Post by marchesarosa on Jan 16, 2010 0:57:16 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/uah-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/
"It has just been reported by Luboš Motl that the daily UAH global mean temperature (at 14,000+ ft!) shows that early January 2010 was warm. And on January 13th, which is the latest day whose temperature is known, we have seen the warmest January day on their record . The brightness global temperature near the surface was
T = -16.36 °C"
This is a very complicated subject and the comments following the article show the blog readers struggling to get their heads round the issues. People who think satellite data are a quick fix for ropey surface station temperature measurement couldn't be more wrong! (IMO).
Here’s a good post from Stephen Wilde on the interpretation of satellite data for the troposphere which has been gathered since 1979.
Stephen comments:
"The satellite temperature sensing method is clearly far superior to the compromised record from surface stations but I am concerned about our current ability (or rather lack of such ability) to interpret the results accurately.
I think we need a number of years during which we must observe how the satellite readings vary as a consequence of changing real world climate events.
The issue of an increased brightness from more snow cover possibly giving the sensors a false temperature reading is but one of a number of ways that the satellite results might be skewed away from accuracy.
The issue of cloud cover and variations therein affecting planetary albedo is another such problem.
Additionally I consider that what matters most is independently variable energy flows between the multiple layers of the Earth system and the fact is that if the net rate of energy flowing through the system varies for any reason (not just CO2 quantities) then the satellites can be misled.
If energy throughput slows down the satellites will detect a cooling because less energy is being released to be measured by the satellites but at such times the total energy in the system is actually increasing i.e. the opposite of what the satellites tell us.
If energy throughput increases then the satellites think the globe is warming but in fact the total energy content of the entire system is declining.
We are only at the beginning of interpreting the data correctly and we can expect many false interpretations before we can accuratelty appreciate the proper drift of real world climate events.
For me the best climate diagnostic indicator for the troposphere is the net latitudinal position of all the global air circulation systems combined. If more poleward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is warming. If more equatorward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is cooling.
However as the troposphere cools the oceans and stratosphere can be warming and vice versa.
The troposphere may just be a ‘passenger’ or possibly a ‘filling’ sandwiched between other processes occurring in oceans and upper atmosphere.
We need a much better grip on the variability of the energy flows from oceans to troposphere and then from the troposphere to the higher levels of the atmosphere.
Settled science – not."
"It has just been reported by Luboš Motl that the daily UAH global mean temperature (at 14,000+ ft!) shows that early January 2010 was warm. And on January 13th, which is the latest day whose temperature is known, we have seen the warmest January day on their record . The brightness global temperature near the surface was
T = -16.36 °C"
This is a very complicated subject and the comments following the article show the blog readers struggling to get their heads round the issues. People who think satellite data are a quick fix for ropey surface station temperature measurement couldn't be more wrong! (IMO).
Here’s a good post from Stephen Wilde on the interpretation of satellite data for the troposphere which has been gathered since 1979.
Stephen comments:
"The satellite temperature sensing method is clearly far superior to the compromised record from surface stations but I am concerned about our current ability (or rather lack of such ability) to interpret the results accurately.
I think we need a number of years during which we must observe how the satellite readings vary as a consequence of changing real world climate events.
The issue of an increased brightness from more snow cover possibly giving the sensors a false temperature reading is but one of a number of ways that the satellite results might be skewed away from accuracy.
The issue of cloud cover and variations therein affecting planetary albedo is another such problem.
Additionally I consider that what matters most is independently variable energy flows between the multiple layers of the Earth system and the fact is that if the net rate of energy flowing through the system varies for any reason (not just CO2 quantities) then the satellites can be misled.
If energy throughput slows down the satellites will detect a cooling because less energy is being released to be measured by the satellites but at such times the total energy in the system is actually increasing i.e. the opposite of what the satellites tell us.
If energy throughput increases then the satellites think the globe is warming but in fact the total energy content of the entire system is declining.
We are only at the beginning of interpreting the data correctly and we can expect many false interpretations before we can accuratelty appreciate the proper drift of real world climate events.
For me the best climate diagnostic indicator for the troposphere is the net latitudinal position of all the global air circulation systems combined. If more poleward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is warming. If more equatorward than the seasonal average then the troposphere is cooling.
However as the troposphere cools the oceans and stratosphere can be warming and vice versa.
The troposphere may just be a ‘passenger’ or possibly a ‘filling’ sandwiched between other processes occurring in oceans and upper atmosphere.
We need a much better grip on the variability of the energy flows from oceans to troposphere and then from the troposphere to the higher levels of the atmosphere.
Settled science – not."
