Sentences with phrase «rss satellite»

In his second silly statement Bob also complains about the fact that GISS (it's all a conspiracy) does not show the 1998 El Nino as prominently as the UAH and RSS satellite data.

The least - squares linear - regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset continues to show no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one - third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

Steve McIntyre does some processing of RSS satellite data and produces this chart of actual temperature anomalies for the last 30 years by attitude and altitude (Altitude is measured in these graphs by atmospheric pressure, where 1000 millibars is the surface and 100 millibars is about 10 miles up.

And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset.

Between 1979 and 2001, the RSS satellite data increased at virtually the same rate as GISS.

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

The growing divergence between NASA's GISS and RSS satellite data sets, since 2000, didn't used to be so stark.

When both the UAH and RSS satellite records are in general agreement that 2014 wasn't even close to the record set in 1998, why are we even chirping over whether the 2014 «hottest» claim is (under government agency calculating methodology) 38 % certain or 48 % certain?

The thick Black line is the averaged RSS satellite data and the light blue lines are the 33 IPCC (TLT) models.

The RSS satellite data appears to be the odd one out.

The RSS satellite's orbit could continue to decay and the RSS trend could continue to be the outlier.

Temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases, the Berkeley Earth Temperature Results, the UAH and RSS satellite interpretations, and Radiosondes (Weather Balloons) are all setting new warmth records..

So using the data from the UAH and RSS satellite data, I got the following anomalies for July.

Utilizing a straight - forward, empirical analysis of the RSS satellite temperature dataset reveals a rather tenuous (non-existent?)

Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus.

Notes: Calendar year (annual) anomalies were computed using Excel from the RSS satellite 2015 year - end monthly dataset and NOAA's 2015 year - end monthly dataset.

Let's take the entire RSS satellite record and compute a 15 year average global temperature (that's a valid temperature «normal»), once a month, every single month, and plot them all (that's a «trend») on one graph.

Thus the trend of RSS satellite data from September 1997 through August 2009, for instance, would be negative (and not statistically significant) while the trend of the GISS surface data from September 1998 through August 2009 would be positive, and marginally below model projections.

However, on the RSS satellite dataset, the global warming of the past 23 years is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

As reported in Roy's post, these plots by John are based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer with a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979 - 2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 — 2025 for the models.

RSS satellite data sets were first published in 2001; by July, 2004, the RSS trend stood at 0.13 °C per decade.

On the bottom left is the same for GISS land only and on the bottom right the same for RSS satellite.

Of course, everyone likely knows by now that the big news of late has been the v4 update to the RSS satellite data set, which raised the trend in their data by about 60 %.

RSS satellite is a bit lower than GISS, but the effect is the same.)

The 2007 RSS satellite temperature was 0.04 deg C higher than the 1987 RSS temperature and there was substantial divergence between Scenario B in 2007 and the RSS satellite temperature (and even the GISS temperature surface temperature series).

The graph of global temperature changes since early 2015 is taken directly from the data supplied by the RSS satellite through December, 2016.

Figure 3: Comparison of temperature anomalies from RSS satellite data (red) over the Moscow region (35ºE — 40ºE, 54ºN — 58ºN) versus Moscow station data (blue).

Checking further I discovered that NASA and NOAA were doing the same thing but both UAH and RSS satellites showed no warming there.

Not exact matches

Finally, the RSS group found differences between MSU and AMSU sensor readings caused by spurious calibration drift in either NOAA - 14 or NOAA - 15 satellites.

The RSS group also used the presence of multiple satellites in recent years to test for «odd man out» behaviours, when three or more satellites are available and one differs substantially from the others.

RSS v4 shows about 5 % more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began.

Secondly, there is how one accounts for the well - known stratospheric influence on the record: S&C use a method that uses different scan angles to create the MSU2LT (or MSUtlt) record — but RSS note that this has even greater uncertainty in the continuity across satellites.

As far as I know, the 2 main sources of satellite data for temperatures in the lower troposphere are UAH and RSS, and they vastly differ in their trends in the tropical troposphere, with RSS's trend being twice as warming as the UAH trend, although they show the same trends in the remaining troposphere, resulting in a Global difference of only 0.035 C / d trend.

But satellite data, both RSS and UAH, still stubbornly refuse to show greenhouse fingerprint, in accordance with old, «incorrect» radiosonde data.

I however was able to easily test the robustness of their calculations to changes in the satellite data source (RSS vs. UAH) or to updates in the surface temperature products.

Yet it's in disagreement with similar satellite reductions from RSS (which is the subject of * this * post), and from the U. of Washington, and from the U. of Maryland.

RSS and UAH are two reasonable products made from the same raw data — the difference between the two is only because of the processing and procedures for patching different satellites together (particularly in 1992).

Yet RSS states that one of their goals is «to provide a complete and independent analysis as a check of these [satellite temperature] important results.»

My understanding of the remaining discrepancy between S+C and RSS is that it's a question of how the data between the various satellites are merged.

In their trend from 1998, the two satellite series contradict each other: UAH shows +0.05 ° C per decade (a bit more than HadCRUT4), RSS shows -0.05 ° C per decade.

Secondly, the offsets between UAH, RSS and UMD should define the minimum systematic uncertainty in the satellite observations, which therefore would overlap with the model «uncertainty».

«Scientists at the University of Washington -LCB- UW -RCB-, developed a method for quantifying the stratospheric contribution to the satellite record of tropospheric temperatures and applied an adjustment to the UAH and RSS temperature record that attempts to remove the satellite contribution (cooling influence) from the middle troposphere record.

The fact of the matter is that S&C and RSS use slightly different methodologies to interpret the satellite data, and this produces different results.

The new RSS version of the 2LT record still shows a higher trend (0.19 deg / decade), with the difference being due to the methodology used to splice the different satellites.

1 (kim) Watch the Argos bouys for dropping sea temperatures, the RSS and UAH satellite thermometers for cooling tropospheric temperatures, Bob B's links for sea level dropping, and cryosphere for polar ice anomalies.

But the more basic point here is that the Cowtan paper does not use the satellite time trend (which is somewhat unreliable — remember the long history of corrections, and the difference in trends between the UAH and RSS products), it only uses the satellite spatial pattern to fill the data holes.

That's only true for UAH satellite data; the RSS series shows the same warming as the surface measurements.

I have just recalculated the trendline in the RSS lower troposphere satellite data using the most recent April 2007 data.

is that the difference between satellite (UAH and RSS) and landstation (GISS and HadCRU) measurements has become so enormous.

I went ahead and plotted the normalized (HadCRU + GISS) / 2 --(RSS + UAH) / 2 to show the variance between satellite and land - based temperatures.