Gerhaus; somewhere on the GCHN site there's a description of its
quality-control procedures for the datasets it uses to generate the
GAST record. There's also this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_qc.pdf
Thought it might help a bit...
Regards,
On 12 Aug, 10:20, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The MSU record is now fairly consistent with the sfc. At least since 1979,
> > you
> > probably can't get away with lowering the trend too much. And there is the
> > marine record too.
>
> I've got to think of James Annan's work on climate sensitivity and in
> how far we can apply the same logic to temperature increase. If we
> have a number of sources of information on temperature trends that are
> independent of each other, each with a large uncertainty range, we
> should be able to get a much narrower uncertainty range for the
> combined total.
>
> I must say that what I've read so far about adjustments applied to
> both satellite and surface data (eg the impact of time of day reading
> of thermometer shifts in the US introducing an artificial cooling)
> makes me quite wary of the large impact hitherto unrealised systematic
> biases can have.
>
> I'd agree with William that since 1979 it should be quite unlikely
> that the trend is mismeasured too much, for the Arctic we've not got
> surface stations, satellite measured temperatures, baloons and sea ice
> extent (and good observations to work out how much of the sea ice
> extent changes has to do with local temperatures).
>
> Pre 1979, I've got this suspicion that the temperature record is
> comparatively very poorly constrained, and could be thrown by as much
> as 0.4C by a hitherto undiscovered systematic bias in say Siberian
> surface stations in the period 1860 to 1960. Or would there be
> sufficient independent information (say on sea ice extent on the North
> Siberian coast or glaciers; or from climate models that give good
> theoretical grounds why 2C more in Siberia in 1860 than actually
> recorded, and 1C less than actually recorded in 1960 just doesn't
> work and so forth) to reduce that uncertainty sufficiently to say
> 1979 was at least 0.2C warmer than 1860?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
