Sentences with phrase «about giss»

It's ironic that, despite all the noise contrarians make about GISS being untrustworthy because its director is «alarmist», it actually underestimates the warming over land.

I saw your response about the GISS adjustments.

As we talked about GISS still has this product up.

Especially after Gavin Schmidt's big MSM splash about GISS 2014 warmest evah!

BTW, there's nothing secret about the GISS method.

I am wondering about GISS - E2 - H.

Why are we so concerned about GISS??

- 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»

But we are not talking about GISS, whose methodology is a thread in itself.

NASA news and features about GISS research achievements may be found in the NASA Releases pages.

Some articles about GISS research prepared by other NASA sites and publications as well as affiliated institutions appear amongst the Research Features.

the claims about GISS are extremely problematic.

any person with massive doubt about the GISS measurement of glabal temperature data has some serious explanation to do, while pointing at proxy results.

Of these four, at least three (I am not sure about the GISS) would show the same results.

No, I wasn't talking about GISS.

The same has been said about GISS.

Dan talks about GISS, then RSS, and the fog thickens.

Can someone point to a technical paper where I can learn more about the GISS methodology of arctic treatment.

Not exact matches

Last week Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, estimated that the average global temperature in 2016 could range from about 1.1 °C above preindustrial to only slightly below 1.5 °C, based on GISS's temperature record and its definition of pre-industrial (other records and definitions vary).

The monthly analysis by the GISS team is assembled from publicly available data acquired by about 6,300 meteorological stations around the world, ship - and buoy - based instruments measuring sea surface temperature, and Antarctic research stations.

For instance, NASA's budget for Earth Science is around $ 2 billion dollars, and GISS accounts for about 0.5 % of that.

The point about heating (adding energy) vs warming (temperatures going up) is a very good one — it might help if the scientists involved with the major temperature series people look at (GISS, RSS, etc) also produced a global surface energy change index that accounted for things like melting ice, which absorb heat without raising temperatures.

The GISS trend at the Arctic was about the same for the 1910 - 35 period as it was for the 1978 - 2007 period.

Those who are crowing about the recent «cooling» need only do one thing: pick a set of temperature anomalies, Hadley or GISS, for example, and plot 10 year and 30 year trends.

I quantified the volcanic bias to account for about 0.04 C / decade of the 0.16 C / decade trend (global GISS land + ocean starting 1979).

If you're talking about global mean temperature I would advise you to compare the projections of the IPCC to the actual measurements of GISS as well as HadCRUT, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU measured data.

Here is a zonally averaged mean temperature plot for six model configurations using GISS - E2 that have a range of about 1ºC in their global mean temperature.

Victor, my argument is about year - year independence, not about the value of sigma, on which indeed HADCRUT and GISS agree.

As stated last year, the Scenario B in that paper is running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10 %)(and high compared to A1B), and the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2 ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~ 3ºC).

Nasa giss shows temperatures rising to about 1945 then dropping after that.

I regularly speak to public audiences about climate change (see http://www.andrewgunther.com/climate-change/#talks for details), and use the NASA / GISS dataset to discuss global average temperature of the atmosphere.

basically, GISS estimates that the land record for the period since 1900 has increased at about.8 C + -.2 C (95 % CI) or.008 C per decade + -.002 C

I wonder if the cooling earth, the lowering ocean, and the growing polar ice have driven him to desperation; could it be the GISS code about to be cracked?

Is the current argument only about possible causes, future course and costs, but based on a widely shared agreement with the 2005 annual data published at the NASA GISS page?

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.

What is interesting to look at, especially with regards to the past year of the GISS records, is that about the only place that has been consistantly significantly «warmer» than usual, and therefor driving the «global warming» numbers, is Northern Asia.

For example, Jones only uses about 450 temperature stations, whereas GISS and GHCN use about 1,800 stations.

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.

If Bob used a different dataset instead of GISS that did nt have the problem he worried about (deletion of some SST) would that be better?

As Homewood himself wrote — providing an illustrative map showing that there simply is no data on much if not most of the world — about the dearth of data - collection stations, «One of the regions that has contributed to GISS» «hottest ever year» is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina.

Again, as noted in the comment you're referring to, I've written posts or included graphs in blog comments for almost two years about these upward steps in SST for the East Indian - West Pacific Oceans, RSS TLT north of 20N, GISS LOTI (20N - 65N), CRUTEM (20N - 65N), etc..

If we scale sunspot numbers so that the variations from solar minimum to maximum represent about a 0.1 deg change in temperature, and if we lag the sunspot data 6 years, it compares well visually with the adjusted GISS LOTI data.

For the GISS data you have 1880 about 0.1 C above zero in 1880.

So GISS E2 - R - RCP 2.6 ``: running cool» is based on your baseline however it happened to come about.

There seems to be a pair of «anchor points» in the GISS blink comparator data, one about 1895 and another at 1965.

I think that there's a little air in the 2006 numbers even within GISS procedures as the other post-2000 lost about 0.15 strokes through late bogeys, while it lost only 0.10 strokes.

Bob, it seems that you have 1) found hot spots with about the right time signature (KOE and SPCZ) to do what you want, 2) multiplied their temperatures by arbitrary factors, and 3) subtracted them from the GISS temperature data.

Maybe those who endlessly argue about anything else would like to defend the actions of GISS.

Compared to the original, unadjusted data, Figure 28, the trend of the adjusted data is only about 15 % of the original GISS LOTI data for 60S - 60N.

This year, after 10 months, the average anomaly (these are GISS station anomalies) is running about 0.5.