@*@ Header

Seals gather on a small ice-floe in an otherwise open water Arctic sea. The new study fills in gaps in the temperature data for the polar regions which has resulted in slightly cooler estimates for warming than is the case.,
Photo Credit: CBC

Revised global warming models needed as data gaps filled

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestWeChatEmailPrintPartager

A recent study using new techniques has filled in some of the information gaps in global temperatures and predictions of warming, and counters claims that warming has levelled off.

The interdisciplinary team of computational scientist Kevin Cowtan of the University of York in England, and cryosphere specialist and PhD candidate Robert Way of Canada, say that using satellites they have filled in large areas of the earth not covered by observational monitoring.

This previous “gap” in data has always resulted in skewed and underestimated reports and projections of what is really happening.

Robert Way is at the University of Ottawa Department of Geography.

Listen
Temperature data from the Met Office (thin lines) compared to the optimal Cowtan and Way (2013) global reconstruction (thick lines). The straight red lines indicate the trend over the past 16 years in the respective data. The background image illustrates the coverage of the Met Office data, with colours indicating geographical temperature trends. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.

Temperature data from the Met Office (thin lines) compared to the optimal Cowtan and Way (2013) global reconstruction (thick lines). The straight red lines indicate the trend over the past 16 years in the respective data. The background image illustrates the coverage of the Met Office data, with colours indicating geographical temperature trends. The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.

Observational data, on which climate records are based, covers only 84% of the planet and largely excludes the polar regions and parts of Africa

Two of the world’s major climate recording agencies, are the Hadley Centre for the UK Meteorological Office and the Climate Research Unit, (HadCRUT) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the USA.

In collecting data, and making modelling predictions, these and other agencies calculate figures from collected data, but simply leave out those areas which where there are no meteorological stations.

This means there has been no data included in climate studies from large areas of the polar regions and in Africa, which is either left out of the math calculations for current and projected scenarios.

As Robert Way points out, a primary data source for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the Hadley UK Met office which readily acknowledges the existence of these gaps and has long said their method may underestimate warming in the Polar Regions.

null

Robert Way taking measurements northeastern Quebec 2012 © Maxime Dugauy

Reaearchers Cowtan and Way say their method was the first to use satellite data to fill in the large gaps in monitoring stations where there is no observational data available.

They verified their methodology by comparison to actual data from the Arctic buoys monitoring posts.

What they found was warming greater than previous estimates and that the additional data significantly reduced uncertainties. It also contradicts the oft-repeated claims that global warming has ceased in the last approximately 15 years.

null

Robert Way in Iceland 2009 © Maxime Duguay

Climate experts point out that 15 years is too short a time to draw firm conclusions but is often cited by skeptics as showing that warming has stopped.

Way said the initial goal of the team’s research was not to counter skeptic’s claims, but that the research ended up doing just that.

Way says their hope now is that others examine their data and follow up to create even more accurate estimates of temperature change, and use their methodology to develop further improved techniques in climate research.”

Climate Research Abstract

Website on HadCRUT coverage bias

 

Posted in Environment, International, Science and Technology

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

*

5 comments on “Revised global warming models needed as data gaps filled
  1. Andy Skuce says:

    If you follow Mo New’s link you will see that this study was not ridiculed by Judith Curry, but questioned. Also, the authors of the study answered her points in a constructive exchange on that blog.

    For an appraisal by other climate scientists, see this article on Real Climate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

  2. Albatross says:

    Readers, please ignore attempts by those in denial to obfuscate the issue and make ad hom attacks. The data and code used in the paper all all freely available, but some critics like Curry have seemingly not even made the effort to read beyond the abstract or to substantiate their opinions with their own data analyses.

    This novel paper by Cowtan and Way addresses an outstanding and important scientific issue and was published in the highly respected peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

    The fake skeptics have invested a lot in the supposed “pause” and now they are scrambling to obfuscate the issue and to dismiss this scientific paper because the findings are inconvenient and challenge their beliefs.

  3. Robert Way says:

    If you will note in the comments below the article by Judith Curry you will find myself and Kevin’s rebuttal to her statements. Some of which were factually inaccurate descriptions of what was done in the paper.

  4. Mo New says:

    Hi
    This study by Cowtan and Way has been ridiculed by many for shoddy science. I would suggest readers have a look at Dr Judith Curry’s http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/