How many thermometers?
Johne S. Morton
"Paul D. Farrar" <far...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3978f2e...@news.datasync.com...
> 1. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
> the global-average surface temperature anomaly of the world,
> annually-averaged, for the 20th century?
>
> Mann, M, et al., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and
> climate forcing over the past six centuries, _Nature 392_,
> 779-787.
>
Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
Phil Hays
> Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
Try again.
--
Phil Hays
Clues for sale or rent.
Hints for just 50 cents.
Johne S. Morton
"Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:39791092...@sprynet.com...
> "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
>
> > Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
>
> A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
>
> Try again.
>
Thanks for trying to be smart, but I read every word in the original
post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from space?
>
> --
> Phil Hays
> Clues for sale or rent.
> Hints for just 50 cents.
Your inventory looks a bit low, Mr. Clue Vendor.
Phil Hays
> I read every word in the original
> post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from space?
Seen? Sure, although a significant fraction is obscured by clouds. Now measure
the surface temperature. That is not the same thing as seeing. Do you know
why? The ocean surface temperature is easy, and the land surface is much, much
harder. Do you know why? Do you care?
Have you figured out why weather balloons turn on their instruments at launch,
rather than at some high altitude yet?
Strong demand for clues requires me to raise prices. Hints are still fifty
cents.
Paul D. Farrar
the global-average surface temperature anomaly of the world,
annually-averaged, for the 20th century?
Mann, M, et al., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries, _Nature 392_,
779-787.
2. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
the sea surface temperature anomaly of the Atlantic for monthly-
average, 5 deg-space-average, for the past 136 years?
Kaplan, A, et al., 1997. Reduced space optimal analysis for
historical data sets: 136 years of Atlantic sea surface
temperatures, _J Geophys Res 102_, C13, 27835-27860.
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
Thomas Palm
> "Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:39791092...@sprynet.com...
> > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> >
> > > Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
> >
> > A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
> Thanks for trying to be smart, but I read every word in the original
> post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from space?
Then suggest a better way of measuring surface temperature from
space. MSU certainly doesn't do it.
Johne S. Morton
> "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
>
> > I read every word in the original
> > post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from
space?
>
measure
> the surface temperature. That is not the same thing as seeing.
Are visible light, infrared and microwave radiation not part of the same
spectrum??
>Do you know
> why? The ocean surface temperature is easy, and the land surface is much,
much
> harder. Do you know why? Do you care?
>
Yes and yes. Although measurement of SST "temperature" has some
inherent flaws.
> Have you figured out why weather balloons turn on their instruments at
launch,
> rather than at some high altitude yet?
>
I never said they didn't. You probably remember my question of why they
bother to RECORD the temperature right at launch.
> Strong demand for clues requires me to raise prices. Hints are still
fifty
> cents.
>
>
No thanks, I wont pay 50 ยข for an inferior product.
Johne S. Morton
"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:397940C3...@chello.se...
> > > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
> > >
> > > A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
> > post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from
space?
>
> space. MSU certainly doesn't do it.
>
That's why I said *really good* MSU. You can design a satellite capable
of measuring surface temperature, unfortunately present systems aren't
perfect.
Eric Swanson
Don't you think that NASA has tried to do that??
Ever heard of the laws of physics?
They are doing the best they can. The newest instrument has more channels
and thus greater frequency resolution, yet it still can't "measure" the
surface temperature (ie, temperature at a fixed height above the ground),
especially not with the accuracy required.
And the approach suffers from the same operational problems, such as
measuring at different local time of day at different latitudes around the
polar orbit and less than daily coverage in mid tropical latitudes, etc.
As for absolute accuracy, recall that surface reflectivity changes the
radiance between land and water, thus the "temperaure" won't be the same
as the scan path crosses a coatal boundary.
You should go to work for the Space Defense people, they seem to have a
similar lack of understanding of physics
Oh, yes, I forgot, you already did that.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
<mjo...@uswest.net> wrote:
<snipped>
>>
>
>Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
>
Johne, let me give you a lesson in very basic meteorology. On
all standard 4-panel charts there is a quantity called "thickness"
displayed. The name is apt, as it shows nothing more than thickness in
dekametres of a layer of the atmosphere. Normally, on the surface
isobar panel the 500 mb to 1000 mb thickness is also displayed. 1000
mb is roughly surface level, though it is by no means exact. This
layer covers about an 18,000 foot layer of the atmosphere, which in
very rough terms covers the layer that your vaunted MSU measures. The
thickness of a given layer can be shown to be equal to the mean
temperature in that layer (see Holton, An Introduction to Dynamic
Meteorology for a mathematical treatment), which is what you are
measuring with the MSU.
For many years, the 500 to 1000 mb thickness was used as an
indicator of surface temperature. Here's the problem...Last week there
was a brief arctic outbreak over the central part of the continent.
The 546 dm thickness plunged southward into southern Manitoba. There
was snow along the coast of Hudson Bay. The temperature with that 546
thickness? About 18C. In the fall, that 546 thickness will be
associated with a temperature in the single digits. In the winter,
with values around freezing. Of course, if there is snow on the
ground, that temperature will be different. If you live in the boreal
forest, the temperature will be different again. If you live in a
valley where cold air drainage is a problem, the temperature you see
with a 546 thickness might well be -10C. The bottom line is that
thickness is a very poor predictor of surface temperature. While there
is an association, the correlation is weak.
An unpublished internal study by Environment Canada looked at
using low-level thicknesses (1000-850 mb or a layer about 5000 feet
thick) as a predictor for overnight lows in September in Edmonton. The
goal was to improve frost forecasting. For a given low-level thickness
in the Edmonton study the overnight low could vary from -2C to +8C, a
10 degree range.
Forecasting surface temperatures is very complex and depends
on the season, terrain, terrain cover, wind direction, advection,
cloud cover, precipitation, ... Using the mean temperature of a deep
layer of the atmosphere as a predictor of surface temperature is
chancy at best.
The MSU does not work well in precipitation. It does not "see"
cloud. It cannot detect the presence of a thin layer of arctic air at
the surface. The footprint of the MSU is 109 km, hardly a "spot",
Emissions in the microwave are different over the water than they are
over ice or over land. The retreival of atmospheric soundings from
satellite uses regression equations and eigenvector mathematics,
neither of which is exact.
In short, based on the meteorology, I will say again that
trying to compare MSU temperatures with the surface temperature record
is dicey at best. You are not comparing apples and apples. You aren't
even comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing apples and
telephone booths.
---
Dave.
Michael Tobis
> "Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:39791092...@sprynet.com...
> > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> >
> > > Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
> >
> > A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
> >
> > Try again.
> >
>
> Thanks for trying to be smart, but I read every word in the original
> post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from space?
Try again. What does the word "sounding" (the 'S' in "MSU") mean
to you?
The cloud-free surface temperature is easily detectable from space. Does
this suggest any practical problems to you?
mt
na...@my-deja.com
cold...@escape.ca (David Ball) wrote:
....snipped informative discussion....
> In short, based on the meteorology, I will say again that
> trying to compare MSU temperatures with the surface temperature record
> is dicey at best. You are not comparing apples and apples. You aren't
> even comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing apples and
> telephone booths.
>
> ---
> Dave.
>
At last, we`re getting back to a discussion instead of slagging one
another off and chasing our own tails!
I don`t want to regress to the slog of "surface vs. satellite"
measurements, but aren`t we faced with the situation that, to use Dave`s
terminology, the "apples" are rotten and the "telephones" don`t work?
We really must crack this one on the head so that we can move the
discussion forwards...
Regards,
Nathan Harris.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
na...@my-deja.com
At last, light at the end of the tunnel...!
I haven`t got access to these papers at the moment, Paul. Can I read
them online...? If not, can you summarise the answers to your questions
1 and 2...?
Phil Hays
PH> Sure, although a significant fraction is obscured by clouds. Now
PH> measure the surface temperature. That is not the same thing as seeing.
> Are visible light, infrared and microwave radiation not part of the same
> spectrum??
Yes, and just how does this help with measuring surface temperature? To match
the station record a measurement centered on ~1 meter would be ideal.
> Although measurement of SST "temperature" has some inherent flaws.
Such as it shows warming?
> > Have you figured out why weather balloons turn on their instruments at
> launch,
> > rather than at some high altitude yet?
> >
>
> I never said they didn't. You probably remember my question of why they
> bother to RECORD the temperature right at launch.
Ok, modify the question. The answers are?
> No thanks, I wont pay 50 ยข for an inferior product.
A clue customer! Are you interested in renting or buying?
Michael Tobis
> "Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:39793774...@sprynet.com...
>
> >Do you know
> > why? The ocean surface temperature is easy, and the land surface is much,
> much
> > harder. Do you know why? Do you care?
> >
>
> Yes and yes. Although measurement of SST "temperature" has some
> inherent flaws.
[OK, nobody tell him, let's see what he says.]
Why, exactly, do you think it's harder to get land surface than sea surface
temperatures?
mt
Miguel Aguirre
Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> Don't you think that NASA has tried to do that??
> Ever heard of the laws of physics?
>
> They are doing the best they can. The newest instrument has more channels
> and thus greater frequency resolution, yet it still can't "measure" the
> surface temperature (ie, temperature at a fixed height above the ground),
> especially not with the accuracy required.
>
> And the approach suffers from the same operational problems, such as
> measuring at different local time of day at different latitudes around the
> polar orbit and less than daily coverage in mid tropical latitudes, etc.
> As for absolute accuracy, recall that surface reflectivity changes the
> radiance between land and water, thus the "temperaure" won't be the same
> as the scan path crosses a coatal boundary.
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is that a much cheap GPS receiver will do it. Metop (The European
NOAA POES) is going to caryy it. After clinton decission to take out Selective
Availability from GPS. They should be able to provide sounding of the temperature
(well a little bit mixed up with humidity) down to almost ground, and this with
the outstanding vertical resolution of 1 km. Each instrument will get around 1000
sounding per year. Self calibrated! no problem with long term drifts. Being limb
sounders the local time of the observation is also quite well spreas of the
diurnal cycle. They are even cheap!
Miguel Aguirre
na...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> At last, we`re getting back to a discussion instead of slagging one
> another off and chasing our own tails!
> I don`t want to regress to the slog of "surface vs. satellite"
> measurements, but aren`t we faced with the situation that, to use Dave`s
> terminology, the "apples" are rotten and the "telephones" don`t work?
> We really must crack this one on the head so that we can move the
> discussion forwards...
>
> Regards,
> Nathan Harris.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
As I told you at the beggining of this discussion, MSU was never designed
with climate research as an aim. It was designed for operational
metereology. In this field is quite useful because it provides data well
distributed over the surface of the Earth that can be used to initialize
global models for short to middle term weather prediction. Going back to
your point of apples, MSU is not a rotten apple, just it does not look good
and it does not have a good taste to be eaten fresh, but once pressed, it
will produce an excellent cider.
Phil Hays
> In article <3978f2e...@news.datasync.com>,
> far...@datasync.com wrote:
> > 1. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
> > the global-average surface temperature anomaly of the world,
> > annually-averaged, for the 20th century?
> >
> > Mann, M, et al., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and
> > climate forcing over the past six centuries, _Nature 392_,
> > 779-787.
Nature is online, at the first place I'd look:
You can read the abstract and some of the supporting data for free after
registering. A subscription is worth the $US 159.
> > 2. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
> > the sea surface temperature anomaly of the Atlantic for monthly-
> > average, 5 deg-space-average, for the past 136 years?
> >
> > Kaplan, A, et al., 1997. Reduced space optimal analysis for
> > historical data sets: 136 years of Atlantic sea surface
> > temperatures, _J Geophys Res 102_, C13, 27835-27860.
If you went to
and entered the strings
+Kaplan +"Reduced space optimal"
you would get some pointers to some interesting pages, one of which would be the
abstract of this article.
--
Phil Hays
Johne S. Morton
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8lc56v$ri0$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> In article <5fbe5.743$2O1.5...@news.uswest.net>, mjo...@uswest.net
says...
> >
> >
> >"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> >news:397940C3...@chello.se...
> >> > > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Two REALLY good MSUs would do it ;-)
> >> > >
> >> > > A free clue. You missed the word "surface".
original
> >> > post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from
> >space?
> >>
> >> space. MSU certainly doesn't do it.
> >>
> >
> > That's why I said *really good* MSU. You can design a satellite
capable
> >of measuring surface temperature, unfortunately present systems aren't
> >perfect.
>
> Ever heard of the laws of physics?
>
> They are doing the best they can. The newest instrument has more channels
> and thus greater frequency resolution, yet it still can't "measure" the
> surface temperature (ie, temperature at a fixed height above the ground),
> especially not with the accuracy required.
>
> And the approach suffers from the same operational problems, such as
> measuring at different local time of day at different latitudes around the
> polar orbit and less than daily coverage in mid tropical latitudes, etc.
> As for absolute accuracy, recall that surface reflectivity changes the
> radiance between land and water, thus the "temperaure" won't be the same
> as the scan path crosses a coatal boundary.
>
> similar lack of understanding of physics
>
> Oh, yes, I forgot, you already did that.
>
Yeah, I guess when space based IR sensors detect a heat signature on the
surface, it's really just everyone's imagination. It's just sheer luck that
whenever an aircraft/missile is detected, there just happens to be one at
that same spot. Tell me, have you informed them that the atmosphere absorbs
100% of the radiation leaving Earth's surface? The NRO would appreciate the
info.
-Johne (waiting for the condescending replies about how IR and microwave
aren't the same thing, can't measure the background radiation as well as a
heat signature blah blah blah)
Eric Swanson
Finding a warm tartget against a colder background would not appear to be beyond
reason. Doing so when both target and sensor are moving at a high rate of speed
while closing the distance between would be much more difficult. Given any reasonable
level of counter measures by the attacking side, the task becomes almost impossible,
with a high probability of failure. The "cost" of failure under attack conditions
could mean the loss of a city and perhaps millions of casualties.
I think the NRO knows that.
For example, an attacking country would surely know that our tracking satellites
could pinpoint the launch site. The country of origin could expect that our
responce to their launch would be a retalitory strike, which would surely destroy
them. So, to reduce their risk, in time of crisis, I would think their first attack
would be directed at out orbiting assets, therby increasing the chances of success
in a following nuclear attack.
Sure, all that technical stuff is great, but it the IR sensors are blown out of
orbit, what good would they be??
BTW, you have again ignored my list of operational limits to sensing temperature
with the MSU instruments.....
Thomas Palm
> For example, an attacking country would surely know that our tracking satellites
> could pinpoint the launch site. The country of origin could expect that our
> responce to their launch would be a retalitory strike, which would surely destroy
> them.
Officially the defence is only to be used against "rouge" state
like North Korea, which really have nothing to gain from that kind of
exchange. If they wanted to send a bomb at USA they would probably hide
it
in a boat headed for New York or something like that so that no one can
prove who did it. Try to pinpoint that with an IR-satellite!
The combination of a new missile tracking station in Norway near the
Russian border and this missile defence unfortunately does give the
impression that it is directed at them. I understand the russians aren't
too happy about it.
Halpern
hanging about may be able to answer. I understand that the
current protocol for measuring temperature uses a screen to
shield the thermometer from the sun and are made a fixed
distance from the ground. My questions are:
1. How long has this protocol been used?
2. Was it universally applied aat once , if not since when?
3. Is the nature of the ground underneath the screen
specified?
4. Have the temperature records been corrected for
any changes
josh halpern
Paul D. Farrar
GMT, na...@my-deja.com writes:
>In article <3978f2e...@news.datasync.com>,
> far...@datasync.com wrote:
>> 1. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
>> the global-average surface temperature anomaly of the world,
>> annually-averaged, for the 20th century?
>>
>> Mann, M, et al., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and
>> climate forcing over the past six centuries, _Nature 392_,
>> 779-787.
>>
>> 2. How many thermometers (minimum) does it take to measure
>> the sea surface temperature anomaly of the Atlantic for monthly-
>> average, 5 deg-space-average, for the past 136 years?
>>
>> Kaplan, A, et al., 1997. Reduced space optimal analysis for
>> historical data sets: 136 years of Atlantic sea surface
>> temperatures, _J Geophys Res 102_, C13, 27835-27860.
>>
>> --
>> Paul D. Farrar
>> http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
>>
>
> At last, light at the end of the tunnel...!
>I haven`t got access to these papers at the moment, Paul. Can I read
>them online...? If not, can you summarise the answers to your questions
>1 and 2...?
>
>Regards,
>Nathan Harris.
I've been really busy this weekend with the kids and a big power
outage. (We had a severe thunderstorm after months of extreme
drought). I found that Michael Mann has many of his papers online,
mostly postscript, at
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u/preprints.html
The questions obviously relate to the significant degrees of freedom
of the physical system. The mathematics used to analyze the question
is principal component analysis. It is notable how, as time averaging
of data gets longer, the degrees of freedom plummet. Weekly averaging
throws out those related to the diurnal cycle. Monthly averaging takes
out the midlatitude weather systems. Yearly gets seasonal and
hemispheric effects. The remaining degrees have geographic extents
that can be global, and are often identifiable as previously known
system oscillations, such as El Nino and the North Atlantic
Oscillation.
Obviously you want to have more measurements than the degrees of
freedom, but once you get past that level, your measurements cannot be
linearly independent, save for low-level noisy stuff. Extra
measurements are good because they verify that you have enough, show
the shapes of the modes, and reduce error through redundancy. If you
have enough measurements scattered around, it becomes very difficult
to sneak a major mode past the system, even though you may not be
measuring everywhere.
w...@bas.ac.uk
I will have a little go at this, though I can't remember the best references.
Parker, DE is a good one to look up. For example see:
http://www.meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/publications/hadley_pub95_3.html
Or Jones PD at CRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/jones_pd.htm)
So:
1. About 140 ish years?
2. No
3. I think its supposed to be grass (or somesuch) which poses problems in,
eg, deserts. Yet another mid-latitude-o-centrism.
4. Yes. Corrections are needed to early records.
Notice that the problem is mostly solar radiation, so night-time
temperatures are OK even for the early times.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
Leonard Evens
>
> "Paul D. Farrar" <far...@datasync.com> wrote in message
> news:3978f2e...@news.datasync.com...
> > the global-average surface temperature anomaly of the world,
> > annually-averaged, for the 20th century?
> >
> > Mann, M, et al., 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and
> > climate forcing over the past six centuries, _Nature 392_,
> > 779-787.
> >
>
MSUs don't measure surface temperatures. You should know better.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Leonard Evens
>
> "Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:39791092...@sprynet.com...
> > "Johne S. Morton" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for trying to be smart, but I read every word in the original
> post. Did it not occur to you that the surface can been seen from space?
But the MSUs don't measure surface temperature. You are digging
your hole deeper.
>
> >
> > --
> > Phil Hays
> > Clues for sale or rent.
> > Hints for just 50 cents.
>
> Your inventory looks a bit low, Mr. Clue Vendor.
--
Halpern
Ah, but that means that the early record is biased high!!! whoppee do.
and those dishonest scientists have been hiding this important information
from us.
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
>josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
w...@bas.ac.uk
Halpern <the...@erols.com> wrote:
>w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>> Halpern <the...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >4. Have the temperature records been corrected for
>> > any changes
>> 4. Yes. Corrections are needed to early records.
>> Notice that the problem is mostly solar radiation, so night-time
>> temperatures are OK even for the early times.
>Ah, but that means that the early record is biased high!!! whoppee do.
>and those dishonest scientists have been hiding this important information
>from us.
Ah no, I think the corrections have been made...
I was going to paste in something interesting about buckets, but its
killed my editor twice now and I'm not going to risk it again.
-W.