Serious Climate Doping Suspicion Against RSS: Satellite Temperatures Raised One And Half Tenths Of A Degree
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Temperatures can be measured from the ground and from satellites. Satellite data have two versions, UAH and RSS. The version of UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) makes a solid impression. The RSS version shows larger deviations and suggests a stronger warming.
How come?
Doping the data
Both datasets surely get their data from similar satellites. The explanation lies in a “post-processing” of the measured values by the RSS group. In the chart below you can see the old version in red.
Global temperature based on RSS satellite measurements. From Climate4You Newsletter June 2018.
At some point from mid 2015, the RSS people pushed the temperatures starting at the year 2000 manually upwards. Therefore today you can find the values of the blue curve in the database. As a result of this subsequent data change, additional warming was generated at a speed of one and a half tenths of a degree. It does not sound very much, but it is much if you consider that the 20th century warming was only eight-tenths of a degree.
Data on statistical steroids
It’s a little bit as like a year 2010 high jump world record of 2.40 meter later being changed to 2.45 meter by the International Athletics Federation. We could call this desktop doping, which would certainly not be a bad description for the RSS intervention.
RSS statisticians massively massaged their data under the radar, without any interest from the media. A few years later new heat records get surprisingly reported, but in many cases likely solely through the heat-promoting measures of desktop doping.
Change the data to fit the broken models
The changes happen to affect the hiatus phase, as it apparently had to do with the fear that the warming would not continue. The values were simply raised. It’s a classic case where the readings did not confirm the models. But instead of improving the models, the measurement data were changed. There are hardly any other disciplines out there where things work this way.
Once again, it’s clear that we urgently need climate-related checks. The damage to the trust is already done. Now only stricter checks can help, and restricting employees in cases of suspicion – lifelong in the case of repeat-offenders.
Criminal fraud
Proposal: Anyone who fabricates or falsifies climate data, or brings these willfully into the public, should be punished with 2 years in prison.
1. If we will look at data – blue curve is showing sharp changes every year and average tendency.
It must create questions – what are the reason for climate change. No one explanation – carbon dioxide, solar activities, Milancovich cycles, volcanoes activities, etc – CAN’T EXPLAIN IT.
Only properties of water – changes of evaporation of water on continents by roots of trees and other vegetation – with changing every year what we are growing on every fields – CAN EXPLAIN THESE SHARP ANNUAL CHANGING.
2. Any measurement of NASA is showing that region of Arctic Ocean is increasing temperature 38 times bigger, than in South Hemisphere.
It mean, that melting of snow and ice in mounts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Europe, Russia can occur as in global warming, as in global cooling condition – THAT IS A DANGER, NOT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
WE MUST REEVALUATE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ASAP.
Tony Heller agrees with Pierre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJtpdTbHY30
But is Tony right? Sure seems like it.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
So, it’s pretty clear from unadjusted sea level data that climate “scientists” are in the tank for global warming, in order to justify their lies about “accelerating” sea level.
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/
And who can blame some of the scientists who wouldn’t otherwise join the scam, what with the mafia style threats and intimidation brought to bear on it’s behalf by corrupt government officials!
https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/heartland-defends-global-warming-skeptics/
It’s bad enough being threatened with punishment if you have committed a crime, but when you haven’t, that’s got to be pretty scary.
You’ll have to build another prison!
[…] Dr. S. Lüning and Prof. F. Vahrenholt, August 19, 2018 in […]
Why am I not surprised at this post-hoc fiddle by climate sciactivists?
Exactly. Measurements are just data to be adjusted to fit our purpose.
Post-modern science at its “best.”
Here is RSSv$ -RSSv3.3 ($ instead of 4, is intentional)
https://s19.postimg.cc/tcd8fmb37/RSS__v4-v3.3.png
[…] […]
Not to defend them, but effectively both UAH and RSS are models. Data fed into them from satellites massaged according to some secret formulas, and out pops your official results.
In this case, not quite Garbage In / Garbage Out. But certainly, we need to get a much better understanding of the basis of the changes in the secret formulas to achieve these new results.
Roy Spencer doesn’t appear to be afraid to give us at least some idea of how he collects and processes his data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
He also posts occasionally about how elevated CO2 poses a serious threat. No, not to the world, but to the warmist narrative.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/make-agriculture-great-again-record-corn-yield-and-soybean-production-predicted-for-2018/
Roy Spenser posted explicitly about the RSS adjustments last year: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/
Before they added warming, here’s how close the RSS and UAH datasets were:
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cooling-1998.jpg
Question is, why is UAH6 lower than UAH5.6? Why is UAH the only dataset that’s deviating? And why did Pierre delete my reply? Not happy with someone pointing out that he is just parroting (“translating”) industry lobbyist accusations with no substance, adding his own fraud angle to it? 😉
Has anyone of you guys read and understood this FAQ?http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/
It’s not. The UAH agrees with “(a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so” compared with NOAA and RSS.
He didn’t. Had to dig a reply out of spam. It’s there. Stop complaining.
Christy et al., 2018
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
“[A]s new versions of the datasets are produced, trend magnitudes have changed markedly, for example the central estimate of the global trend of the mid-troposphere in Remote Sensing System’s increased 60% from +0.078 to +0.125°C decade−1, between consecutive versions 3.3 and 4.0 (Mears and Wentz 2016). … As an experiment, Mears et al. recalculated the RSS overall trend by simply truncating NOAA-14 data after 1999 (which reduced their long-term trend by 0.02 K decade−1). However, this does not address the problem that the trends of the entire NOAA-12 and −14 time series (i.e. pre-2000) are likely too positive and thus still affect the entire time series. Additionally, the evidence from the Australian and U.S. VIZ comparisons support the hypothesis that RSS contains extra warming (due to NOAA-12, −14 warming.)”
“Overall then, this analysis suggests spurious warming in the central estimate trend of RSS of at least +0.04°C decade−1, which is consistent with results shown later based on other independent constructions for the tropical belt.”
“When examining all of the evidence presented here, i.e. the correlations, magnitude of errors and trend comparisons, the general conclusion is that UAH data tend to agree with (a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so, than the other three [NOAA, RSS, UW]. … One key result here is that substantial evidence exists to show that the processed data from NOAA-12 and −14 (operating in the 1990s) were affected by spurious warming that impacted the four datasets, with UAH the least affected due to its unique merging process. RSS, NOAA and UW show considerably more warming in this period than UAH and more than the US VIZ and Australian radiosondes for the period in which the radiosonde instrumentation did not change. Additionally the same discrepancy was found relative to the composite of all of the radiosondes in the IGRA database, both global and low-latitude.”
“While not definitive, the evidence does support the hypothesis that the processed satellite data of NOAA-12 and −14 are characterized by spurious warming, thus introducing spuriously positive trends in the satellite records. Comparisons with other, independently-constructed datasets (radiosonde and reanalyses) support this hypothesis (Figure 10).”
“Given this result, we estimate the global TMT trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. … The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”
From the FAQ I linked to:
And then there is of course this study:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1
No amount of quotes from John Christy will convince anyone that his work is sound. Is there any external study like the one I presented that would say that UAH is THE definitive temperature dataset of the lower troposphere?
“a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets “
ROFLMAO,
So once they have finished tampering with the data it shows warming.. WOW !!
Call me UNimpressed !!
UAH matches NOAA’s own satellites.
https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png
No “adjustments” needed.
@spike
Homogenized? They probably pasteurize it, as well – you know, HEAT IT to remove the contaminating pathogen known as “reality.”
@Sean
Thanks.
I like his last few paragraphs [my additions/emphasis in brackets and added video].
” I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward [as Tony Heller illustrates, here]. …
. . .
Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.
And that is the most important point to be made.”
The climate mafia has gotten to everyone but Spencer and Cristy. I hope they can hold out against the corrupt climate “scientists” and politicians.
You always have to ask the question in this situation…..were they incompetent then…or are they incompetent now?
HAH! Indeed.
Hadcrut4 does the same compared to hadcrut3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2014.33/trend
UAH 5.6 does the same compared to UAH 6.0 …
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2014.33/trend/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2014.33/trend
Oh wait, what?
Well, it does not, obviously. Most newer versions of global temperature indices do add more warming.
UAH 6 made it actually cool in a period where it warmed in the previous version. How is that different? Or is adjusting one’s dataset so it shows cooler temperatures a good thing, but the other direction is wrong?
Is that why “skeptics” consider the NOAA SST data to be wrong, too? Because they “warmed” old data which resulted in a less pronounces overall SST warming? Or was that a good thing for you guys?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
UAH matches NOAA’s own satellite data (that NOAA won’t use because it is nowhere near the models)
https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png
They use “climate models” to “adjust” RSS, how much more ridiculous can you get than that. !!
The change from UAHv5.6 to UAHv6 was because of KNOWN, MEASUREABLE satellite drift.
Remain ignorant, seb.. its your only choice.
Speaking of measurements and evidence…
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
This is an amazing reply when you consider what the main reason for RSS v4 was 😉
AndyG55, you are a marvelous creature …
We know the main reason for RSSv4, a vain attempt to match the climate models, by using a climate model to do the “adjustments”
You are so DUMB, that you probably don’t see justhow ridiculous that is.
You really should actually do some research, seb, so your IGNORANCE doesn’t show so much.
Noted YET AGAIN the headless-chook EVASION of those two questions, childish attempt at distraction…
So funny to watch you just keep SQUIRMING.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
You really are a cowardly, pathetic creature.
I see how ridiculous you are, so …
Ouch, you really gave it to me this time. *sigh*
Seb with YET ANOTHER headless chook EVASION
HILARIOUS 🙂
Would be far better for you to just RUN AWAY than to give such a pathetic, cowardly EVASION of a response.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Q3. Do you REALLY think it is scientifically appropriate to use “climate models” in the calculation of temperature, like RSSv4 does?
The depths of your NON-SCIENCE NONSENSE knows no bounds.
Let’s see how you evade … do you think satellites are measuring temperature? Yes or no?
I am a bit disappointed that you used insults from before. Try to be more creative next time and come up with some new stuff. I’m really enjoying this attention thing you are providing me with. What more can someone apparently living in a basement dependent on fossil fuels want in his life than a loyal fan who comments on everything he writes?
German scientists? Rather German paid for by oil companies (literally) lobbyists. Especially since they didn’t employ any science in their ridiculous accusation that you just copied and pasted 😉
Oh really, when you look at different temperature datasets it really is just one set that deviates from all the others. Guess which one! And that has been especially true since version 6.0 of that deviating dataset.
Manually? How? As Stuart Lynne correctly writes, those are models derived from satellite data. The algorithms aren’t secret. Point out where temperatures got manually shifted?
What would you call it if it turns ouot the UAH team managed to artificially cool their temperature dataset? What happened to RSS as the poster child dataset skeptics would use to point out that there is not that much warming? Now that they corrected for satellite error/drift suddenly it’s also fraud like the rest of the datasets that don’t agree with your imagination.
Since you are a fan of those Lüning/Vahrenholt lobbyists, do you think this will every become reality?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_L%C3%BCning#/media/File:Comparison_real_temperature_data_vs.Vahrenholt_andL%C3%BCnings_2012_prognosis.png (their prediction of future temperatures)
What will you do if it doesn’t just as your own prediction for 2020 temperatures? Will time alone be able to make you realize how wrong you are/were? Or will this game never end and just because this one prediction failed there would be no reason their other nonsense could be wrong too … nope, that only works as an argument for “warmists” predicting things for a very specific scenario, right? 😉
Under the radar? Huh? You guys are lamenting about it for years now … poster chiild dataset turned evil or something like that. And no, nobody is interested in “skeptics” calling anything a fraud. That only serves as something the rest of us can laugh about.
Yeah … right, in your fantasy perhaps. Have you ever read this FAQ?
http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/
There is no magic satellite temperature measurement happening. Those are models or rather algorithms too. They include corrections for all kind of problems that arrise with this kind of data processing.
So you want to suppress science that you dislike. Great! Maybe someone at UAH needs some restricting? Why is that dataset the only one deviating? Because they “tell the truth”? That seems unlikely.
“Vahrenholt lobbyists, do you think this will every become reality?”
So funny to see you GULLIBLY eat up the use of the FARCICAL GISS fabrication in your attempt at distraction.
Use something REAL for your temperature data, seb, not some crap deliberately fabricated to match the TOTALLY FARCICAL models.
https://s19.postimg.cc/hz5lgm6hv/biggestfail2.png
REAL temperature anomaly this year so far is 0.231C.
Looks like Vahrenholt OVER-ESTIMATED the future temperature, doesn’t it.
You do know that RSSv4 uses “climate models” to “adjust” to get that warming, don’t you seb
… or are you being deliberately IGNORANT, as always.
It’s not. The UAH agrees with “(a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so” compared with NOAA and RSS.
Christy et al., 2018
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
“[A]s new versions of the datasets are produced, trend magnitudes have changed markedly, for example the central estimate of the global trend of the mid-troposphere in Remote Sensing System’s increased 60% from +0.078 to +0.125°C decade−1, between consecutive versions 3.3 and 4.0 (Mears and Wentz 2016). … As an experiment, Mears et al. recalculated the RSS overall trend by simply truncating NOAA-14 data after 1999 (which reduced their long-term trend by 0.02 K decade−1). However, this does not address the problem that the trends of the entire NOAA-12 and −14 time series (i.e. pre-2000) are likely too positive and thus still affect the entire time series. Additionally, the evidence from the Australian and U.S. VIZ comparisons support the hypothesis that RSS contains extra warming (due to NOAA-12, −14 warming.)”
“Overall then, this analysis suggests spurious warming in the central estimate trend of RSS of at least +0.04°C decade−1, which is consistent with results shown later based on other independent constructions for the tropical belt.”
“When examining all of the evidence presented here, i.e. the correlations, magnitude of errors and trend comparisons, the general conclusion is that UAH data tend to agree with (a) both unadjusted and adjusted IGRA radiosondes, (b) independently homogenized radiosonde datasets and (c) Reanalyses at a higher level, sometimes significantly so, than the other three [NOAA, RSS, UW]. … One key result here is that substantial evidence exists to show that the processed data from NOAA-12 and −14 (operating in the 1990s) were affected by spurious warming that impacted the four datasets, with UAH the least affected due to its unique merging process. RSS, NOAA and UW show considerably more warming in this period than UAH and more than the US VIZ and Australian radiosondes for the period in which the radiosonde instrumentation did not change. Additionally the same discrepancy was found relative to the composite of all of the radiosondes in the IGRA database, both global and low-latitude.”
“While not definitive, the evidence does support the hypothesis that the processed satellite data of NOAA-12 and −14 are characterized by spurious warming, thus introducing spuriously positive trends in the satellite records. Comparisons with other, independently-constructed datasets (radiosonde and reanalyses) support this hypothesis (Figure 10).”
“Given this result, we estimate the global TMT trend is +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1. … The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 ± 0.03°C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate.”
From the RSS FAQ:
“a comparison with homogenized radiosonde datasets shows generally better agreement “
That’s HILARIOUS, seb.
So once “they” finish “homogenising/adjusting” the data, it shows more warming, like RSSv$ with its climate model “adjustments”.
You have to realise that RSS are actually rabid AGW cultists. They held onto their scientific integrity for quite a while, but they were always going to become “non-credible” at some stage.
Oddly, the “homogenisation” routine nearly ALWAYS seems to add a warming trend, especially to raw data that was cooling. 😉
Its a tool.. sadly abused.
UAH v6 matches NOAA’s own satellite data, WITHOUT any collusion required.
https://s19.postimg.cc/y5hy1fkvn/UAH_vs_NOAA_satellites.png
Roy Spencer of UAH actually predicted this would happen to RSS data a few months before it happened. He must have heard something on the grapevine. RSS was got at, and Roy believes UAH has been left alone because they can be portrayed as an outlier.
@Derek Colman
See last 3 paragraphs of the link Sean posted in his comment above.
https://notrickszone.com/2018/08/19/rss-suspected-of-serious-data-doping-german-scientists-say-values-fudged-to-fit-models/comment-page-1/#comment-1271265
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the only reference Spencer made to it, either.
[…] No Tricks Zone – RSS Suspected Of “Serious Data Doping”, German Scientists Say…”Values… […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Informations on that Topic: notrickszone.com/2018/08/19/rss-suspected-of-serious-data-doping-german-scientists-say-values-fudged-to-fit-models/ […]