Sentences with phrase «giss adjustments»

I saw your response about the GISS adjustments.

GISS adjustments result in a lower centennial temp trend than raw for global surface stations, and lower for the last 50 and 30 years than raw.

NASA The NASA Giss adjustments are in dispute because they have blatantly cooled the past and reduced the 1998 peak which coincidentally or not, suits an alarmist narrative of the type we expect from Hansen, Schmidt et al..

Prior to the recent GISS adjustments the 2000 - 2006 period stood out as an odd period.

I'd been looking at GISS adjustments before the stations got off the ground http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1175, and some of this analysis comes from continuing to poke at that data.

I checked his adjustments for Tokyo in the 1999 paper compared to the GISS adjustments currently for Tokyo.

I took a look at GISS adjustments a couple of years ago, including a histogram of positive and negative UHI adjustments: http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/01/positive-and-negative-urban-adjustments/

The GISS adjustments consist of data quality control and a homogeneity adjustment applied to urban stations.

The GISS adjustments make them average.

of GISS adjustments where the new adjustment plays down early 20th c. warming and boost late 20th c.

More recently, Steve Goddard has been on a roll, looking at GISS adjustments in the US.

Not exact matches

«GISS has been accused of making unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record of the wrong sign.

(Check) GISS has been accused of making unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record of the wrong sign.

Data quality, surface, Andrews, SAT, adjustments, GISS, homogeneity, credibility, NOAA, endangerment finding, wind, parasitic, grid, where s the quid, Russia, developing countries, Paris, exports, sea levels, renewable fuel, fad, diesel, ocean carbonization, Hansen, 89 - 535 trillion USD, Eemian

Are you saying that there are adjustments made to the GISS data set more than a 100 years after it was collected?

A question: I have a vague memory of years ago someone «denier / pseudo stats dude» was hassling nasa / giss for their raw data of what they used to feed in the avg / mean models for global temps... saying that the adjustments being made was being done to over-state the extent of warming?

Totally harmless when you consider that half the warming since 1880 is arbitrary data «adjustments» made after the year 2000 (by NASA — GISS).

As you can see in Figure 6 of our paper (Foster and Rahmstorf), the slowdown is gone after said adjustment in the GISS data and the two satellites series, but there still is some slowdown in the two data sets with the Arctic gap, ie HadCRUT and NCDC.

The only differences in the GCM are a few bug fixes related to the calculation of seasonal insolation (a problem discovered in Model II in the mid-1990's) and an adjustment to the grid configuration that makes Model II's grid an exact multiple of the more recent generations of GISS GCMs (like Model E).

The Tropical and Southern Hemisphere GISS LOTI data (60S - 20N) with the ENSO, Volcano, and SPCZ Extension adjustments is shown in Figure 24.

Then GISS applies its own adjustments.

GISS» extra UHI / adjustment / etc.

Diagram showing the adjustment made since May 2008 by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), USA, in anomaly values for the months January 1910 and January 2000.

publicized adjustment to the GISS data and you can see the effect on Hansen's subsequent graph — the obs from 1992 onwards have been shifted up and they follow scenario B again.

NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time - of - observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments).

Here are some notes and functions on some work that I did last fall trying to benchmark the GISS Step 2 adjustment in a non-US site.

If those adjustments published by NOAA and GISS on their sites are applied to the blue curve you end up with the brown curve.

Overall, NASA GISS» urbanization adjustments were found to be seriously flawed, unreliable and inadequate.

To be sure, I can offer only ancedotal evidence that the 30s were as hot as the 90s, but GISS is so full of questionable adjustments and illogical implications that I am more impressed with ancedotal evidence.

You model shows GISS jumping ahead after 1998, I recall there was some dubious «adjustments» done around that time that sneaked in a little extra warming under the cover of the strong El Nino event.

Here is GISS 1999 vs. 2008: http://i42.tinypic.com/vpx303.jpg Here are the adjustments: http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg

His undocumented adjustments seem to remove any hope of evaluating the raw reported GISS data.

Problems for the GISS data set might be incorrect adjustments, problems with UHI and poor measuring sites, see www.surfacestations.org!!

From the Hansen paper linked by JerryB above, we have the following excerpt explaining the data and adjustments used in constructing the GISS data set.

If the rest of the US states have as much adjustment, GISS won't need to homogenize the station data to show «unprecedented warming.»

The urban adjustment is improved in the current GISS analysis.

This includes ocean heat content (it is more or less), GISS, Hadley etc global data — and includes raw data and adjustment algorithms / codes.

I am readily confused by all these inter-uses of data sets so I will list here my understanding of what USHCN does to their raw data and then what GISS uses for their own adjustments:

From this description, I judge that GISS uses USHCN data without homogeneity adjustments and uses the USHCN metadata for making their own homogeneity adjustment.

However, the USHCN «adjustment» for missing data was not going to be used; GISS would use its own approach for missing data.

It now seems that a special set of USHCN adjusted data, absent the missing data adjustment, was prepared for GISS as a one time service by the USHCN folks.

The current GISS analysis also uses satellite measurements of nightlights to identify urban areas and remote stations in the United States (and southern Canada and northern Mexico); only «unlit» stations are used to define homogeneity adjustments.

Do WUWT or Climate4You provide any references to the literature suggesting NASA GISS has committed any serious methodological errors in making the adjustments?

It is exactly five years since Climate Audit announced it's questioning of the «adjustments» Hansen made to the NASA GISS temperature record had forced Hansen to «readjust - the - adjustments.»

I think the heat island effect is not handled evenly, I see all kinds of adjustments to historical data and the spacial temperature models GISS are grossly stretched and statistical unreliable.

Similarly, its notable that the GISS urban adjustments (via nightlights) don't appear to have a large impact vis - a-vis the unadjusted data, a point that others have previously made.

I don't know why GISS doesn't regularly publish a no - adjustment record, just to show what it looks like.

«Previous studies involving the GISS model found that rapid cloud changes in both hemispheres result from the rapid adjustment to aerosol forcing; effective radiative forcing isthus more hemispherically symmetric than instantaneous aerosol forcing.

I've looked at dozens of GISS records for Pennsylvania and in every case of adjustments I have never found a negative UHI adjustment.

I am discussing the curious adjustment made by GISS to the Kathmandu record.