Just
averaging different baselines — throwing a bunch of contestable assumptions into a pot and stirring — seems unlikely to produce accurate results.
Not exact matches
But they used a
different baseline than NOAA, comparing temperatures to the
average from the period 1951 - 1980.
These results are based on data compiled from 15
different climate models, and use the
average temperature from 1970 through 1999 as a
baseline for comparison.
Because of the way tracking was done (splitting the grade into two classes at the median
baseline test score), the two students closest to the median within each school were assigned to classes where the
average prior achievement of their classmates was very
different.
In CRUTEM4: A detailed look, I pointed out the difficulties in providing a comparison of the CRUTEM4 data with the other land - only temperature datasets from NCDC, GISS or BEST due to problems created by
different definitions of «land - only», and
different averaging and
baseline conventions.
Different graphs — different baselines The graph above uses the average temperatures of the period from 1880 to 1909 as its 0 °C
Different graphs —
different baselines The graph above uses the average temperatures of the period from 1880 to 1909 as its 0 °C
different baselines The graph above uses the
average temperatures of the period from 1880 to 1909 as its 0 °C
baseline.
The large difference in results stems from the fact the various temperature stations have
different baselines, * so when stations drop out, the change in
average baseline introduces a bias into the results.
The trends are very similar, with the major differences being in how GISTEMP treats
averaging of stations across the Arctic, and in the
different baseline periods used to compute the «temperature anomaly».
When parents were not depressed at intake, CBP was superior to UC, however when parents were actively depressed at
baseline,
average onset rates between CBP and UC were not significantly
different.