Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated By Half 534
Layzej writes "A new paper shows that global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is that the weather station network covers only about 85% of the planet. Satellite data shows that the parts of the Earth that are not covered by the surface station network, especially the Arctic, have warmed exceptionally fast over the last 15 years. Most temperature reconstructions simply omit any region not covered. A temperature reconstruction developed by NASA somewhat addresses the gaps by filling in missing data using temperatures from the nearest available observations. Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data. The researchers describe their methods and findings in this YouTube video. 'The most important part of our work was testing the skill of each of these approaches in reconstructing unobserved temperatures. To do this we took the observed data and further reduced the coverage by setting aside some of the observations. We then reconstructed the global temperatures using each method in turn. Finally, we compared the reconstructed temperatures to the observed temperatures where they are available... While infilling works well over the oceans, the hybrid model works particularly well at restoring temperatures in the vicinity of the unobserved regions.' The authors note that 'While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.'"
Twice as much to deny! (Score:1, Funny)
Oh, crap. Do you know what this means? Global warming deniers have been slacking by one half this whole time! I don't think they'll be able to deny DOUBLE the global warming fast enough to catch up!
Install more weather stations (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly they have a cooling effect.
Re:Install more weather stations (Score:5, Funny)
But those few square kilometers that we miss to cover will spontaneously catch fire when all warming have to flee to them.
Re: Orders of magnitude errors dont inspire confid (Score:5, Funny)
No no no. You don't understand. *this* time we got it right.
Re:Install more weather stations (Score:5, Funny)
I have read some stuff about "chilling effects" of certain government programs. Maybe these programs should not be dismantled but rather refocused?
Re:OK, enough (Score:5, Funny)
Say what you will about anecdotes, I don't give a damn. My experience is unambiguous. The Earth is warming.
No you must be wrong. It's as cool as it has ever been in my gas-guzzler with the aircon on full.
Re:Twice as much to deny! (Score:5, Funny)
Uhh, is it me or do folks really not know how to read basic charts? Yes, the temperature changes due to cycling glacial periods are real. They are also spread out across vast chunks of time; the rate of these cyclic background climate changes are very, very, very slow.
Not guilty, your Honor! Death is a natural cycle; he was dying before I ever met him! The bullets I shot into him had nothing to do with it.
Re:Twice as much to deny! (Score:0, Funny)
Something doesn't make sense to you off the top of your head, so of course it's wrong. Or you could, ya know, actually cite recent extinction rates, or information about how no one species ever boomed during a mass extinction event. Better yet, you could admit that "their hockey stick chart looks surprisingly similar to the population chart" isn't exactly a profound observation. No, no, I'll admit I'm wrong, one random Internet poster has clearly managed to debunk climate science. Brilliant!
Slashdot.Gov appears to have ate your citations, along with any evidence at all that they are accurate.
Re: Double down (Score:5, Funny)