What does a new entrant in the lower troposphere satellite record stakes really imply?
At the beginning of the year, we noted that the NOAA-STAR group had produced a new version (v5.0) of their MSU TMT satellite retrievals which was quite a radical departure from the previous version (4.1). It turns out that v5 has a notable lower trend than v4.1, which had the highest trend among the UAH and RSS retrievals. The paper describing the new version (Zou et al., 2023) came out in March, and with it the availability of not only updated TMT and TLS records (which had existed in the version 4.1), but also a new TLT (Temperature of the Lower Troposphere) record (from 1981 to present). The updated TMT series was featured in the model data comparison already, but we haven’t yet shown the new TLT data in context.
Readers will recall that the TLT product is nominally a weighted average of atmospheric temperature anomalies from the surface up to 5km or so. The weighting varies a little between land and ocean, and as a function of topography or surface type (some model-observation comparisons take this into account, but a global uniform weighting is often good enough). The nature of the measurement, using off-nadir scans of the instrument made the retrieval more noisy than other MSU prodcuts, and it has taken time to deal with those issues. Some long-timers might even recall the rather tumultuous history, involving over-confident claims of precision, the discovery of systematic biases because of orbital decay, corrections, independent replication and more errors, more corrections, etc. This history should temper any claims now that the structural uncertainty has finally been beaten down, but it’s worth digging in a little deeper to see where it comes in.
First, how do the three TLT versions compare? I’ve made two versions of this graph to highlight where and how the three lines differ. It certainly isn’t as simple as just a shift in the linear trend.
As expected, the year-to-year variations are very similar, but there are notable divergences between 1996 and 1999 that are (mostly) related to the treatment of data from NOAA-14 which had a large orbital and instrumental drift. The trends prior to 1995 (0.07/0.14/0.16 ºC/dec, for UAH, RSS and NOAA-STAR respectively) and after 2001 (0.14/0.20/0.17 ºC/dec) vary across the products too. Thus the similarity of the full period trend (1981-2022) between UAH and NOAA-STAR is somewhat coincidental (0.14/0.20/0.13 ºC/dec) made up of a larger trend in NOAA-STAR to ~1988, a smaller trend to 2000, and a slightly larger trend in the last two decades. This heterogeneity in differences is very likely structural uncertainty in how the records are constructed, and the span of trends in the three products is a likely an underestimate of true uncertainty. It’s not a democracy where the ‘right’ answer is decided by majority vote!
Kitchen sink comparisons
How does the TLT new record stack up against the surface records? Here we can compare to the in situ surface data records (GISTEMP, HadCRUT5, NOAA NCEI), the radiosondes, the reanalyses (ERA5 and JRA55), and (over a shorter period), the AIRS satellite retrievals. Each of these has it’s own issues but they bring a wealth of independent data to bear on the issue. Similarly to above, I include two versions of the graphs with different baselines.
The overwhelming impression from these graphs is the similarity of all these records, and not just in the year to year variations. The upward trends differ slightly for sure, but they are all recognizably describing the same climate change. Curiously, the TLT records bracket the spread of the other independent datasets, suggesting that the structural uncertainty is simply larger in the satellite retrievals (including the different versions of the AIRS data).
But why should this be so? Historically, there has been a lot of discussion about non-climatic effects in the surface stations and ocean data – station moves, urban heating, instrument changes etc. While these are important effects, they are often local. Stations globally did not move at the same time, instrument changes happened at different times in different places, areas urbanized at different rates and at different times. Thus the implications for what one does about these issues mostly have local impacts. There are systematic changes that have bigger implications – for instance the change of data sources in shipping in the 1930s/40s/50s and the aliasing of errors in instruments and coverage in the ocean – and those corrections dominate the impact of adjustments on the global mean surface temperature trends.
Now, let’s think about how the TLT satellite data are processed. There are corrections for each satellite in the time series (now up to 16 instruments) for orbital decay, orbital drift, instrument calibration drift, etc. There is some overlap between successive satellites, but there are still uncertainties in what corrections are needed and what source of information should be used to do that correction. The key thing to remember that each of those uncertainties applies to the length and totality of that satellites record, and different choices will lead to different trends. Thus uncertainties in the satellite corrections almost invariably have an impact on the longer term global trends.
The AIRS satellite record is also interesting. This is from a single instrument on the NASA Aqua satellite, that, until last year, was in a controlled, non-drifting orbit. This means some of the issues that affect the MSU/AMSU instruments don’t apply. However, the trends in different versions of the retrievals (i.e. v6 to v7) can be quite variable. In this case, the uncertainty comes in with the retrieval algorithm and treatment of confounding effects like clouds or surface emissivity changes. As I understand it (and someone correct me if I’m wrong!), the AIRS retrievals work by assuming a (realistic) prior atmospheric profile (surface temperature, vertical profiles of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, aerosols, ozone etc.) for which the spectral signal can be calculated, and then the (small) deviations seen in the actual retrieved data can be easily associated with small deltas in the inputs. But the further away the prior profile is from the actual profile, the more complicated and error-prone the retrieval is. In version 6, the prior profiles were all from the early part of the time series, which mean that the early years had pretty accurate retrievals, but the later years (with climate trends in all the inputs), they were less accurate. For version 7, the prior profiles were better spaced through time which evened out the uncertainty, and thus impacted the trends too. There were other processing steps that changed as well. The point though is that a change in the algorithm affects the whole record and so can have a systematic impact on the trends.
Thus the additional of a new version of the TLT record from NOAA-STAR helps underline the continuing structural uncertainty in these records, and it’s clear, that unlike the surface temperature record, we aren’t (yet) seeing a convergence on the ‘right’ answers.
What’s to come?
Can we expect further improvements in the uncertainty estimates? Absolutely. For a number of the surface station-based products (notably HadCRUT5, GHCN and the ERSST products), better uncertainty models have been developed using a Monte Carlo approach of creating an ensemble of products each of which made slightly different choices in the corrections (within reasonable bounds). Something similar for the satellite data sets would be very interesting. This effort is computationally expensive and requires a lot of attention to detail (including encapsulation of different models for corrections, not just different parameters within a specific model) for it to be complete, but this is coming to be seen as the gold standard for capturing the ‘real’ structural uncertainty when there are complex and non-linear data processing workflows. Watch this space.
- C. Zou, H. Xu, X. Hao, and Q. Liu, "Mid‐Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived From Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations With Backward Merging Approach", Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 128, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037472
55 Responses to "A NOAA-STAR dataset is born…"
Kevin McKinney says
Cool. Thanks for the update!
It may be that “it’s clear, that unlike the surface temperature record, we aren’t (yet) seeing a convergence on the ‘right’ answers,” but still, I can’t help but notice that this version makes UAH TLT look a bit less “lonely.”
Not that that’s a whole lot of consolation; even 0.13/decade is plenty bad enough.
Bruce Calvert in Ottawa says
Do we know if NOAA-STAR version 5 provides ensemble members similar to how the RSS dataset provides 100 ensemble members? These ensemble members can be useful to take into account correlations in uncertainties when using these datasets. From what I can tell, UAH and NOAA-STAR do not provide ensemble members, but perhaps I have been looking in the wrong places.
I recall that Cowtan and Way combined instrumental temperature with satellite temperature in some variants of their dataset. Combining these different data sources could help to better constrain temperature estimates. Unfortunately, the Cowtan and Way dataset was retired after the introduction of HadCRUT5, and I haven’t seen anyone pick up this work.
I have been considering trying to incorporate satellite data into a future version of HadCRU_MLE, but it seems that only the RSS dataset would be suitable given its availability of ensemble members. Unfortunately, future improvements to the HadCRU_MLE dataset have been delayed due the Journal of “Geoinformatics and Geostatistics: An Overview” creating problems for me as they are no longer a legitimate journal (despite their previous publication of papers relevant to the Berkeley Earth dataset).
Keith Woollard says
I would find it far more informative if you where to plot your first pair of figures as single difference plot and without the 12 sample averaging.
MA Rodger says
A graphic showing traces for NOAA STAR TLT minus UAH (in red) & RSS (black) is posted today on this webpage. It does show these TLT records are not as ‘consistent’ as the SAT records. The rolling 12-month plots show NOAA STAR deviating from both UAH & RSS in a big +0.15ºC wobble 1981-2001. From this point relative to UAH TLT, NOAA STAR trends slowly upward at +0.034ºC/decade. And relative to RSS, it drops -0.12ºC through the period 2000-05 and then sticks with zero trend to today.
All this supports the idea that these TLT records aer subject to some significant uncertainty.
Keith Woollard says
Yes, I had made these same plots. I was just suggesting it to make the article clearer.
FYI, here is an equivalent hadcrut4-GISTemp image
Not bad, Dr Schmidt, not bad.
something to chew into the way we are aquainted, .at last.
Pieter Zijlstra says
At the surface there is a split betweem land and oceans.
TLT is not split up I understand?
MA Rodger says
The global monthly anomalies of RSS data is only split by latitude. UAH data is split by land/ocean/latitude. The NOAASTAR data is given split NH/SH as well as split land/ocean.
Perhaps it’s interesting to compare the 3 satellite -based TLT datasets by visualisation the yearly differences:
It seems to be that STAR and UAH are very similiar and RSS not so. The change in the sign between 1998 and 2002 is remarkably.
Bob Loblaw says
“As I understand it (and someone correct me if I’m wrong!)”
Based on the typical commenting pattern here, my expectation is that you will see a lot more people correcting you when you are right….
Russell Seitz says
Gavin, It would be interesting to find out who wrote the 1997 NASA release you link which reports:
“In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). ”
It sounds awfully familiar in the light of the opinions expressed by Christy & Spencer in Science seven years earlier , and widely quoted by many, myself included , after they published what amonted to a Op-ed in Science in 1990:
Ken Towe says
The bottom line remains? Since the middle of the last century the total amount of warming is still less than one degree C. As of 2021 it was plus 0.84°C. And that was lower than it was in 2016.
Barton Paul Levenson says
KT: The bottom line remains? Since the middle of the last century the total amount of warming is still less than one degree C. As of 2021 it was plus 0.84°C. And that was lower than it was in 2016.
BPL: The difference between now and a mile of ice over Chicago and New York is 5.8 K. We’re discussing the mean global annual temperature, not the weather. A 1 degree difference can shift agricultural growing belts by hundreds of miles, in a locally unpredictable fashion.
Al S. says
There has been so much public fighting about what the air temperature is.
However, since the oceans are absorbing most of the heat, shouldn’t there be much more discussion about ocean temperatures?
Ron R. says
“confounding effects like clouds”
My guess as a lay non-scientist is that if the clouds are increasing or decreasing in certain areas it’s because the earth as a whole is a living (Gaian) system, and is responding to the increased warming.
It’s not that I think that it’s necessarily sentient, but that each living plant, in acting out of it’s own best interests (the Selfish Gene) is detecting and responding to the increased CO2, and warming, in the way it should to best ensure its own survival. An example of this is how the Amazonian rain forest creates it’s own clouds, regulates its own weather.
To know this, perhaps we could create a new proxy, “Cloud Maps”, where we measure the extent of clouds on earth over time (or maybe they already have them?). Obviously the clouds look to appear randomly and in individual areas might not tell you much. But having maps that look at the whole over time, the totality, and if, for example, they occur more over industrial areas, or as a whole they are increasing or decreasing, would tell you that it is a precise self regulating system and is responding to us.
If I’m lacking I’m my comment please forgive that.
Some information on cloud cover fyi. I posted it on the UV thread in response to something by MS.
“Some references listed below on how anthropogenic warming changes cloud cover, especially a loss of low level cloud cover:”
“Observations have shown, however, that warmer temperatures seems to create less dense, low-level clouds instead. The evidence we have so far suggests that this effect occurs because, as temperature increases, the air near the surface becomes drier, causing the cloud base to rise and reducing the cloud layer thickness.”
“Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.”
“Scientists predict that climate change will increase evaporation, leading to an increase in rainfall globally – although there will be considerable variation on a regional level. But increased rainfall does not simply translate into more clouds. Instead, changing conditions will affect how and where clouds form and how they behave.
“In some areas, climate change will probably cause more low clouds to form, which could offset a rise in global temperature. In mid-latitudes, however, low cloud cover is expected to decrease.”
Ron R. says
A pot of confusion, Nigel. Increase/decrease. I hope my suggestion was not tooo lame though. :) On the coast of California we had a rather remarkable year. LOTS of rain. Torrential cloudbursts, very unusual for us. I can still hear it hitting the roof. More rain predicted for next week too, but milder.. Yet I like rain. And it’s interesting to be living in history.
In New Zealand we also had a rather remarkable year. We experienced two massive storm related flood events a couple of months back. One of them was the largest in about 60 years and did about 10 billion dollars in damage. This is huge in a country of 5 million people.
Both events were influenced by warming according to experts. This was increased humidity and both storms bumped into blocking highs, which may also be related to climate change. This extended the length of rainfall and was a major factor in the flooding.
However the floods might also have been influenced by the Tongan Volcanic eruption a year ago that ejected water vapour into the stratosphere. A study is underway to see what effect it has had on global flooding. However given its a year ago it intuitively seems unlikely that it was a major contributing factor.
And its also a la nina year which is associated with floods.
Which goes to show how complicated and multi factorial climate issues are. A bit like the studies on clouds above.. Not confused, just complicated.
Just my opinion as a scientific lay person.
Not sure what to make of the Gaia hypothesis. Don’t know enough about, it but clearly youre right that the biosphere also influences clouds and rainfall at local levels at least.
Ron R. says
You’re right, just complicated.
Gaia is a theory now AFAIK, though it’s now called, or at least has contributed to, something known as Earth Science Systems..
IOW, there might be a collective ‘world mind’ of sorts. But if it’s ultimately a conscious one (admittedly a big jump by today’s scientific acceptances) or unconscious one I’ll leave to those who are more qualified than I.
@ Ron R
Very important articles, thank you.
Thanks for the links on the Gaia Theory. I’ve only ever looked at the Gaia issue very superficially. I admit it sounded attractive, like there might be some truth in it, but I didn’t take my interest further.
I just had a quick look at The Gaia hypothesis on wikipedia to refresh my knowledge of what it was.. The article also looks useful, and has a section on criticisms of the concept, fyi.
Richard Creager says
nigelj. re gaia- skip lovelock and read lynn margulis. her explication of the concept makes sense scientifically. try the relevant chapter in her book “the Symbiotic Planet”.
Profound unnatural changes to ecology diminishes the potential maximum entropy production of the system. It’s like putting handcuffs on the system, and reduces its dynamic response capacity. This alone may alter the base equilibrium state around which climates fluctuate. All of nature is involved in transforming the sun’s beam into emission spectra from the condensing atmosphere.. The gaia thing is just one philosophical tool with which to interpret these processes in nature.
I am also fond of Lovelocks Gaia- idea.
But allways be aware that it is also doubted and disputed even fought and hated.
Thus, if you have a good idea and who havent got any good idea? Then be aware, and avoid filling it up with supersticion and eager modern political and religious quackery that is easily shown wrong.
Nature is a better argument and nature tells better, Also, Nature can be believed in.
Thus rather educate and get aquainted to science of nature first, and avoid fighting that.
Then the angels may be on your side and not against you.
Ron R. says
Ok, Thanks JCM.
macias shurly says
@JCM says: – ” The gaia thing ”
Gaia – the great womb and symbol of a process in which the community of living beings ensures that their living conditions are maintained – is (almost) dead. After the founding of the Roman Catholic Church, the great whore Babylon took her place – the great request that man subdues the earth.
Ron R. says
This sounds a lot like a strange book I once read, The Two Babylons.
You mentioned something about the book of Revelation last month I think. I wonder, are you religious? Gaia theory was never meant to be religious AFAIK. But some new agers took the concept to that extent and thereby prejudiced a generation of scientists against it. Pity.
macias shurly says
@RR says: – ” I wonder…”
ms: — My religion is “art”.
However, creative activities could result in an artist assuming the authority of a “creator” himself.
So I myself (like many others) am Gaia – God – or a universal womb.
I never cited the bible or the book of Revelation.
Prophets are no longer needed to prophesy the cruel future to romantics like you, who are so gloriously naively poking around in the clouds. The little multiplication tables, the famous last countdown and a bit of biology are enough to tell you that in the not too distant future you won’t be reading any books at all.
One of the root causes or axis of evil is imho historically in the “modus operandi” of the Roman Catholic Church and many other degenerate offshoots of so-called religions.
You are, of course, free to see things differently.
As early as the Middle Ages, the great whore of Babylon was depicted wearing papal robes riding a seven-headed hydra. Mafia and church as an invincible unit –
Barton Paul Levenson says
ms: After the founding of the Roman Catholic Church, the great whore Babylon took her place
BPL: Nobody cares about your religious prejudices, shurly. Keep them to yourself.
So Gavin, you have this very tricky metric to pin down, and, if I understand what you say correctly, it will be difficult to be confident about future corrections as the characteristics of the climate system change with the inevitable increase in its energy content.
While I think it is always good in science to improve our understanding, and improve our instrumentation, I can’t get away from this question:
What’s the point??
What exactly does the average temperature of this segment of the atmosphere tell us about anything?? What can we predict if we know how it has changed over time??
I’m happy to be educated, but I have trouble seeing the there there.
Ron R. says
On the other hand, if it’s “turning on or off” cloud formation ahead of time, it might be seeing and anticipating the changes, and that could indicate sentience. Hmm.
@ Gavin schmidt
I have another question here, that I hope you can answer.
The conscept of “Heating degree day” on Wikipedia is a poor or rather false translation of Wäemesumme in German, Varmesum in Dänish. I find no discussion of tha in English on the net. , but it is very traditional in botanics and in agriculture.
It is defined as a minimum temperature that must be specified for each species or crop, below wich , nothing happens, nothing grows, metabolism is zero, it stands still. . And then then the sum inegral of detla T above that, counted up as “Døgngrader” day- grades.
Orthodoxy given by classic thermometers, the swedish Ekholm Modèns formula says T mean= 1/24(T1 + T2 +…..T24) defined as “mean temperature in orthodox meteorology But for practical and fruitful.. simplicity, only T6 T12 T18 and then diurnal max and min on such a thermometer. That gives only 3 readings a day and your fiance can also do it. It looks like old routine.
It looks like orthodox mean temperature by which you can compare stations.
But for the special conscept of Varmesum, they had a servograph probably bimetallic thermometer that wgote on a motorized roll of paper. I have seen that in scientific greenhouses. . Then you make xerox- copy and cut out the empirical integral with scissers and weigh the very season on a lab. balance.
Quite elegant but thermistors clocks and computers are invented today and can do the same.
German Wikipedia say of “Wärmesumme Heat- sum as defined that it is even better than the conscept of climate (whatever that may be) for practical use, And standard EU defined agricultural minimum is +5 Celsius. Below that no possible growth in the EU. .. But I know better. Certain species grow and moove down to the freezing point.
But for where to plant and grow what, under which Varmesum- conditions on the map, wine for instance, or sunflowers (also thermophile) and Corn…. and red tomatoes…. they hardly moove under +12 celsius.
Potatoes, Grass, Special cultivars of cabbage, onions,.. Carrots…. are quite tough, and you can study and discuss the liliaceae and narcisses and Anemones in spring also They even take a dash of frost with elegance. Alpine and boreal vegetation the same.
Varmesum is quite essencial for when the rather termophile fruit trees different from more heliotrop sub- boreal species are flowering.
Thus, that conscept of Heat- sum in day- grades integrated Varmesum…matches better with Köppens climate system, agriculture botanics and gardening than any indifferent conscept of warmth, climate , heat, or chill.
In English wikipedia I find a “Heat Degree Day HDD” conscept and CDD cooling degree days, mapped for the United states and fruitful for political calculation of heating and air condition sum of costs.
That conscept is near to the botanical Varmesum but for other purposes.
But, with todays methods and means, it could easily bedone by allready available online data.
What eats on the huge ices is Varmesum above zero celsius. And what makes large lakes and rivers freeze over is tyhe sum of weeks and months of degrees below zero..
Do you know if anything is done about this?
I h9ope you get this and reply to it
I find no good translation on the net of the conscept of “Varmesum” , that is a very obvious traditional conscept in the greenhouses It is what cost cokes in centiliters, and waggons, … and electtricity in kilowatt- hours. And further appliciable outdoor in the climate and the situation:
“Has there been any “warmth” this spring?…look there is still snow in the corners and uphill.!”
“Has there been any proper warmth this summer? No, the bathing season was nasty!”
And for the wines in France and even England. It takes certain local “varmesum” to have the sweetness and the strength or in fact whether you need a greenhouse at all here and there. It is easily seen in the wild flora and in the sunny walls. .
Further Varmesum where it ought not to be, there even was a bit “varmesum” on top of the Grønland glacier. recently.
Permafrost is thawing due to more summer “Warmth” or “varmesum” in recent years. Regardless of winter chill, Varmesum in the summer months is what eats on it.
So the Germans are right, i Wärmesumme” may be a better conscept for many purposes than simply “mean temperature” or “climate”.
Also, what can we learn from these records, when compared to past records? The non-linear data is still constraint by the boundaries in which it is recorded.
And according to Lovelock’s model (see the graph/video part 3 here https://climatestate.com/2015/09/02/abrupt-climate-change-theory-lovelock-and-white/) the climate is going to find a new stable state after a sudden jump.
Bottom line, what are we getting if the non-linear data is mapped to data from past comparable rapid climate events (PETM), plus factoring in additional human civilization related feedbacks (relocating cities, flooded cities, flooded infrastructure).
Further on “varmesum”- the fameous Warmth – sum. as defined earlier
different from average and mean temperature, global warming, and listed spikes and glimpses of positive listed and noted extreme sports records.
And diifferent to “trends” and “confidence”, even to co- relations.
Warmth- sum and chill- sum.. for days and for weeks during heat waves and eventual frost “situations” is what really bothers us…. and costs.
But also, what makes the fameous crown years of wines and apples.
Even the nucllear power plaans suffer from it when their cooling towers cease to cool due to too much “varmesum” in the summer weeks and months.. It comes on their negative accounts..
Thus if anyone is commercial and political and progressive here, they ought to be shocked that such an obvious and traditional conscept could be lost and forgotten in the very climate dispute.
But, there is new hope.
What Gavin Schmidt tells us of ” A recent NOAA STAR Dataset ” that is born now, ….
……should give the best premises and conditions also for taking the positive and the negative, wavy short time smoothed out integrals ….. to label,….and to purchase that also on the free market.
It might be what people can possibly understand, because that is what they are suffereng under and must pay for, …. or may possibly be able to earn from and get fameous from and score their political moral points on.
And it must be definitions, what is warmth and what is chill? And what is norm and normal for reference?
What is cold and what is warm bathing water and why? What is a warm and what is a cool summer?
And even the springs, has it been a chill… or maybe rather a warm spring?
The conscept of Varmesum Warmth- sum different from temperature at the moment is also what everyone can read from the wild natiive local well adapted trees, those very fameous eyemarks and references for qualified gardening agriculture bathing and vacationing.
Even further . The quotient Varmesum / Percipitation D = V/P gives Drought and Desertification D, yes or no.
A Temperature is a macroscopic and weighty thing. There is no temperature in a point.
It is allways rather a “Varmesum”.
Thus better get aquainted to it.
Ron R. says
Carbomontanus, thank you.
Ron R. says
Nigel, yeah, I’m not an expert either. Thanks for your comments.
Barry E Finch says
I might as well bung this old cut’n’paste here in case somebody browsing then educates me about something in it. I note I thought “STAR” was the name of the MSU instrument so maybe REMSS didn’t reply with info because I blatantly advertised their competition to them.
From: email@example.com Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 12:58 To: ‘BarryFinch’
Subject: RE: STAR MSU onboard calibration procedure mismatches a solid-housed thermometer placed in the atmosphere
Hello Barry, Let me look into this and get back to you.
Remote Sensing Systems
707-545-2904 ext. 11
From: BarryFinch Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 4:00 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: STAR MSU onboard calibration procedure mismatches a solid-housed thermometer placed in the atmosphere
If I’m understanding the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure correctly, then it measures a different physical aspect of Earth’s atmosphere than is measured by a thermometer (either liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance) and it measures a lesser physical aspect. The underlying reason for the difference is that there is no long-wave radiation (LWR) inside a solid such as a platinum-resistance thermometer. I’ve never heard a climate scientist mention this.
If the lower tropospheric (for example) atmosphere warms then there is an anomaly in these forms of energy:
– molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat),
– LWR energy,
– molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form).
The warm target in a MSU/AMSU is a solid blackbody whose temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers embedded in it. The microwave flux density from it is used to scale microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere. The issue I see is that this onboard calibration procedure causes the instrument to scale such that it measures only molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) in the atmosphere and excludes LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs in the atmosphere. This means that differentiation over time of this proxy measures only heat anomaly.
A liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer placed in the atmosphere at elevation 2m (for example) above ocean or land surface measures:
– molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) plus
– LWR energy plus
– molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs (primarily H2O in the gaseous form)
because LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs are transmuted to molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) upon impacting upon the molecules of the solid and I understand that there is no transverse electromagnetic radiation inside a solid. Placement of the thermometer inside an enclosure does not exclude the LWR energy and molecular vibrational energy of the GHGs due to GHG molecule collisions.
Thus, differentiation over time of the liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer proxies for temperature measures the sum of all three anomalies but differentiation over time of the microwave flux density (thermal emission) from molecules (primarily oxygen) in the atmosphere at the example elevation of 2m measures only the molecular kinetic energy (molecular translational energy, heat) anomaly with the STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure as described. In order for the MSU/AMSU to measure the same physical aspect as a liquid-expansion or platinum-resistance thermometer it would be necessary to calibrate with the warm target being atmospheric gases in close proximity to a solid whose temperature is measured by platinum-resistance thermometers, or a compensating adjustment could be made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR energy + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
Please inform whether:
1) I’m misunderstanding the physics, or
2) I’m not including another aspect of STAR microwave sounding unit (MSU/AMSU) onboard calibration procedure that deals with this issue, or
3) A compensating adjustment for this is made during analysis such as RSS and UAH based upon the ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere, or
4) The ratio of LWR + molecular vibrational energy of GHGs energy to molecular kinetic energy in the atmosphere is so negligible (far less than uncertainties) that no compensating adjustment for it is required for analysis such as RSS and UAH.
Ron R. says
Macias, “I never cited the bible or the book of Revelation.”
I’m thinking of this comment. Unless there is some other one, Revelation is the Book of the Apocalypse.
So just wondering, when you talk about burning down here,
Are your referring to Peter 3:10?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not attacking you (though I detest your attitude). I think you described Gaia theory very well when you said above that it’s a,
“symbol of a process in which the community of living beings ensures that their living conditions are maintained”.
One reason why we should preserve every species we can, because losing any is like losing a small part of the evolved, collective world mind.
Ron R. says
Sorry, that’s 2 Peter 3:10
Anyway, it’s a dangerous philosophy to have environmentally. The reason is that if people think that the earth is going to be destroyed soon anyway they become apathetic. even anti-environmental – as a whole political party that identifies as Christian is known to be.
Some, like the former U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, James G. Watt, supposedly believed that since it’s destined to be destroyed anyway, why not reap all you can from it now (at least that’s what some authorities say)? Rape and pillage cause a there’s new world’s a comin’.
Ron R. says
Anyway, to end this particular conversation (I hope), conservative believers are generally unaware of (or avoid mentioning) another verse in the Bible. It’s even in Revelation. In chapter 11, verse 18, it says that,
God will destroy those who destroy the earth.
Ron R. says
Macias, btw, the seven headed hydra and the whore sitting on it that you mention are quite similar to the seven headed dragon and whore that’s mentioned in Revelation 13 and 17. The Bible.
Note that I am not bringing this up because I am religious. I’m not. Religion has succeeded in bringing fear and superstition, hate and division, and a whole lot of bloodshed into the world. I’m not theist (nor atheist). I am, and have been agnostic for a long time. We are learning new things all the time. Who was it who said that the more you know, the more you realize that you don’t know much, or something like that.
I apologize for misusing this thread.
@ Ron R
Blind evolution by trial and error and survival of the fittest in the struggle for life became quite a doctrine, a clearly anti- theistic one.
I once took a nun of the Dominican order on this, I was able to get her out on very thin ice and safely back again. She smiled and did agree.
Today, animal feeling, and soul is scientific and political orthodoxy settled by law with regulation and penal provisions. It has not allways been so. Formerly, only men and horses had got soul, even women had not.
Further, Animal intelligence can be shown and studied scientifically.
Together, this plays a role in sexual life and possible breeding and evolution.
Example: “Everyone can make a mistake, the hedgehog said, he climbed down again from the clothbrush.
Consequently, Intetelligent design may have been a reality ever since the cambrosilurean period at least.
Itt follows if we asssume and accept animmal consciousnness and intelligence.
But this may be animism and spiritism rather than theism.
A religious idea? Yes!
Ron R. says
I’m not sure about all that, Carbomontanus. When one is assuming they gotta be careful not to put too positive a spin on things (as we people like to do). There’s a difference between assuming and knowing. But it’s an interesting thought anyway. Thanks.
@ Ron R
It becomes a question of how you define it.
If you by Intelligent design mean Gods intelligent design, then you will be disqualified as a theist.
But the version that I described builds on a more accepted fact namely animal intelligens and animals being conscious and self- aware.
Which is rather new political thinking and beliefs.
For peasants it has allways been taken for granted else you cannot tackle animals in a smooth way. But recent philosophy from Descartes an onward has objected strongly to it.
Aristoteles de anima, on the soul, takes animals into account. And has been obvious for a long while, and seems to become obvious again.
I dare to insist that without “green fingers” and “dyre- tekke” = animal- take, empathy with animals so that they like you and eventually obey and can be herded, and respect for them as persons (see animal- gods) mankind would not have survived the stone- age.
And Stone-age was very very long- .
I have learrnt that it is orthodox zen- buddhsm. And pope Francis (what`s in a name) clearly thinks or feels the same way in his Laudato si.
It is also called empathy, that is a quite necessary and efficient human instinct all through stoneage and further on.
A minimum of “empathy” is simply for your soul and senses to be more realistic and efficient vs plants and animals.
And quite recently, Empathy was explicitely ordered by law and regulations with penal provisions.
As for assuming and knowing, that is also disputed and not allways agreed on.
My GURU of philosophy once said angrily: “As for believers and non believers,… they only “believe”..!”
He claimed a further cathegory , Certainty.
Barton Paul Levenson says
C: Blind evolution by trial and error and survival of the fittest in the struggle for life became quite a doctrine, a clearly anti- theistic one.
BPL: Scientific findings have no theistic implications one way or another. Christian theology, in particular, incorporates the idea of “secondary causation.” God does not have to micromanage each creation event.
@ Levenson again
Levenson, avoid teaching people about things, Christian theology for instance, where you are not even matriculated to the faculty.
I am not either, but I share pensa and studies at the faculty of philosophy, that I know is due also for general christian theology. And theese things are hardly the way that you put it.
I had a neighbour here for many years who was professor of theology in Oslo. He was the only one around here who was orderly aquainted to classical philology (Greek Hebrew and Latin) and orderly epistemology and psychology.
Whereas knowitalls and fanatism rather characterizes the uneducated and “layman” level.
Those tend to discuss both God and Molecules, Climate and Human Nature as if it was very well known patent- ware industrial LEGO toy to them.
Barton Paul Levenson says
C: Levenson, avoid teaching people about things, Christian theology for instance, where you are not even matriculated to the faculty.
BPL: You are quite wrong, sir. I am an ordained deacon and an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church USA, I took New Testament Greek from Dr. Orr for eight years, I am an amateur C.S. Lewis scholar, and I was a history minor at the University of Pittsburgh. The doctrine of secondary causation is well known to students of the history of science. For more detailed information, try here:
I have looked up the presbyterians on Wikipedia and should have done that before.
So I can correct myself a bit.
Calvinism and maybe especially presbyterianism seem to have a theological and congregational system that is maybe some of the most incongruent systematic learnings on basic chosmological and antropological questions, as compared to my culture and upbringing as a Norwegian lutheran “pietist” and academic. In Holland it shows that I relate much closer to the flemish catolics.. Norway has been in union with Denmark for centuries with a special and own variety of lutheran protestantism that communicates with the Anglicans.
But for the subject, I have learnt to approach it rather from the “earthly” side, from the side of Humaniora and knowledge of Nature, not from the positions of theology, and see if that can go together.
Old professor Ratzinger spoke: “There is no natural iron curtain between faith and reason,, both must behave. And by danger of collision, Reason has got the right of way!
and “God is reasonable” Another interesting doctrine of Ratzinger.
And “In order to understand christianity, we must also understand its hellenistic roots!”
Some called him Gods Rottweiler, I found him a very comfortable old professor for my possible studies.
I could recognize him as a child of his own time, very well aquainted to important developments of science and philosophy that breaks with earier popular ateism and… physical determinism, and re- establishes the conscept of soul and consciousness through developments of psychology and epistemology.
I have Eddington on Pensum and have tried it out. “Philosophy of physical science” in Eddingtons version showed very efficient on music acoustics, as “the physics of oscillating air from audical minds point of wiew.”
Mind and matter, and all this.
We do not have to deny and to fight physics in order to save our souls. Better work according to it and along with it.
But that was the situation for earlier generations, due to their scriptures. they even had to fight Darwin.
Secondary causation, no!
Set on Aristoteles`4 categories of causation instead., Orthodox scolastics..
1, Causa formale
3, Causa efficiens and
I was lucky to have that from mideival scolastics. It makes full sense also for science. The big blunder is that all that was washed out exept for Causa efficiens.
Calvinism has been developed through a period with strong belief in determinism rather in order to satisfy so called classical physics. The question for people were then wether they had any free will or were determined to go to hell.
That trauma was dissolved in the 20ieth century by Niels Bohrs and Heissenbergs natural physical indeterminism. That is a primary causa formale and need not be any kind of “secundary causality.”
Eddington was a quaker. Bohr and Einstein were both Jews
Barton Paul Levenson says
As you can see, Levenson,
there has also been scolarly political and evironmental disputes in mideival time, nothing new on earth and under the heavens.
But that of secondary causataton has hardly survived exept for the fanatics and blind believers and desert walkers.
It may have been about the truth of the holy Kuran and the scriptures and how to sell Allah as the highly advanced and sublime, primary causation, the first order causation, and all the rest as “secondary”. shit and dirty confused and erroreous and heathen. To be conquered and won over in order for salvation, divinitty.. and rulership of its believers and soldiers.
With Gehenna below it down there outside of the holy Jerusalem…., where you can throw all errors and dirts and all that you cannot understand.. Today: “Go to Hell!” where an eternal flame eats it,….. out of sight, out of miind.
But that does inevitably give ugly smokes and smells and….. memories…… due to CON- SCIENCE which is a variety of SCIENCE!…. along with the elementary principles of com-bustions, you see.
That is the whole, damned thing.
ERITES SICCVT DEVS, SCIENTESS BONVM & MALVM!
the serpent spoke
And they took it.
Thus you have DIA-BOLOS, division and Dia- lecctic- materialismm even on causation. in your provincial “presbyterian “” sect.
Resign on it,
I have no need for it. I feel no need to administer God. in order to be in charge. and order and instruct primary causes for himso that I can do the secondary remainings.
That is not efficient physics, chenistery, technology, biology, medicine, and gardening, sailorship and fishery, and political life in the climate.
Just avoid and resign on fighting and instructing the given and natural premises, and God will be with you and smile to you from all sides. That shows to be the special way that he likes to have my special person at least, in the universe………. on my special place in my tiny environment. …. on the blue marble in the Copernican-Kepplerian system.
Thus I am in charge as a very high Shanan and Guru after all. Even the Popes come after me.
God shows all the time in recent time that I was especially born for showing especially that to the environment and to the climate and environmental dispute. .
Einstein:: “God doeas not play with daise…!”
Niels Bohr: “Albert, never tell God how he shall play!”
They were both Jews , 2 roosters in the same basket or henyard.
Causa formale and Causa materiale, levenson, the way it is and what matters due to reality.
God can play with Daise as easy as that in that system, and you could also do that along with creation and warrant. And will not have to instruct and to teach provincial theology first.
You should rather employ me as a preacher for the Presbyterians, Levenson. I could enlight and inspire the elderlies there……. as they surely need it.
We had Jehovas withnesses on our door for a while, and I took it as a challenge and did my best to be friendly and polite with them and find out who they really are. I had them down to eearth by taking them out in the garden and they liked it. They show high interest and respect for nature..
I found that their system roots back in american calvinism maybe even presbyterianism, but that they are clearly Gnostics in addition to that. Christians? yes!! but maybe not all of them.
They are Cathars. that is an ugly story from southern mideival france
Gnosticism has become fameous again in the 20ieth century. .and so has also varieties of catharism.. I saw myself as a gnostic for a while and learnt a lot, but I came over it..
Your belief in secondary causation (that I reject) with roots in mideival time may have come from the islamic impulse of especially Averroes Ibn Rushd from Cordoba. Who together with Avicenna Ibn Cina from Afganistan was quite a shock to western christianity as they brought with them the very work of Aristoteles that seemed to conquer the orthodoxy of Roma. .
Thomas Aqvinas is the one who managed to make a synthesis and write a new catechism that has stood to our days for western catolicism. Gallilei had a lot of his philosophy directly from Ibn Rushd. from spanish Islam. .
I can also tell that the impulse of Meister Eckhardt and Cusanus that has further gone rather north to the Netherlands Erasmus Rotterdamus and Wessel Gansfort… seems more integrated to Danish philosophhy and mysticism than for instance to Kalvins theology. .
I live well with Eckhards wise theorems on mind and soul. .
This is elemennts that should be taken serious also in the climate dispute as “Gaia” comes up and has had an obvious, one can say revolutionanry,…… influence on IPCC philosophy.
The contrarians rather ride on vulgar neo- Hegelianism even ateism , that is not my style. DS.
Barton Paul Levenson says
C: secondary causataton [sic] has hardly survived exept [sic] for the fanatics and blind believers and desert walkers.
BPL: It has become part of standard Christian doctrine about creation. Please stop trying to pontificate about theology, a subject about which you obviously know nothing. You sound like a creationist talking about biology.
Provincial doctrinal congregational Presbyterian….. secterism,……
I am not “pontificating ” anything.
I checked up the web on basic and common christian dogma credo and beliefs, and causation is hardly one of them,, neither primary or secondary, , and especially not the mixture of it, such as both primmary and secondary causations.
So you seem to be lacking a lot of enlightmeent about philosophy, and ,epistemology, and the history of ideas and of thoughts here, and where your geographicaqlly socially etnically politically historically hard-necked provincial sect has got its apparently extreeme puristic ideas from.
So I repeat my offer.
i can come over and soften up those fameous “elderlies” of yours…
Pleace tell that to them, and . I look forward to an invitation from them.
The Jehovas withnesses here did suggest that I should come to their “kiingdom hall” and do that,, affter I may have “pontificated” better than their “elderliese” , so that they also could see the light right here in my garden .
The Royal Frederiks Uniiversitty of Christiania, you see, may simply be above the flat earthers, deserrt walkers, and doubble blind believers in the grades.
Ron R. says
“Pope Francis’ in his comprehensive Laudato si’ ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME (May 24, 2015), says:
“Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures….The Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism.”.
In referring to Genesis 1:28