Sentences with phrase «between giss»

Just for fun, I calculated the «correlation» between the GISS temperature versions of Tokyo and New York Central Park for all 1392 months for which the records both exist.

I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions: — There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)-- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)-- On the 20 yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years

The next plot shows the differences between GISS and the CRN12 and CRN5 results.

For those who want to pursue this issue of 2010 being the warmest in 131 years, check out the articles by Steve Goddard regarding the huge discrepancies between GISS and three other outfits that measure global temperature here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/

The agreement between NCDC and HadCRUT3 appear to be far better than the agreement between GISS and HadCRUT3.

I discussed the difference between GISS Springfield data and GISS data for the Springfield area.

And remember what Brandon Shollenberger asserted: «The only meaningful differences between the GISS and BEST estimates for my area is BEST adds a huge warming trend.»

You said that «The only meaningful differences between the GISS and BEST estimates for my area is BEST adds a huge warming trend.».

He is able to claim things like «The only meaningful differences between the GISS and BEST estimates for my area is BEST adds a huge warming trend.»

Brandon posted gridded products for an area that showed large differences in trend between GISS and BEST, and questioned BEST.

And to top that off, Brandon Shollenberger had the temerity to state «The only meaningful differences between the GISS and BEST estimates for my area is BEST adds a huge warming trend.»

An important difference between GISS and BEST methods is that BEST eschews the absolute temperature and prefers instead to trust the slope of temperature trends between breakpoints.

Remember what Brandon Shollenberger said:» «The only meaningful differences between the GISS and BEST estimates for my area is BEST adds a huge warming trend.»

Next here is a graph showing the difference between GISS raw and USHCN adjusted by month (with a smooth) for unlit stations (Which are said to define the trends).

The difference between GISS US results and NOAA US results is strong evidence that there is a noticeable impact — one which needs to be addressed by CRU and NOAA and by GISS outside the US.

The two main things that I'd noticed by then had been 1) a huge difference between the GISS version of Feb 2008 and the current version; and 2) that Harry had been installed in 1994, making the provenance of Harry data prior to 1994 a mystery — which I asked readers to think about around 5 pm Eastern (4 pm blog time).

I used the 1979 - 98 base period to provide a direct comparison between GISS and UAH anomalies.

Kevin, to put that diagram into perspective, if you look at GISS LOTI, there has been abou 0.9 degrees of warming since 1911 (the lowest point on the WUWT plot), so the difference between GISS products accounts for less than 10 % of the observed warming.

Just imagine how much easier it would be to look at the relative differences between GISS / CRUTEM / BEST etc if these datasets where all stored in a fully relational structured common format.

And it isn't like this is the only methodological difference between GISS and HadCRU.

Chris, You are correct in that the difference, in practice, between GISS and Crutem3 baselines is small.

Not exact matches

Below is a figure showing a similar comparison between HadCRUT 3v and GISTEMP (from NASA / GISS).

If we have had 1C of warming (giss) since pre-industrial and human made aerosols are masking between 0.5 and 1.1 (Samset et al) and there is warming «in the pipeline» as well — has the possibility of a 1.5 C target already passed?

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.

So to me the graphic is correct i.e. Corrections applied by GISS have increased the difference between the January 1910 and January 2000 temperature from 0.43 C in 2008 to 0.71 C in 2016.

When calculating the differences between the dataset of the year 1997 and the year 2016 (annual data to avoid «cherry picking») from 1880 on you get the result that 22 % of the trendslope 1880 to 1996 is due to the changes in the GISS data.

Below is a figure showing a similar comparison between HadCRUT 3v and GISTEMP (from NASA / GISS).

The difference between the HadCrut and GISS treatment of this problem is that HadCrut does not use those grid cells to calculate the global temperature anomaly while GISS interpolates / extrapolates from the few stations around the artic to infill temperature estimates for the grid cells where no «real» data is available.

In contrast, the only interval in the GISS or NCDC global time series that looks odd is during the WWII years between 1941 and 1945, where it appears that all the temperatures have a warming bias of 0.1 C. I agree with J.J.Kennedy that it is an artificial shift based on war - time procedures, but I think the corrections that Hadley made post-WWII were questionable.

This makes me wonder if over time, (decades) we should expect to see a growing gap emerge between the anomalies measured by GISS compared to the other methods?

Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some «interesting relationships we don't fully understand» between solar activity and climate.»

one thing I have notice is there is difference in temperatures between those given on the NASA / GISS map and those given on the NASA / GISS statistical page.

RE # 11 Interesting to see that relationship between 2017 and 2016 in RSS values tracks almost exactly NASA GISS.

I presume the smart people can understand the difference between «warmest on record», «second warmest on record», and maybe even «tied for the second warmest on record», which is in fact what GISS says.

The «Arctic hole» is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near - surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA.

Now if you look at K et al's response incorporating estimated factors from GISS, you see better agreement between HadCRU (amplified) and sats over land than over ocean (and of course globally).

Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established geostatistical interpolation method called kriging — but they do not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between satellite and ground data.

If there is indeed a fairly close correlation between the US surface temps and US satellite temps, then that would show just how «whacked out» the GISS and Hadcrut temps could be.

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.

It also fails to account for the agreement between the inverted NINO3.4 data and the GISS LOTI data that's been adjusted for ENSO and volcanoes.

But, unfortunately, insofar as GISS (and HadCRUT) may have exaggerated the true surface trend between the mid 20th century and the present, any future downward trend would seem proportionally less dramatic.

Anthony: Does the GISS change reflect the differences between the USHCN versions 1 and 2?

The similarities between the adjusted GISS LOTI datasets and the respective KOE and SPCZ Extension data were remarkable.

Quite apart from the wider publicity given to the heat transport problem in the Russell ocean model (which affects all of the published GISS - E2 - R results), and the famous rogue LU run where a negative forcing yields an overall positive net flux response (which is not rogue at all and not to be excluded according to Gavin), the WMGHG results and particularly the relationship between Fi and ERF values now seem positively bizarre.

The difference between the highest (GISS) and lowest (UAH) anomalies is a whopping 0,54 deg that is, even understanding the different base line, totally unprecedented!

A couple of years ago, I observed that the introduction of Mennian methods to USCHN appeared to impact GISS US (resulting in warming relative to USHCN v1), where the difference between the 1930s and the early 2000s increased by 0.3 deg C between 2007 and 2011, an increase that I postulated to arise from Mennian methodology, though I did not further analyse these methods at the time.

For the GISS GLB series, there was negligible (less than 0.01 deg C) difference between the means for 1958 - 1980; 1958 - 1967 and 1951 - 1980.

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).

His device came into general use in the late 1800s, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) confirms that «there was a net global warming of about 0.4 º Celsius between the 1880s and 1970s.»