Sentences with phrase «giss temp»

VS has only looked at the GISS temp record as a time series (in looking back he also did some preliminary work on the other temp series), and has not attempted to relate this anything else, lagged or otherwise.

The recent admission by NASA that the GISS temp since 2000 was in error, and the restoration of 1934 as the warmest year in the last century certainly does not come from your curve.

And, it's been a rough old winter for Gavin Schmidt's NASA GISS Temp New York office — home of the «Hottest Year (s) Evah» sausage factory — with the city that never sleeps experiencing its «fifth consecutive season that at least 30 inches of snow has fallen» with CNN reporting «It's official: NYC hasn't seen snow like this in 130 years ``!

The temperature divergence, this century, between NASA GISS temp (land based) and RSS satellite data, is mind - blowing.

There is a growing divergence between NASA's (land - based) GISS temp and RSS (lower troposphere) satellite temps since 2000:

I highly recommend visiting Tony Heller's site «Real Climate Science» for a comprehensive understanding of the blatant manipulation of NASA's GISS temp data set to fit the global warming narrative.

So what other use is looking at GISS temp?

As GISS temp numbers always change in later issues it is safe to admit that they are wrong (and ignore them).

I look at the exercise at looking at GISS temp numbers from the perspective of recording historically how these are, and how these will change.

Figure 2: Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (blue, University of Washington) versus Global Temperature Anomaly (Red - GISS Temp).

That is the Tasmania and Southern South american reconstructions with GISS temp for that latitude, You have a little hockey stick action but look at the average, in estimate Wm - 2 for that chart.

And as a side point, what really spurred me to dig deeper with an open mind, was when my «heroes» from the sceptical stance did their own analysis of the GISS temp records and found that they were sound.

I suggest you download the GISS Temp data and see for yourself how noisy the data are.

- He gets tons of press (way more than NOAA)-- He put GISS on the map (if it wasn't for Hansen and his stunts no one would care about the GISS temps)-- He gets tons of funding for his dept. (will say and do anything for more press and funding)-- He gives all his fellow dept. workers job security — He has no Ethics (good for government work)-- Face it He is the King of the Scientificness «Grant Whores»

Bart: do you have data for the aerosol components of net forcing at the actual locations where GISS temps are measured before being gridded and amalgamated?

Not exact matches

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?

I just looked it up and it has SH land temps for Sep 08 as +0.44 C or 10th warmest, well below Sep 05 at +0.85 C. (Of course, it has very limited Antarctic coverage, but then again I don't know how many more stations GISS takes into account.)

I think Rasmus points out that model simulations where the available temp data is plugged into the models (i.e., the re-analysis) provide support for a warming Artic and GISS's interpolation / extrapolation method.

Why is the GISS data so out of phase with UAH, RSS, even HADCRUT all showing temps falling in Q4 2010 while GISS shows a sharp rise?

This would certainly explain why arctic sea ice cover has been absolutely crashing in recent years while the HARDCRU / GISS global average temps had been increasing more modestly.

GISS year - to - date would be but 9th among the annual temp list, and NCDC would be but 6th.

NASA GISS does not show Northern Hemisphere temp anomaly, but does so for the Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C. Global being +0.68 this means that Northern Hemisphere was about +1.1, three months in a row above 1 degree, tri-fecta only repeated twice Jan - Mar 2002 and Feb - Apr 2000.

If there is indeed a fairly close correlation between the US surface temps and US satellite temps, then that would show just how «whacked out» the GISS and Hadcrut temps could be.

I think this could be a significant way of looking at how accurate the Satellite data is, compared to respective US temps, and then GISS and Hudcrut Global temps.

I've updated the graph at top to show a comparison with GISS ocean temps, click to refresh if it doesn't show up as a two - panel graph.

Where at the closest operational rural GISS met station to Madrid (up on the sierra at Navacerrada) the mean temp was 6.7 C in October.

Chris V. CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T... Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.

«you probably noticed the mcintyre et al depiction of GISS annual temp estimates for US over time.

What is also interesting is that the US surface temps are way below «average» this year, yet on the GISS maps, they aren't being reported to the same degree of cooling as what NOAA is reporting.

sd0 = apply (spaghetti [temp,], 2, sd); sd0 # 0.17 0.17 0.17 # tlt3 msu hadat.850 giss giss.stn # 0.1635369 0.1740248 0.1995512 0.1601074 0.1816745 #troposphere not rescaled since similar (Christy recommends divide troposphere by 1.2)

I would point to TSI, OHC, sea level, humidity, temps, Sea Ice, nothing is good enough for either side except the highly adjusted surface temps from GISS and not even they fully support the models and appear to conflict with other measurements!!

I should add that while GISS opine that in 99.9 % of cases anomalies will be an adequate simplification, if you want, as here, to compare absolute model temps to actuals you are in the 0.1 %.

Finland-gate NASA GISS shows record high temps for Finland in March 2010 when it was actually colder than -LSB-...]

Well, go look at http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/ to see how GISS has «modified» the temp data in Oz according to the site.

Finland-gate (Climate Audit) NASA GISS shows record high temps for Finland in March 2010 when it was actually colder than -LSB-...]

Does anyone have temp datasets from FMI to compare with the GISS data?

The issue is the time of the year, latitude and type.The Krakatoa problem is well known eg Stenchikov 2006 ie that the models over estimate the global forcing.Hansen suggested that the observations were incorrect, however the Giss model gets the AO sign incorrect and arctic central temps incorrect in scale and time so.This is due to the incorrect heteregenous chemistry at high latitudes eg chapter3 WMO 2003, Ozone assessment 2011.

You also don't deal with that fact that UAH has changed the way they calculate global temps in the past few months to make 2010 look cooler while GISS has been running the same algorithms for some time.

NASA's «GISS» temp uses land and ocean - based thermometers which measure «different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we «homogenise» our data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].»

It shows a GISS global temp map for April 1978, and a purported corresponding map for April 2008, to show how coverage has shrunk.

I thought the entire error range for NCDC global surface temps was 0.09 C + \ - 0.045 C. (NASA GISS is + \ - 0.05 C.) But the error bars on the graph in this post show + \ - 0.09 C which is 0.18 C overall range.

In «Spinning the Warmest Year» I issued a challenge for anyone to re-graph either the HadCrut4 or GISS global temp dataset without 1998.

Tamino's Open Mind: Riddle me this... (RSS UAH GISS global temps from 1979 thru 2009) http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/12/taminos-open-mind-riddle-me-this-rss.html

I reckon ALL the sea and land temp data from GISS, Hadcrut, NDCD, NOAA and the arctic ice data from cryosphere and NCDC has been manipulated to suit the AGW agenda.

This is trivial, there are flat temp times in GISS and HadCRUT, this remark is below quality... 4.

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.

One more question; in your GISS - USA - temp - anom - adjusted - for - UHI data set, why do you adjust the early part of the century down and the latter portion up?

tom s — 21 August 2010 @ 10:27 AM ``... in [the] GISS - USA - temp - anom - adjusted - for - UHI data set, why [is] the early part of the century down and the latter portion up?

% Here we innput the first three observed values of the GISS - temp data % in our level series, y y = zeros (d, 1); y (1) = -0.2; y (2) = -0.22; y (3) = -0.24;

But when temps stopped rising after 1998, this type of filter misbehaves and they conveniently changed the type of padding used in the GISS smoothed graphs and others (and IPCC).