Sentences with phrase «between gistemp»

Sampling biases are easy to see in the difference between the GISTEMP surface temperature data product (which extrapolates over the Arctic region) and the HADCRUT3v product which assumes that Arctic temperature anomalies don't extend past the land.

This latest study is really for the grease monkeys of climate science, the folks who know the difference between GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, and can tell you what ERSST stands for without googling it.

(Actually had I thought instead of posting I guess I could have taken the difference between GISTEMP and HADCRUT and calculated a correlation coefficient with sunspot number.)

The fraud involves cooperation between GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC.

Figure 2: Difference in Arctic temperature trends between GISTEMP and 3 other reconstructions on the period 1997 - 2012.

Figure 1: Difference in temperature trends between GISTEMP and the Cowtan and Way infilled temperature data on the period 1997 - 2012 (i.e. GISTEMP minus C&W).

To be totally clear, this is not a difference between GISTEMP and CRUTEM; it is a difference between GISTEMP (reduced coverage) and GISTEMP (full coverage).

Globally HadCRUT4 only provides a marginal improvement in coverage, but the trend leaps up to fall between GISTEMP and NCDC.

There is a 30 % relationship between gistemp (3 year res.)

A comparison between temperatures over the most recent available 30 - year period (1978 - 2007) shows high temperatures over parts of Russia (Figure below — upper left panel), and the difference between the GISTEMP and HadCRUT 3v shows a good agreement apart from around the Arctic rim and in some maritime sectors (upper right panel).

Not exact matches

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

[Response: GISTEMP uses HadISST up to 1982 and Reynolds thereafter — there may still be issues in melding the two approaches because small potential offsets between the buoys and other methods of determining SST.

Re # 14 Gavin [Response: GISTEMP uses HadISST up to 1982 and Reynolds thereafter — there may still be issues in melding the two approaches because small potential offsets between the buoys and other methods of determining SST.

It's incredibly hypocritical of global warming denialists to whine that compilations of global temperature anomaly like GISTEMP have large distances between recording stations and this makes them an inaccurate estimate of global anomaly and then we have a global warming denialist extraordinaire, Roberts, claim that a SINGLE locality, Central England, can provide an adequate estimate of global anomaly.

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

Fig. 1 (b) shows that the anomaly between observations and the CMIP5 mean temperature response to cumulative emissions is halved by repeating the Millar analysis with the GISTEMP product instead of HadCRUT.

The correlation is centered on the rapid warming which occurred between 1980 — 1998 in gistemp and the rapid warming which (apparently) occurred between 1936 -1960 in Indo SST.

Plotting these temperatures as anomalies (by removing the mean over a common baseline period)(red lines) reduces the spread, but it is still significant, and much larger than the spread between the observational products (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 / Cowtan & Way, and Berkeley Earth (blue lines)-RRB-:

We expect to mentor 3 or 4 students on the Google Summer of Code (see below), to work on ccc - gistemp and other Foundation projects between May and August 2011.

Let us therefore compare satellite data (UAH6.0) with surface data (GISTEMP Land / Ocean) measured for the Southern Hemisphere (SH), from 1979 till 2015: You hopefully see like me a good correlation between the two, shown by both linear estimates and 60 month running means.

The apparent convergence in short term trends between HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP arises primarily from changes in the HadSST data over areas which already had coverage, not through addressing the global coverage issues.

Given the huge gaps between reporting periods, for an analysis like ccc - gistemp we would be better off just discarding those data.

Note that agreement is fairly good between the BEST and GISTEMP data.

We also used GISTEMP global annual surface temperature anomalies, and a 4 - month lag between MEI and GISTEMP, consistent with the results in Foster & Rahmstorf (2011).

That you found agreement between the proxies and satellites but GIStemp was a big outlier does not surprise me in the least.

And the differences in this one small region were big enough to explain about two thirds of the difference in trend between our results and GISTEMP.

Now let's look more closely at the difference between the non-interpolated data sets (HadCRUT4 and NOAA GlobalTemp) and their interpolated counterparts (Cowtan & Way and NASA GISTEMP respectively).

I personally think that smoothing anomalies from the land to the sea is one of the more surprising aspects of the GISTEMP algorithm, and it's on my list to run some code to calculate the correlation in between SST anomalies and nearby land anomalies.

February 14, 2015: UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCNv2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis.

Green is the difference between current GISTEMP and GISTEMP in April 2008.

Blue is the current GISTEMP up to 2007, with green being the difference between current GISTEMP and GISTEMP in April 2008.

The 1200 km range used by GISTemp was determined emprically to give the best balance between correlation between stations and area of coverage.

Changes in global surface temperature between 1900 and 2003 associated with the long - term global warming trend in two different datasets, GISTEMP and ERSST.

As far as the correlation between GHGs and temperature goes, recent history already passes his r2 > 0.5 test with flying colours - the Mauna Loa CO2 data vs GISTEMP from 1961 - 2004 gets r2 = 0.76, and I'm sure that the Vostok ice core data must be in the same ballpark over ~ 400,000 years or more (a quick google finds multiple references to the strong correlation but no hard numbers and I can't be bothered doing it myself).

Looks like GISS fixed it: They have posted a News bulletin on the GISTEMP homepage: 2010-04-15: The data shown between 4/13 and 4/15 were based on data downloaded on 4/12 and included some station reports from Finland in which the minus sign may have been dropped.

1998 in GISTemp shows what is supposed to be seen in the difference between surface temperature and the altitude that satellites measure temperature at during El Nino.

Pre-war temperature also has the potential for being noisier because the sampling covered less of the globe so is more prone to confluences situations where they drive cooling / warming in the observed locations and the opposite in the non-observed locations (cf the difference between HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP).

The result is that if you reduce the coverage of GISTEMP to match HadCRUT3, the bulk of the difference between the two datasets disappears.

E.M.Smith (21:26:23): «2 months ago GIStemp revamped their processing and now include USHCN.v2 stations» That's an absurd excuse for the difference between this purported plot from the report, and this current GISS plot.

A. UK media reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCN v2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis.

It appears that the BEST term trends over last 30 - 40 years are somewhere between NASA GISTemp (land) and CRUTEM.

These are both defendable choices, but when calculating global mean anomalies in a situation where the Arctic is warming up rapidly, there is an obvious offset between the two records (and indeed GISTEMP has been trending higher).

There is an option to create maps of the differences between two datasets using the KNMI Climate Explorer, but, first, there isn't an option for selecting the base years as I had for these maps, and, second, I haven't been able to make the option work comparing surface temp (GISTEMP or NCDC) and UAH TLT.