Sentences with phrase «giss made»

In 2007, NASA GISS made a fruitless attempt so that 1998 ousts 1934 as Hottest U.S. Year http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aBBQO5XgLQu4 The «trick» has been discovered by McIntyre and NASA had to step back.

CRU made one assumption (C) GISS made another assumption (A) NEITHER GROUP tested that assumption.

How many adjustments has GISS made to the temperature record?

Long - time CA visitors will recall the events in mid Sept 2007 when NASA GISS made abrupt changes to US historical temperature data without annotation — a month after the Y2K changes.

``... while I will agree that the corrections GISS makes always seem to contribute to the trend, you also have to keep in mind that they do document the changes...»

In many cases, GISS makes UHI adjustments the «wrong» way» i.e. their adjustments presume a UHI cooling effect.

GISS U.S. Adjustments Unlike CRU and NOAA, GISS makes a decent effort to adjust for UHI in the U.S. (outside the USA, its efforts are risible.)

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.

The GISS Global Climate Model (GCM) is already made up of hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code, and now it will be expanded substantially to allow for the 3D visualization of exoplanet climates and planetary dynamics as well.

What is your level of confidence in the prediction made by GISS: «barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2 - 3 years.»

If we have had 1C of warming (giss) since pre-industrial and human made aerosols are masking between 0.5 and 1.1 (Samset et al) and there is warming «in the pipeline» as well — has the possibility of a 1.5 C target already passed?

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

It would be great if you could publish the offsets used to make the figure from the GISS anomalies so that and other aspects of the figue could be better understood.

I have read that GISS «raw» station data contains over 20 percent interpolations (i.e. over 20 percent of the data points are effectively «made up»).

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?

You have downloaded the GISS model and you are in a position to run it and make any changes you like.

I don't think the GISS staff is making things up for nefarious purposes.

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

First test was to see whether GISS - E2 - R conforms to a linear system, since this is one of the important assumptions made in Marvel et al..

In contrast, the only interval in the GISS or NCDC global time series that looks odd is during the WWII years between 1941 and 1945, where it appears that all the temperatures have a warming bias of 0.1 C. I agree with J.J.Kennedy that it is an artificial shift based on war - time procedures, but I think the corrections that Hadley made post-WWII were questionable.

If it turns out that the choices made by CRU, GISS, NOAA fall on the «maximize historical trends» end of the scale, that will not help their perceived credibility for obvious reasons.

Responsible reporters would contact GISS to make sure they understand things.

This makes me wonder if over time, (decades) we should expect to see a growing gap emerge between the anomalies measured by GISS compared to the other methods?

Daniel Curewitz — The GISS tool allows you to make trend and anomaly maps for months and seasons.

So for example, here's some bad luck, from the GISS press release cited in # 13 and given the U.S. refusal to participate in Kyoto or otherwise make meaningful GHG reductions:

When the curve refused to look different from GISS, enthusiasm for the endeavor faded away — rather sad, because all of that painstaking effort expended to validate the GISS curve might have made an excellent journal article.

This shows that for some forcing agents Marvel et al.'s methodology does not correctly quantify forcing in GISS - E2 - R for recent decades of the Historical simulation, making its related efficacy and sensitivity estimates very doubtful.»

Moreover, September data is not yet available which makes any direct comparison with the cited GISS values impossible.

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).

Giss does make retroactive changes to in filled data based on monthly averages that are, of course, always changing as more data is collected and averaged.

Anyhow it makes clear why GISS temperature are corrupted, why NOAA is telling us year after year that the trends are above normal, why the Media are biased, and why our politicians are acting crazy.

I would not have left these claims unaltered if it had been my paper — not that I would ever have made the second claim in any event, since it assumes the real world behaves in the same manner as GISS - E2 - R.

Figure of 400 ppm calculated using fossil fuel emissions from G. Marland et al., «Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007), and land use change emissions from R. A. Houghton and J. L. Hackler, «Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land - Use Changes,» in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change (Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2002), with decay curve cited in J. Hansen et al., «Dangerous Human - Made Interference with Climate: A GISS ModelE Study,» Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol.

I did make sure that all three data sets I was discussing (GHCN, Jones, and GISS) covered the same period, 1880 to 2004.

I did refer to the expert readers of WUWT and CA as playing a key part in exposing that crucial error in the GISS data, but the point is that you and Steve Mcintyre make that kind of thing possible by providiing a nexus, not only thrrough your own admirable postings but by enabling others to chip in with their own expert comments, thus building up an ever wider and deeper understandng of this all - important issue....

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.

So the additional the warming of the infilled GISS data before 1995 and the slowing afterwards (Figure 5) appears to make sense.

While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

The GISS adjustments make them average.

calculations can be made for each subsequent month (GISS / NASA monthly dataset commences at January 1880).

We can observe a steady if erratic rise in temperatures dating back some 350 years making Giss a staging post along the way but not a starting post.

Why is it, if you think the scientists at the JMA / Hadley Centre / GISS are corrupt and fiddling the data now, would it be expected that they would then stop fiddling and resume posting actual numbers immediately after their point is made?

While I don't have time right now to do a full analysis as I'm due for a metting shortly, I can say it appears that GISS flattened out the could snap in the 1940 - 1960 period, making the long term slope more positive.

Rounding made the code less clear, and Dr Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS confirmed that rounding was not important to the algorithm, so it has been removed.

Here are some more notes and scripts in which I've made considerable progress on GISS Step 2.

If anyone is wondering whether emails by U.S. government employees are «private» and «personal» — an assertion sometimes made in respect to emails at CRU, an institution subject to UK FOI — the answer in respect to NASA GISS appears to be no.

«As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human - made greenhouse gases,» said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

I will now make the same point about the original GISS projection.

Moreover, the GISS team states, «It is no longer correct to say that «most global warming occurred before 1940,»» an argument sometimes made by those who are skeptical of the link between human - produced greenhouse gases and global warming.