What’s Wrong With This Picture? How They Knew They Were Reading The Thermometers Wrong

 

 

image

(apologies for the yellow line)  Source here.

 

From Watts et al future submission….. starting at line 739. 

By way of comparison, the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere CONUS trend over this period is 0.25°C/decade and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has  0.23°C/decade, the average being 0.24°C/decade. This provides an upper bound for the  surface temperature since the upper air is supposed to have larger trends than the surface (e.g. see Klotzbach et al (2011). Therefore, the surface temperatures should display some  fraction of that 0.24°C/decade trend. Depending on the amplification factor used, which  for some models ranges from 1.1 to 1.4, the surface trend would calculate to be in the range of 0.17 to 0.22, which is close to the 0.155°C/decade trend seen in the compliant Class 1&2 stations.

There’s been a big row about this in the past among some but it never made smashing headlines in other places.  You see, satellite temp trends are suppose to be amplified more than the surface temps.  But, they never could figure out exactly how much because the surface temp trends were the same or more than the satellites. 

For those with difficulty about how this is worded, the surface temps trends, we should be able to multiply them by some number which would give us the Lower Troposphere temp trends.  In this case, a more precise number comparing Watts’ findings is 1.5/1.6 range.  This is a bit higher than what was previously expected, but not far from the 1.4 range. 

This is where I think the conversation will head. 

You can read a discussion of this here, and additional information here.  You can read the warmista dana squirm with it at WUWT

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to What’s Wrong With This Picture? How They Knew They Were Reading The Thermometers Wrong

  1. Scott says:

    The UAH trend will likely go down slightly with the next version…probably making it agree nearly dead-on with the RSS at ~0.23 C/decade. Given uncertainties, that’s probably compatible with both Anthony’s number of 0.155 C/decade and the upper range of amplification of ~14%.

    -Scott

  2. OT

    Cheney says Palin for VP was a mistake, advises Romney to not make same type of mistake:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cheney-palin-romney-vice/2012/07/29/id/446884

    • suyts says:

      Well, I don’t think Cheney knows what he’s talking about. Palin is the reason the race was competitive. She excited the base. As far as being qualified, look at the two pinheads who are there now!

      But, the dynamics of this race are quite a bit different than the last one, so a Palin might not help this time around. The base is already motivated, so the pick should have an appeal to some other group which contrasts to Romney.

      • I like Sarah Palin quite a bit—when I say that I don’t mean I like everything about her. But, honestly, after seeing more of her over these years I can see she wasn’t ready to be President—regardless of Obama and Biden’s dismal shortcomings for the job. Nor do I think she was gifted with abilities to be President. There were people at the founding of America who helped America come to a starting point with their writing more then with political involvement. Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin are three great examples. Sarah Palin has better talents for helping America by what she is doing now.

      • suyts says:

        I agree, this is the best place for her, right now. But, the job of VP is largely a cheerleader position, so if she were today, her words, actions and deeds would necessarily be different than what she’s done, outside the office. But, that’s just engaging in “what if”.

  3. OT

    Scalia says Roberts misinterpreted:

    “There’s no way to regard this penalty as a tax. It simply does not bear that meaning……”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scalia-obama-healthcare-arms/2012/07/29/id/446890

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, I saw that too, but that doesn’t and won’t change anything. I don’t think Roberts made that ruling under any constitutional consideration, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s