Sentences with phrase «by giss»

The main purpose of the anomalies when multiplied up by 100 as by GISS is to make trivial temperature changes, like 0.7 oC since 1900, seem incredibly ominous.

You wrote, «The problem of «extra heat» in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data...»

But you wrote in this post about Figure 7, «The problem of «extra heat» in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data.»

But when you write in a post here at WUWT, «The problem of «extra heat» in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data,» I will remind you that GISS notes the errors in the dTs data on their webpage:

The problem of «extra heat» in land temperatures (likely to be UHI and more) is escalated by GISS because they extrapolate the ground based land temperature measurements over the oceans in stead of using real ocean data:

In the real world, forcings (as estimated by GISS and not including volcanic effects) increased at 0.36 W / m2 per decade (1990 to 2003).

Nazarenko, L., N. Tausnev, and J. Hansen, 2007: The North Atlantic thermohaline circulation simulated by the GISS climate model during 1970 - 99.

This page provides links to several self - contained, downloadable software products that have been developed by GISS personnel, either for specific research purposes or for more general analytic use.

No such claim was made by the GISS webmaster; he merely claimed that downloading of station data was a violation of their robots.txt policy.

Figure 2 shows the changes simulated by GISS - E2 - R in response to LU forcing for each of simulation runs 2 to 5.

As you say, this does place a question mark over the reliability of other CMIP5 simulations by GISS - E2 - R.

To quote — «If you compare this with today's GISS graph you may notice a strange thing that the formerly known «1998 Super El Nino» so very prominent in the satellite records has also been disappeared by GISS».

If so, the output of such a project would trump anything done by GISS or Hadley CRU.

This is likely caused, in part, by GISS masking sea surface temperature data in the polar oceans and replacing it with land surface air temperature data, which is naturally more volatile.

I re-read Peterson and Vose 1997 to double - check this point and they do not describe a UHI adjustment of the type carried out by GISS in the US (which seems like the minimum requirement).

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 data over the last 126 years gathered by the GISS is mute to this whole argument.

FORTRAN as practiced by GISS does not, and it should die a quick death.

* it confirms that the instrumental temperature record shows an upward trend (with various reverses and advances) from the start of the CET instrumental record in 1659 making the 1880 start point for the instrumental global record used by GISS appear to be merely a staging post in the upwards trend, rather than the starting post.

That is clearly inconsistent with surface temperature records by GISS, or DMI:

He put up an off - subject «blinking graph» that showed the impact of revisions to the US record made by GISS some time ago, and known far and wide, and implied those revisions impacted the global record.

This gives a close to perfect match, but with parameters in the simple model that are very different from those reported by GISS.

Of course uncertainties for small numbers of stations is higher, but the numbers used by GISS, NCDC, and CRU4 are more than adequate.

Eschenbach: I am discussing the curious adjustment made by GISS to the Kathmandu record.

I am discussing the curious adjustment made by GISS to the Kathmandu record.

Plus, in contrast to the 7 major revisions done by NOAA / NCDC over the last 4 weeks, there has been only one major revision by GISS and zero for HadCRUT, UAH and RSS.

Indeed there are more stations, but I was talking only about the stations used by GISS for their temperature and anomaly calculations.

@Steven: on brightness: The brightness value comes from the v2.inv file supplied by GISS.

If Svalbard Luft is affected by AHI, then the anomaly reported by GISS for half of the arctic is also in error.

And in both cases the 30 - year average sea surface temperature as simulated by the GISS models is too high by about 0.6 deg C.

It's obvious that global sea surfaces simulated by the GISS climate model were warmer than observed and that the GISS model warming rate is too high over the past 3 decades.

Is there anything to suggest that the data from this airport has been tinkered with, I mean filtered, by GISS etc?

I checked all values (as I said in the post, all of them set a new record) reported by GISS, and the range was from +1.5 (Sodankylä) to something like +3.6 (Helsinki).

Now Hohenpeissenberg is given special status by GISS (I guess due to its length and the fact that the monks running it knew that temperatures needed to measured at the same time of day unlike most climate temperature data adjusters today.

Thus Hohenpeissenberg used by GISS is perhaps not that surpricing.

The first format is as presented by GISS, with the Pacific Ocean split at the dateline.

But they are not used by GISS, right?

On average relatively strong Arctic warming has occurred (rather than cooling) as indicated both by the GISS and DMI data.

Finally, Figure 5, from Goddard's post, shows a comparison of the trend estimates by GISS, Hadley, UAH and RSS:

Therefore we get polar areas that are covered by extrapolation by GISS and not covered at all by HadCRUT.

Articles in this news and features section are short to medium - length descriptions prepared by GISS scientists about their own research, sometimes written in connection with the publication of related journal articles.

Perhaps you might humour me and offer your analysis of the probability that the 2010 land / ocean index, as determined by GISS, say, will be greater than the index for 2005.

and satellites are not calibrated by GISS data.

A little warmer than this year would easily take third by GISS.

Assuming the spatial patterns of the warming shown by the GISS LOTI data are close to being correct, then the differences with the lower troposphere data appear to show that lower troposphere temperature data would be of questionable value for infilling the HADCRUT4 data.

This represents an about 53 % administrative temperature increase over this period, meaning that more than half of the reported (by GISS) global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative changes of the original data since May 2008.

The models do a reasonable job of portraying the polar amplification shown by the GISS LOTI data from 1975 to 2012, as illustrated in the upper left - hand graph.

This Nature Climate Change paper concluded, based purely on simulations by the GISS - E2 - R climate model, that estimates of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based on observations over the historical period (~ 1850 to recent times) were biased low.

The GISS group and the surface temperature records are managed by the GISS group and not the larger NASA Earth Observing System Data Information Services (EOSDIS).

A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth.»