Sentences with phrase «hadcrut data»

Both look fairly flat overall, the HADCRUT data does trend down slightly, where the UAH trends slightly up.

Here's your graph, back to the start of the HadCRUT data...

The preferred HADCRUT data set was showing no warming at all in 2000 to 2006.

Plus, for unknown reasons, you've left the first 19 years of HadCRUT data off your graph.

The HADCRUT data does not show the same trend that NASA and NOAA shows.

Will be interesting to see the revised HadCRUT data - both for the 1940's and apparently the past decade.

It seems whenever I see an attempt to claim AGW has stopped, it's bolstered with a WfT graph of HadCRUT data that shows a downward trend between arbitrary dates in the last 11 years.

May I ask: did you try to fit the HADCRUT data with linear and with quadratic formula yourself?

But taking your Hadcrut data that you started in 1979, lets evaluate the whole trend, since the longer a trendline the more statistically valid it is.

Ummm... doesn't the HADCRUT data display a near - linear increase in temperatures from the late 19th century until the war?

Most of these periods appear to describe the locations of major and minor peaks in the 20th century HADCRUT data within the resolution of the PSD.

You have left out of your recent analysis the largest cycle in the HadCRUT data.

And for this graph using Hadcrut data why is the the warming trend for the thirty year period from 1970 to 2000 the same as from the pre Anthropological CO2 period of 1910 to 1940.

Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC's HadCRUT Data Confirms CO ²'s Small Impact On Global Warming

I have done these sort of checks for the GISS and HADCRUT data and what you find is that for the yearly data ending in 2007, there is strong sensitivity to the data set used and how many years are included out to be about 10 years or so.

Even Phil Jones has confirmed this with respect to NCDC, GISS and the HadCRUT data.

What Portion of HadCRUT data is taken from NOAA?

Clearly you think the problem here is the inferiour Hadcrut data set, Judith crime (or sin) is using it.

Judith — The Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT data are not relatively independent from the NOAA data sets.

Vuk, how about doing your FFT of the last two graphs on that page on ICOADS rather than Hadley contaminated HadCRUT data?

«The Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT data are not relatively independent from the NOAA data sets» The point is that they use HADSST3, and are not affected by this adjustment to ERSST.

I produced a PSD of HADCRUT data here which clearly shows a peak at ~ 65 years for the 20th century.

The request letter is asking for permission to release the underlying HadCRUT data for the SMHI stations that CRU previously had received monthly data for, also acknowledging that CRU's data isn't the same as the SMHI data.

So, what happens when the Dessler methodology uses the gold - standard HadCRUT data that Spencer used?

It was pointed out previously that Dessler chose not to use the same HadCRUT data as Spencer, which smacks one as an extreme form of cherry - picking.

Well, everyone now knows why Dessler avoided the HadCRUT data.

The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.

And there was me looking at the HADCRUT data and seeing that it was zero.

First, allow me to thank you for acknowledging your error with respect to the HadCRUT data you posted in your comment # 150.

Given that there is greater uncertainty associated with the HadCRUT data prior to 1900 due to fewer stations and sparser global coverage, and that the TCR constrained by 1901 - 2000 data better matches the IPCC central TCR estimates, their higher TCR (approximately 1.7 to 2.5 °C) seems more likely to be correct.

You can probably do it yourself with Mauna Loa and HADCRUT data too, just annual averages in both cases.

But then I was staring at the HadCRUT data and it struck me like a ton of bricks that break points in surface temperatures exactly matched transitions to flood and drought regimes in Australia.

It's too bad there's no room to adjust HadCRUT data for margin of error.

Eliminating AGW removes only 3 variables derived from the HadCRUT data - set (the other two are from the Mauna Loa CO2 data - set, which is not the dependent variable).

The trend shown by the Hadcrut data may be true but its magnitude may be amplified by corrupted data as noted by our mad lord and others (eg weather stations located next to air conditioner units etc).

Notice the amplitude of the HadCRUT data not only raises the 1980s temperatures well above the tree - ring data, it reduces the 1960s cooling by a few tenths of a degree too.

Funny thing, the HADCrut data that these guys are using has already shown a cooling trend since 2005.

have shown already in 2010 that global warming is underestimated in the HadCRUT data, and we have discussed the Arctic data hole repeatedly since 2008 at RealClimate.

in the cited paper by Jones et al. (1999) which provides information that allows clearer interpretation of HADCRUT data.

Indeed, using the HadCRUT data yields 253 consecutive months out of 609 positive months and 1,980 total months.

The Hadcrut data in the graph is labelled UAE - CRU.

So if they don't like the fact that we compared their forecast to NASA's GISTEMP data, let's just do it with the HadCRUT data.

Fig. 5 The «Cold Sun» forecast of Vahrenholt and Lüning compared with global surface temperatures of the British Meteorological Service (HadCRUT data), running average over 37 months.

[Response: This is a very frequent error (Watts has made it many times before), and stems from their confusion between the HadCRUT data set (which is a collaboration between the Hadley Centre (providing SST and sea ice cover) and the CRU (which provides the met station analysis) and the actual institutions (which are completely independent and separated by a couple of hundred miles).

Fig. 4 The «Cold Sun» forecast of Vahrenholt and Lüning compared with global surface temperatures of the British Meteorological Service (HadCRUT data), moving average over 23 months to end of October 2016.

Not exact matches

The confused argument hinges on one data set — the HadCRUT 3V — which is only one of several estimates, and it is the global temperature record that exhibits the least change over the last decade.

Watts» attempted explanation of the differences between histograms generated from NASA GISS surface temperature data vs. those generated from HadCRUT, RSS, and UAH data is a particularly entertaining example.

I could even use the data you supply to argue it the other way — that is, the two minima you compare seem quite different, yet both» 96 - ’97 and» 07 - ’08 are pretty hot periods globally, with 2007 for instance just a few hundredths of a degree warmer than ’97 in HadCRUT.

But it actually was, at least accordong to HadCRUT and alll other temperature data than GISS.

The funny thing, however, is that the last decade of the Arctic CRUTEM 3v temperatures are closer to the corresponding estimates from NCEP re-analysis than the more complete HadCRUT 3v data.