Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Coming 'Instant Planetary Emergency'. [View all]NickB79
(19,246 posts)58. The IPCC used HADCrut data extensively
Unfortunately: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed warming pause has virtually disappeared.
Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. Thats been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.
The Arctic hole is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.
Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. Thats been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.
The Arctic hole is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.
Conservative estimates of the basic global temperature records lead to excessively conservative estimates of future warming.
Once again (even though you constantly claim otherwise) things turn out to be worse than expected with regard to climate change.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Melting permafrost will pump tons of methane into the air. Methane is a very potent GH gas.
alfredo
Dec 2013
#3
ironicaly amusing if an ice-free shipping zone opens up on the Siberian side and not the NA side
nilram
Dec 2013
#7
Good source. It also allows for a much clearer answer for those that have trouble understanding
grantcart
Dec 2013
#47
And a lot of this "the findings are all getting worse, all the time" stuff is hooey as well.....
AverageJoe90
Dec 2013
#30
Something that would shade to the right, controlled degree, the upper atmosphere
Ghost Dog
Dec 2013
#32
I graduated from one of the first multi-disciplinary environmental science courses
Ghost Dog
Dec 2013
#66
All I know is I was very happy to see Stephen Colbert tear David Keith a new one.
truedelphi
Dec 2013
#37
And honestly, I do wonder how much climate doomerism may play into such fantasies...................
AverageJoe90
Dec 2013
#72
No. Any "technological breakthrough" will only create a new set of problems
magical thyme
Dec 2013
#49
"STFU. We don't want to hear no steenkin truth. Sneer." - RepubliBaggers, Inc. (R)
Berlum
Dec 2013
#18
Yes they have a track record but it has been on the conservative side as you stated.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2013
#57
You do realize I had that in *quotes*, right? As in....with an element of sarcasm?
AverageJoe90
Dec 2013
#61
dramatically reduced emission vehicles are irrelevent until the existing fleet is largely replaced
magical thyme
Dec 2013
#54
I used to criticize the format rather than the content too... but then I learned how to read better.
LanternWaste
Dec 2013
#67