Sentences with phrase «giss warms their data»

But he quotes some of his own prior «work» and casually states GISS warms their data.

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?

They are published and plotted every month, (Google Global Warming at a Glance), and overlaid onto the GISS surface data on which Anthony Watts (Watts up with That) labours so strenuously.

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

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.

We win nothing of scientific interest if 2014 is the warmest, we lose credibility if 2014 turns out not to be the hottest either by the additional data we will add or by comparison with C&W which we consider to be a method more reliable than NOAA or GISS.

Experiment with the package a bit, and if you are successful in getting it up and running, you will see how amazingly easy it is to replicate the NASA / GISS global - warming trends with both raw and adjusted data.

It's a nice visual demonstration of the robustness of the temperature record — note how quickly the homogenized * and * raw data warming - trends converge to the official NASA / GISS warming - trend.

NASA GISS has always filled the data gaps by interpolation, albeit with a simpler method, and accordingly the GISTEMP data show hardly a slowdown of warming.

Even now global temperatures are very high again — in the GISS data, with an anomaly of + 0.77 °C November was warmer than the previous record year of 2010 (+ 0.67 °), and it was the warmest November on record since 1880.

[Response: I would point out that if you look at the combined ocean and land data for the tropics (available at the GISS web site), the ocean (still part of the surface after all) shows significant and widespread warming.

If Steve McIntyre and others ultimately show that the GISS has fudged their temperature data sets in order to show more warming than actually occurred (as I believe will happen), then I assume Hansen would agree that he should also go on trial.

Meaning that when GISS (the thing hansen «adjusts») gets out of sync with say the CRU data base they simply «adjust», pretty always taking the warmer and running with that.

The UAH satellite data, however, shows less than half the warming of the smallest of the surface datasets (GISS), about 40 % of the Jones warming, and about a quarter of the GHCN warming.

But, the parallel warming of the KOE and the Gulf Stream Extension during the transitions from El Niño to La Niña events would help to reduce the KOE scaling factor required to explain the step changes in the adjusted GISS LOTI data.

This is tatamount to a rejection of democracy as a form of human governance on grounds of being intrinsically inadequate to counter the global warming evidence GISS claims to be there, in their US data.

Someone is bound to complain that I've deleted the Arctic data from the GISS LOTI data and that the Arctic is warming much faster than lower latitudes.

At issue was NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data, which showed profound warming across a swath of territory from Paraguay to Brazil.

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.

They find about 0.25 °C less Arctic warming during the past decade than in the GISS analysis, a difference that they attribute to our method of interpolating and extrapolating data, especially into the Arctic Ocean regions where no station data are available.

So the infilled GISS data, which extends out over the Arctic, would show the greater warming since the 1970s... until the warming stops for Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures and for the low - to - mid latitude land surface air temperatures.

GISS data in the Arctic and Southern Oceans, therefore, would exaggerate the warming in both polar oceans.

Assuming the spatial patterns of the warming shown by the GISS LOTI data are close to being correct, then the differences with the lower troposphere data appear to show that lower troposphere temperature data would be of questionable value for infilling the HADCRUT4 data.

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

The average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08 °C warming from 2000 through 2011 (Figures 1 and 3).

Curiously, since 1997, the UAH lower troposphere temperature data shows less warming in the Arctic than the GISS and HADCRUT4 data.

For example, Figure 7 illustrates the warming and cooling rates of the HADCRUT4 data, and as a reference, the GISS LOTI data, for the period of January 1997 to December 2012... the hiatus period.

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).

As the science continues to mount up against AGW (i.e. latest Aqua satellite data supporting «negative» feedback and GISS, UAH, RSS, Hadley data showing no warming since 1998 and a trend towards cooling), I see «doubters» getting rounder and rounder, and Pachauri, Gore, Hansen, et al getting flatter and flatter.

And to determine the true historical significance of the used to be warming, we have to go back way before GISS data.

Also, both the CRU and GISS data show a similar warming trend of 0.6 C / century.

Indeed it really looks like HADCRUT4 data corrections have been designed to reduce the gap with GISS / NCDC data, and of course to significantly reduce the decline of warming rate over the past 20 years.

Here's something interesting... using either HADCRUT4 or NASA / GISS data, redraw an 1880 - 2013 global temperature graph MINUS the record warm 1998 signal (and if you want also take out the following 1999 cold phase as well since it is all part of one ENSO wave).

The GISS data for e.g. the USA has changed materially over time in such a way as to reduce the mid-century warm period and change the shape of the graph — is this «correction» valid?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies director Gavin Schmidt, the climatologist behind the GISS data and the latest «warmest on record» claim, knew before sending out his press release that even based on his own dubious GISS data, 2014 was probably not the warmest on record.

there is indeed limited argument regarding recent warming as long as the discussion is based on «official» global data bases; as soon as you consider a) all «comments» on data quality and significance, temperature data as included in GHCN, Crutem, Giss are heavily contested by experts from more than 15 countries, including «smaller» countries like he US, Canada, the entire Northern Europe, Russia....

The margin of error on the data is at least 0.1 degrees above or below, meaning that even the dubious GISS «warmest on record» data showed the «warmest on record» by such a tiny margin as to be literally statistically and scientifically irrelevant.

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

What do warmers such as Hanson / Giss do, well, they compare data from a highly UHI contaminated urban city weather station with CLEAN data from a neighbouring RURAL station.

Only the Giss data set and ones like it such as the Hadcrut show warming and that only after making plugs of thousands of missing data temperatures.

Only the Giss data set and ones like it such as the Hadcrut show warming and that only after making plugs of thousands of missing data temperatures and temperatures lower than surrounding temperatures which could be all plugs.

On average relatively strong Arctic warming has occurred (rather than cooling) as indicated both by the GISS and DMI data.

«We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100 - year period covering 1906 - 2005 and the two 50 - year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005... The data document a strong urban heat island eff ect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation... About a quarter of all the records for the 100 - year period show a fall in temperatures... that the observed temperature records are a combination of long - term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings... As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40 % and 90 %, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered.»

Note: The highest trend in the later epoch of the GISS - based «change data» is about 5 % higher than the highest trend in the earlier warming period.

Of the available data sets, the GISS figures show the strongest recent warming.

In attempting to capture arctic temperatures, he relies on interpolation that does not make much sense when we are talking about sparse real data... and the fact that GISS shows much stronger warming in the arctic then the other data - sets (which I might add have more stations in the arctic) goes to show that there is this taking place.

Both NASA GISS and NOAA NCEI use NOAA's ERSST.v4 «pause buster» data for the ocean surface temperature components of their combined land - ocean surface temperature datasets, and, today, both agencies are holding a multi-agency press conference to announce their «warmest ever» 2016 global surface temperature findings.

For example, see this post by tamino, which shows that the global warming trend since 1975 is roughly 0.17 + / - 0.04 °C per decade in data from NASA GISS (Figure 2).

[ISPM 2.1 d] This seems to suggest that 1998 was the peak year in all three data sets, whereas in fact 2005 was the warmest year in the instrumental record for both GISS and NCDC.

From the GISS data, you can say «the earth is currently warming at 1 degree / century, and it'll be getting warming twice that fast a year from now if we don't do anything» with a good deal of confidence.