Sentences with phrase «between hadcrut»

The unsmoothed annual up and down variations don't demonstrate much difference between the Hadcrut and GISS curves over the course of the rising temperatures shown since 1910, and are prominent throughout both records.

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

[Response: This is a very frequent error (Watts has made it many times before), and stems from their confusion between the HadCRUT data set (which is a collaboration between the Hadley Centre (providing SST and sea ice cover) and the CRU (which provides the met station analysis) and the actual institutions (which are completely independent and separated by a couple of hundred miles).

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

Not exact matches

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).

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.

Figure caption: The difference between Oct. 2007 — Sep. 2008 temperature average and the 1961 - 1990 mean temperature for HadCRUT 3V (upper left) and NCEP re-analysis (upper right).

I suspect you're looking at the Hadcrut temperature data since that's the one that gives «a ~ 0.5 deg rise in global temperatures»...» between ~ 1910 and ~ 1945».

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 «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.

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.

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.

The same connection between CO2rise / year and HADcrut gives a factor not 3,5 but actually around 5... So lets say we have a temperature sensitivity in average 4.

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

You have confirmed that the sawtooth is created as the difference between temperature (Hadcrut) and AGW.

My statement that the sawtooth is created as the difference between temperature (Hadcrut) and AGW is correct.

@MJ: You have confirmed that the sawtooth is created as the difference between temperature (Hadcrut) and AGW.

Since we don't know what A and B are, it is hard to argue this without going through every possible A and B. However, I think B must be my «the sawtooth was created as the difference between temperature (Hadcrut) and AGW».

@eem: one difference between a borehole measurement and the likes of HadCRUT, BEST, etc is that the thermometer calibration should not be an issue if the measurements were done correctly.

Vaughan, one difference between a borehole measurement and the likes of HadCRUT, BEST, etc is that the thermometer calibration should not be an issue if the measurements were done correctly.

Reader Eric Worrall writes: I was playing with Wood For Trees, looking at the relationship between Pacific Decadal Oscillation vs global temperature (Hadcrut 4), when the following graph appeared.

The difference there between NOAA and HADCRUT is almost entirely due to the difference in anomaly bases (1961 - 90 vs 1901 - 2000).

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

My concern is that the answers do seem to change as you add and subtract stations; HADCRUT is showing some significant differences between new and previous versions

If I had to guess what the result would be, I would say that the north pole is warming faster than the models «expected» (it would be in the upper half of a distribution like that in the article but for the Arctic alone) but that over the HadCRUT area with all its gaps, the discrepancy between models and obs would be very similar for the three observed datasets and it would be slightly worse than is suggested in Knight et al. or, for that matter, in the Knappenberger et al..

The spread of temperatures in the graph in the article are mostly between UAH which measure the upper atmosphere, and the others including NASA and hadcrut that measures the surface.

The temperature series used is a customized series I developed based upon an average of HadCRUT and GISS LOTI between 60S and 60N but with UAH satellite data used from 90S - 60S and 60N to 90N.

It seems whenever I see an attempt to claim AGW has stopped, it's bolstered with a WfT graph of HadCRUT data that shows a downward trend between arbitrary dates in the last 11 years.

(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.)

We have seen a total linear warming of 0.041 C per decade or 0.66 C over the entire 160 - year HadCRUT record (this has occurred in 3 statistically indistinguishable 30 - year warming cycles, with 30 - year cycles of slight cooling in between, as Girma has shown us graphically).

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.