a paper from 2005, a couple of years before the la Nina formed.  He's good, but not precognitive.

edit:  The cooling started in the beginning of 2007, precisely when the tropospheric temperatures started to decline.  You are looking only at the "blue" data points in your link, because those are when the official la Nina event began.  But there was a lot of cooling before it officially became la Nina.  

Even Christy agrees there is an ENSO signal in the tropospheric temperature records that you need to remove before you start looking for trends.  You are "seeing" a decrease because you are focusing on the last two years of the data.  Once those temperatures pop up with the warming in the equatorial pacific, will you agree there has been no cooling?

Answer 4

MSU data does not include temperatures from the poles, which is where much of the recent temperature anomaly has been.

A quote from your link: "Data poleward of 82.5° North and 70° South, ... [is] not available." The curve of Earth and the angle from which satellites orbit does not allow good readings from the poles.

Answer 5

Because the GISS has a severe warm bias and is corrupted. The RSS data shows one very clearly, the lower troposphere warmed faster than the mid troposphere, a death blow to the AGW theory. Whats an AGW theorists to do? claim that weather balloons are more accurate than satellites, they will never stop.

Answer 6

I don't see the basis for your comment.

Here's a direct link to the plot you're referencing:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_descri...

The trend (remember to keep short-term weather and long term climate distinct) of the lower troposphere show a 0.173 K/decade rise. That's very close to the decadal surface temperature datasets.

Here's the most recent GISS monthly chart:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

It shows a very similar dip on the right, that corresponds to the cold (la nina) Winter we just experienced.

Another detail that must be acknowledge is that the GISS data includes latitudes beyond which the RSS data includes.  These 2 charts show that there's much more warming at the Arctic than the equator, so that would cause the RSS data to be cooler.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistem...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

And your other link to the interview by Santer says:

"there are significant uncertainties in estimates of "observed" tropospheric temperature changes obtained from satellites and weather balloons."

So one should not assume any measurement from a satellite is inherently more accurate.  A major satellite measurement error became evident a few years back when the work and Christy and Spencer was found to be in error.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

Answer 7

It's very, very tricky to determine surface temperature from space. There's a lot of atmosphere in the way, and each layer of atmosphere is at a different temperature and radiating at a different peak of infrared wavelength.

And that's important, because theoretically the greenhouse effect should warm the lower troposphere faster than the surface. Further, the stratosphere is cooling (also a result of greenhouse effect), and that cooling must be efficiently removed from the tropospheric and surface signals -- which ain't easy, as the saying goes.

In order to figure out exactly what's what, they have to use a very sophisticated and complex algorithm. It's not perfect, but it is better than nothing.

Answer 8

It does, within experimental error, and considering the impact of stratospheric cooling on the RSS data.

First of all all 4 charts don't show cooling from 2000-2007.  They show relatively stable temperatures.  But, considering the "noise" in the data, all are consistent with 2000-2007 being within the error range of the plotted long term trends.

Second, look at those long term trends (which are what counts).  The 4 channels show warming at lower altitudes, but cooling in the stratosphere.

This is EXACTLY what you would get if greenhouse gases are the problem.  Decreasing the heat flow back up from the surface causes the stratosphere to cool and the lower levels to increase.  Popular skeptical arguments like "solar activity" would not cause that pattern.

Note also that all the temperature graphs have similar flat spots from time to time.  The long term trend is still up.  Weather patterns may cause pauses or even short term drops, but they are inevitably followed by increases.

Honestly, do you think that scientists don't know about this data?  Or do you think there's a massive conspiracy to lie about it?  It's perfectly consistent with global warming science.

This site has a more balanced perspective on all this, as well as a good graph showing just how similar (once again considering "noise") ALL the data sets are.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm...

"Journalists dealing with temperature data should keep in mind that there are a number of different global mean temperature series available, and that advocates often tend to pick the one that will best reinforce their perspectives. Over longer time periods, however, the differences between different temperature series' settle out, and all show comparable warming temperature trends."

"As shown in the figure below, all four temperature series align remarkably well when normalized on the same baseline period. GISS and HadCRU both show a warming trend of 0.16 degrees C per decade from 1979 to February 2008. RSS shows a warming trend of 0.18 per decade over the same period, while UAH shows a warming trend of 0.14."

0.16, 0.18, 0.14 degrees warming per decade.  Three different datasets giving the same answer.  Think that's a coincidence?

EDIT - The data does not show cooling.  The results are perfectly consistent with long term warming (the plotted trend lines).  Your eye is not scientific analysis.

I remain baffled why you do not talk to real scientists about this.  Surely your astronomy pastime brings you into contact with them?