Latest News (hidethedecline)

By Frank Lansner, civil engeneer biochemistry.

How UAH satellite temperature data supports Urban Heat (UHI) as a real and significant factor when estimating global temperatures.

NH temperatures in recent years:

Fig1. UAH global temperatures trend equals global sea surface temperatures: The black temperature graph - average RSS+UAH satellite NH (Land + Sea) - has a smaller warming trend than the other (brown) land data series – but in fact resembles the cooler Sea Surface Temperature trend.
(The blue graph “CSST” is an average of the rather similar SST´s: MOHSST6, HADSST1, HASSST2, ERSST.v3b, HADISST1and Kaplan SST 98.)

The satellite data represents both land and ocean temperatures – and yet they resemble only the SST´s. Why ?

Satellite temperatures and SST do have one thing in common: They are for sure without the UHI warming error from the cities and airports – they are Excl. UHI:

Fig2.  Now we split the UAH data up in a land fraction and an ocean fraction. Both still seems to yield considerably lower temperature trends than the land data (brown) measured from mostly cities and airports on the ground.

So UAH land temperatures have colder temperature trend than the ground based land temperatures. Are the land-data deviations due to general issues with the satellite data then? Perhaps the satellite data happens to show colder trends for some “known” reasons etc?

Not likely: There is a good resemblance between the UAH ocean temperature trends and then the directly measured ocean data, SST (“CSST”). This shows that satellite data (and thus also satellite land data) are indeed useful and likely to be correct.

So, unless the satellites always starts to fail just when flying over land, the deviation between land data measured on the ground (mostly from cities and airports) vs. satellite land data is likely to originate mostly from the ground based land measurements. This “extra heat trend” seen in the ground based land temperature data may be explained by UHI + possibly faulty adjustments of data and siting problems.

- One more result might also support the correctness of UAH data:

Systems will always seek equilibrium.
On fig 2 we see a pattern of gabs between the UAH land and ocean data. However, after the gabs the UAH land and ocean data these data unite again and thus despite the temporary deviations, they still seem to produce a common trend.

Is it surprising that the temperatures over land and sea will seek equilibrium? Or would it rather be surprising if they did not? What force should maintain a still bigger difference in temperatures between land and see trends?  

Fig 3. Lets focus on the temporary gabs between satellite land and ocean temperatures. The green curve represents a de-trended version, just the difference between the land and ocean temperature data from satellite. From fig 3 it appears to some degree that land and sea temperatures align or reaches equilibrium mostly when temperature do not change fast.

Lets take a look at the same phenomenon in the decades just before the satellite age – I use original temperature data published en around 1974-84 for this:

 
Fig 4. On this illustration we have confirmed, that the land-AIR temperatures are fastest to reach a temperature change “100%”, then the Marine-AIR temperatures comes soon after “80%” and finally the sea water surface temperatures reaches the new temperature level.  Again it seems, that after a given time ocean temeperatures and land temperatures tends to find equilibrium. The bac-to-equilibrium-between-land-and-sea-surface-temperatures seems to happen whithin few years, escpecially if general warming/cooling pauses or reverses.

With a reasonable argumentation that also the Land fraction of satellite data is a good indicator of land temperatures, lets look at the “extra heat” seen in the ground based land temperature measurements (mostly from cities and airports). How much “extra heat” do the ground based land data contain?

 
Fig5. The extra heat in CRUTEM3 land data compared to UAH on NH is 0,103 K per decade.

 
Fig6. On global scale, the extra heat in CRUTEM3 land data compared to UAH on NH is 0,088 K per decade. (0,23K over 26 years from 1981 to 2007).

If the extra heat in data measured on land is applied to a period 1900-2010 – just to get a rough idea of the possible impact - using 35-40% land area as hadcrut does - we get global extra heat of +0,34 to +0,39 K added to the overall warming of the Earth related to the extra heat occurring when measuring from cities, Airports etc.

0,34-0,39 K is roughly half the supposed global warming 1900 – 2010 , but in this context we cannot claim to have quantitative precision, obviously. But the rough estimate of 0,34-0,39 K suggests that the impact of “extra heat” that cannot be detected by satellites plays an important role when trying to estimate global temperature trends.

The problem of “extra heat” in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data:

Fig7. In the case of Hadcrut temperature series they use around 35-40% land data when calculating global data, but GISS have a temperature product using roughly twice this fraction for land area as fig 7 shows.

Fig 8 until around 2008 this illustration of land vs ocean temperatures was online at the NASA/GISS website. As we have seen, satellite data indicates that land temperatures from ground has trend around twice the trend of land data from satellite data - and as almost twice the warming trend of SST, ocean data. This tendency is confirmed on fig 8. From 1880 to 2007 we have an ocean warming trend around 0,6K and for land its around 1,2 K - twice.

Again, we saw from 30 years of satellite temperatures that global satellite data matches ocean temperatures rather closely. If valid, then the fig 8 indicates a 0,6 K faulty extra heat, UHI etc from 1880 to 2007.

****

Article from which most graphics where taken:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php
Review and feedback of the above article by E.M.Smith, Musings from the Chiefio:
“The rewritten past”: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/the-rewritten-past

Chosen articles by Frank Lansner:

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/a-brief-overview-of-chosen-frank-lansner-articles-in-english-208.php

Update:

Errors in the above suggested mostly by Bob Tisdale:

List of claimed ”errors” mostly received from Bob Tisdale in the comments on WUWT.

In the article UAH reveals Urban Heat, we see a rather clear data indication that ground based land temperatures shows warmer long term - 30 year - trend than 1) UAH land, 2) UAH ocean and 3) directly measured ocean temperatures.

Fig 1.

This may suggest, that the data type of ground based land measurements (often from cities/aiports) contains too much heat, in the article referred to as “extra heat”. (“extra heat” was explained in the article as UHI, wrong adjustments and siting problems).

Further, UAH data suggests a close bond between land and ocean data, the land data trend does not run far away from ocean data. Whenever there is a pause in the general warming, the UAH land and oceand data for temperature anomalies returns to the same distance.

This appears in harmony with basic thermodynamics, a system will always seek equilibrium.

However, it appears that the data type of ground based land measurements (often from cities/aiports) shows an ever still larger discrepancy from directly measured ocean temperatures, and thus has no “bond” to ocean temperatures. This may support the suggestion that it is indeed the ground based land data type that shows too much warming.

*********************************************************
To this, I have received an overwhelming number of claims that my thoughts and logic is hardly useful.
For example, when Lucy Skywalker (from the Blackboard) writes positively as comment on WUWT:

“Was just thinking, we need a paper submitted for peer-review and publication, authors Lansner, Tisdale and McKitrick. …Seriously. This looks like being potentially a damn good and important paper.”

To this, Bob Tisdale writes:

“Lucy, the post is so error filled it leaks like a collender. “

Im not sure what “collender” is, but I think its not that good.
In the following I have tried to get an overview over the errors claims spread out mostly by Bob Tisdale, sometimes explained over more comments, so I try my best to specify the error claims:

1) The article is pinpointing that the difference in data types might include some errors, perhaps especially for the ground based land data type. In the article I show that UAH land and ocean has similar warming trend – but ground based ocean and land based temperatures has not.
Bob claims that when the ground based land and ocean data are not the same type (unlike UAH land and ocean) then we should not expect the ground based long term (30 years) trends to be similar.
My opinion: Complete Nonsense. The problem we investigate is that the ground based land data type may have problems. An argument that “the ground based land data is a different data type” does NOT legalize that this data type has a long term trend different from oceans when UAH shows similar trend. The different data type may explain WHY we see a difference, just as the article suggests.

2) Bob claims: The used CSST-curve is so wrong that it disturbs the argument of the article.
My opinion: I have showed several times how close the CSST is to relevant SST, in fact it runs approximately as an average of the relevsant SST´s:

Therefore choosing one of the relevant SST´s would not change any points in the article.

3) In general it has been suggested, that I should have done something significantly wrong with data, and thus the article.
My Opinion: Bob Tisdale has plotted some SST´s and UAH ocean which shows a splendid match with the corresponding data from my part. Bobs graph left, and Bob graph overlaid on my fig 2 right:

  
Fig3. Click for large picture!
My opinion: Bobs treatment of data confirms my treatment of data. Bobs UAH-ocean is identical to mine, and if you see the black arrow right, you see that the blue CSST reflects well the average SST. Certainly nothing here suggests that significant errors in my graphs and data treatment.

4) Bob argues that bigger monthly variance in data should promote bigger warning trend.
 
Fig4:
My Opinion: Bob has made the above graphic where the UAH ocean data seems to fit the average of the SST´s allthough the UAH data type has far greater monthly variance. And important: If UAH shows rather similar land and ocean trends (despite bigger variance for land data) why should not ground based data do the same? And by the way, I have never heard that a bigger monthly variance itself could create a mulitidecadial significant warmer trend… !
In this connection Bob wrote: “one might expect the trend of the land surface temperature to be higher than the trends of the other datasets.”
That is, he believed that “one might expect”…  this is not a claim of error on my part, but simply Bobs opinion or thought.

5) Bob suggests it seems, that my 5  year avg. of the data graphs itself is responsible for the fact that UAH land vs. ocean data keeps returning to the earlier distances in anomalies between land and ocean. This is what I called: “UAH land and ocean temperatures keep seeking equilibrium”.
My opinion: First of all, what enables the “returning to equilibrium” is obviously that the 30 year UAH land and ocean trends are rather similar. The much warmer trend of ground based land temperatures compared to ocean temperatures ensures that no returning to initial distance between ocean and land data can never occur. So the “return to equilibrium” is mainly enabled by the long 30 year trend. Therefore, my averaging of 5 yr trend is not the cause.
Bob then showed how a 13 months averaged graph:
 
Fig5. Obviously this creates more noise in data, but it does not change the fact that UAH land and ocean data has similar trends and thus appears to have a bond, sometimes reaching equilibrium.
6) By showing the temperatures for a squarre of ocean and a squarre of land – that do not have totally same trend – Bob seems to think that this then rules out that there should be a hemispheric or global tendency that UAH has similar land and ocean trends. Or at least, this is how I read his words.
 
Fig 6. My Opinion: The article covered the whole NH for a combined relation ship land – ocean. The next natural step would be to examine a bigger area, the full globe, but in stead Bob chooses to look at a much much smaller land fragment versus ocean fragment. Obviously it is much more likely to stumble over odd result when choosing fragments like this, so I don’t know what to make of this. The ocean fragment will interact with all areas around it and in fact the whole NH and even to some degree the full globe. Therefore, we should look at a larger area, for example the full NH as in the article to begin with.

7) In the end of the article I write under fig 7:
"Fig7. In the case of Hadcrut temperature series they use around 35-40% land data when calculating global data, but GISS have a temperature product using roughly twice this fraction for land area as fig 7 shows."
So I write: “Giss have A temperature product…” and I show the GISS Tsurf global temperature map. This temperature map is the one shown today on GISStemp front page (right side):
 
Fig7.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The Tsurf is updated as allways, and maps and data are available as allways. I showed exactly the Tsurf product because problems for ground based land data makes the Tsurf product have more problems.
Bob then writes: “the GISS dTs data is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset. And since it is not the “current” GISTEMP dataset, your critiques have little to no meaning in discussions of land plus ocean datasets.”
My opinion: In Bobs OPINION it is not relevant for me in the article to criticize the Tsurf product as I do. But this is Bobs opinion, and not at all an “error” in any way from my part. The Tsurf product I criticize is THE product of James Hansen through many important writings all the way back from 1981, 86 and foreward. It is also a product that GISS chooses to maintain online for the public and therefore, the quality of the Tsurf product reflects the standard of the GISS science today. Summa: There is every reason to criticize the product as I do.
 

8) The "extra heat" in the article is described as "UHI, wrong adjustments and siting problems", however, in the short title "UAH reveals UrbAn Heat" it is only the UHI that is mentioned.

My opinion: Well... This is true... I made a short title where i made a little fun with the "U" "A" and "H", and i guess this has confused Bob. Other commenters has however read the article and is not in doubt what the real message is. If this is an "error" it is certainly not a kind of error that makes the content of the article not useful.

****UPDATE ****

Bob has now written yet an error he wants to mention in the comments below. In general he now expresses that I should to begin with have carried out much more analysis of data than I already have above. Nobody can deny that more analysis is always better. Bob now states that is “a failure” i did not do some further analysis of the types he mentions.

Error 9)
Bob writes:
“If YOU had performed a reasonable analysis, Frank, you would have discovered that the vast majority of the difference between TLT and surface data exists in only one area of the globe…. If you had researched it a little more, you would have discovered that much of the difference between TLT and surface data occurs over the North Atlantic. One wouldn't think that there is a lot of UHI effect on the North Atlantic, Frank.”

Comment:  I discovered that the NH ocean-average did not contribute to the differences at all while NH land areas was creating the whole difference. That’s the whole point…
I used UAH while Bob use UAH+RSS it seems So what is really interesting to explore is: Why is there this difference UAH vs RSS that produces exactly this difference? Does UAH actually hold some valid points here or is it faulty? We have to know exactly why these differences occur before we can conclude that for example the UAH result – maybe pointing to UHI – can be ditched just like that.

Bob writes further:
“Everyone knows the major difference between GISS and TLT data is how GISS treats the Arctic data.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean.html”

Really?

In general, I looked at AVERAGE LAND DATA for the whole NH and AVERAGE OCEAN DATA for the whole NH.
This to even out local differences for local reasons best possible. However Bobs findings for USA etc are.. surprising and certainly is something I would like to look closer into even though the difference in our findings appears related to use of different data as mentioned. 

Comments to this:

http://hidethedecline.eu/media/UAHUHI/bobsdiscussion.doc

The original article on WUWT:

UAH and UHI on WUWT

Last changed: 15th January, 2011 at 11:03:44

Comments