Sentences with phrase «about hadcrut»

I've seen a lot of complaining about HadCRUT running cold.

Not exact matches

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.

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

For context, the mean for the baseline period is 14.0, and the existing record (Hadcrut, since this is the UK we're talking about) is 1998, at 14.52 C.

I calculated the changes in trends for the metrics that people had talked about previously, and especially the ones they had graphed (and you will note that your graph is of the change to HadCRUT, not HadSST; as was RP's).

You will note the noise on the residuals (blue trace) still carries a signal of about half the amplitude of the original HadCRUT signal, so the residuals are not just noise as had been alleged.

The antarctic ice winter max decreased by about one third during this period, and the HadCRUT temp data base for that region during that period does show a substantial surface air temperature warming trend.

To add to your point about cycles, naturally occurring cycles, the interview by the BBC of Phil Jones (from CRU at UAE, and one of the IPCC lead authors, and overseer of the CRUTEM and HADCRUT temperature series) is interesting.

both GISS and Hadcrut give a slope of 0.07 per decadess ince 1935, leading to a temperature increase of about 0.5 °C, that need to be added to that last point of the Loehle graph on page 97.

There are a ton of studies on TCR that use more fine - grained data; they all conclude about 1.35 ºC per doubling of CO2, though it depends on whether one uses Berkeley, Hadcrut or something else.

Hadcrut land / ocean says the air temperatures have increase 0.55 °C or about 2 W / m2 of downdraft into the ocean.

Using the new and improve HADCRUT with kriging, there has been about 0.

But if it is all like it's explained why do we have the real life figures of Hadcrut from 1997 (to make it more obvious what I'm talking about, I'm rounding the figures to one decimal point.

There is only one incontrovertable fact about global; warming and that is that NCDC, GISS, HadCRUT, UAH MSU, and RSS MSU all show no global warming since 2002 in spite of the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels from 26.301 Gt in 2002 to 33.158 Gt in 2010.

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

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.

True, but fails to explain why the longer - term mean about which those cycles fluctuate is trending up other than curve - fitting an «approximation by three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years,» ANSWER: The curve fitting exercise is labeled as such «heuristic»; the lengths of the cycles are from other observations, some displayed on figures 5 - B & C; only the amplitudes and phase of the 215 and 60 years sinusoids are subject to optimization; Singular Spectrum Analysis has been applied by Diego Macias et al (note 18) to the HadCRUT series with equivalent results, and among many others by Liu Yu et al..

Many of the people who have posted about a flat trend are posting HADCRUT, which of course says nothing about a trend in BEST data.

2) The satellite tropospheric and sea surface (SST) data differ from the HADCRUT surface temp anomaly, with the present temperatures of both right at the same level as in 1991 (while Fig. 1 here shows an increase over 1991 of about 0.25 °C).

I looked at the chart of hadcrut 4 and determined that for the running mean the warming was about 0.5 for each 50 year period.

GISStemp and Hadcrut show a 25 yr trend of 0.19 and 0.18 per decade which appear to be slightly lower than Scenario C (which are about.1 deg C lower than in 2007).

I am envisioning the relatively low annual figure for HadCRUT4 in 2016 (see here usually 2 clicks to «download your attachment» or alternatively visit the GWPF website and look at their masthead graphic) and thus I speculate about a potentially high annual figure for HadCRUT in 2017 and the passing thought that such an event could embarrass the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy and their climate - change denying chums.

There are a few important things to note about the graph where I plotted the outer bounds of the model runs and the HadCRUT temperature anomaly.

The Kommersant talks about HaCRUT data in connection with land stations, but «HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

And since you like «eye balling graphs» have a look at the latest hadcrut or nasa global temperature graph, and it should be obvious to even you the «pause» is a blip of about 6 years duration of flat temperatures, thus easily explained by natural variability.

The HadCRUT record (preferred by IPCC) shows three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal warming «blips» (of about 30 years each and warming rates between 0.14 and 0.16 C per decade), the first two of which occurred prior to any significant human CO2 emissions.