Sentences with phrase «by hadcrut»

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

Yes the curve fitted is quite credible, as eye - balling the data would suggest, but with so little data available (and that being rather corrupted by the HADCRUT process) it is difficult to say whether there is any truth to it.

The trend shown by the Hadcrut data may be true but its magnitude may be amplified by corrupted data as noted by our mad lord and others (eg weather stations located next to air conditioner units etc).

Taking the temperature of the earth in 1910 and 2013 and joining the dots, we get a total temperature rise of 0.8 o C, as confirmed by the Hadcrut 4 Global Mean temperature.

Not exact matches

Consequently, the HadCRUT record underestimates the warming trend, as demonstrated by the NASA GISS record which covers the whole globe:

HadCRUT corrections by Thompson 2008, GISTEMP corrections by Real Climate.

[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).

I have seen things on blogs where people try to jam together (by visual estimation of published graphs) previous forecasts of global temperature against actuals (eg HADCRUT).

The reluctance of GISTEMP to follow HADCRUT and publish offsets for monthly data rather than just an offset for the annual data might be overcome by publishing monthly offsets relative to the annual figure.

Thus the method used above by Gavin is right and it is no surprise that HadCRUT finds similar uncertainties.

in the cited paper by Jones et al. (1999) which provides information that allows clearer interpretation of HADCRUT data.

Victor Venema 23 Jan 2015 at 4:42 PM «Thus the method used above by Gavin is right and it is no surprise that HadCRUT finds similar uncertainties»

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 table ranks years by the Jan - to - Nov average and with just December remaining, 2017 is firmly set in third spot for the full HadCRUT year (3rd in NOAA & UAH, 2nd spot for GISS & RSS), requiring a Dec anomaly outside the range +1.6 ºC to -0.8 ºC for the HadCRUT annual average to lose that 3rd spot.

Your 0.8 C dT is a bit on the high side, though, using the temperature record favored by IPCC (HadCRUT).

Global - temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate - date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

As you may know, the HADCRUT global surface temperature dataset, often preferred by climate «skeptics», got increased Arctic coverage in ver 4.

The antarctic ice winter max decreased by about one third during this period, and the HadCRUT temp data base for that region during that period does show a substantial surface air temperature warming trend.

The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

Notice the amplitude of the HadCRUT data not only raises the 1980s temperatures well above the tree - ring data, it reduces the 1960s cooling by a few tenths of a degree too.

And by the way, you can't see the step in the eighties and nineties in ground - based temperature curves like GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT.

The somebody named Rossander proved my point by eliminating the HHA curve (AGW = zero) and then used the remaining variables to recreate the same HADCRUT curve.

To add to your point about cycles, naturally occurring cycles, the interview by the BBC of Phil Jones (from CRU at UAE, and one of the IPCC lead authors, and overseer of the CRUTEM and HADCRUT temperature series) is interesting.

Given that there is greater uncertainty associated with the HadCRUT data prior to 1900 due to fewer stations and sparser global coverage, and that the TCR constrained by 1901 - 2000 data better matches the IPCC central TCR estimates, their higher TCR (approximately 1.7 to 2.5 °C) seems more likely to be correct.

So, I will now use only the «best» data, as defined by the alarmists (HadCRUT) in presenting the following observations: Breaking down the last hundred years into two halves; the first half, 1912 to 1961 and the last half 1962 to 2011.

These include the primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT); satellite measurements of the lower troposphere temperature processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama - Huntsville (UAH); and 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data, buoy and ship measurements, and meteorological weather modeling.

Note by the way that each «skeptic» analysis relies on either HadCRUT or UAH / RSS temperature data, which are either known to or very possibly have a cool bias.

If this documentation does not exist the adjustments can be checked and analyzed by obtaining the original data from SMHI and comparing that to the HadCRUT records.

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.

Here's the NCAR CCSM4 model vs HadCRUT Land + Sea from the CMIP5 ensemble modeling the North Atlantic (by Bob Tisdale): -

-- all data files, notes, and documents that identify met stations used in all versions of the HadCRUT — all data files, notes, and documents that identify any and all of the following for each station: station name, station latitude, station longitude, station elevation, station WMO number, etc. — all data files, notes, and documents that indicate where, how, and / or when the met data for each station was acquired by HadCRU, including URL if available.

«The Berkeley Earth and HadCRUT data are not relatively independent from the NOAA data sets» The point is that they use HADSST3, and are not affected by this adjustment to ERSST.

Those 60 years cycles are prominent on the HadCRUT (figure 5 - A) curve used by IPCC as they are in the reconstructions of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation for the past millennium.

True, but fails to explain why the longer - term mean about which those cycles fluctuate is trending up other than curve - fitting an «approximation by three sinusoids of periods 1000 years, 210 years and 60 years,» ANSWER: The curve fitting exercise is labeled as such «heuristic»; the lengths of the cycles are from other observations, some displayed on figures 5 - B & C; only the amplitudes and phase of the 215 and 60 years sinusoids are subject to optimization; Singular Spectrum Analysis has been applied by Diego Macias et al (note 18) to the HadCRUT series with equivalent results, and among many others by Liu Yu et al..

comment on Arno Arrak 8:26 am in truths n ° 2 and n ° 5 the main point is that a periodic waveform should not be approximated by a straight line, and that one should at least try a sum of sinusoid with as little free parameters as possible (in this case only the amplitude and phase of the 210 and 60 years sinusoids, as the Hadcrut series is too short for a Fourier or wavelet decomposition see as well the paper of Macias reference 18); the figure 15 - A shows the step wise changes of the temperature paced by the El Nino events: this has been shown in detail by Bob Tisdale.

For example, one can check how robust the trend is to such things as changing the start or end years by one or two years, changing which data set you use (GISS or HADCRUT, for example), or eliminating one year of data.

The relation d (CO2 natural)(t) / dt = k (T (t)- T0) of figure 17 - B has been proved by several authors (Jeffrey Park, Murry Salby, Beenstock) with quite different techniques and alas without subtraction of the anthropic part; that is inconvenient for the last 12 years since the surge of the Chinese coal is quite significant (figure 17 - E right), but their results are only bettered by using the relevant time series CO2natural (t) and T (t) intertropical UAH instead of some global CO2 (t) and global T (t) from HadCRUT or GISS.

As warming in the Arctic has been increasing as predicted by the climate scientists, I presume the HadCRUT temperatures are getting less accurate.

Besides others, HadCRUT is biased since 1998 by +0,07 °C in HadSST2 component as Bob Tisdale had shown.

«Their inquiry's central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been «adjusted» by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut,» Booker reports.

There are three main global land / ocean surface temperature series, produced by NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISTemp), and the UK's Hadley Center (HadCRUT).

GISS and HadCRUT average, using the versions active in 2020 (I'm assuming the HadCRUT Arctic problem will be fixed by then).

And then came 1998; by the end of that year the linear trend over 10 years was +0,32 °C / 10 yr (mean of GISS / NCDC / HADCRUT / UAH / RSS).

So, adjustments are made by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to these individual series before they are incorporated into the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network — Surface Air Temperature (ACORN - SAT); and also the UK Met Office's HadCRUT dataset, which informs IPCC deliberations.

It seems to me that since most energy is absorbed from the sun in the tropics, HADCRUT would also be more strongly influenced by the solar cycle.

For example, I doubt that worldwide, the monthly GISTemp, HadCRUT or other series will be wildly anomalous as the great heat in the US / Central Canada is well balanced by cool areas elsewhere — Newfoundland where I live being one of them: — LRB -.

The Kommersant talks about HaCRUT data in connection with land stations, but «HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Even their own simulations show that it only cooled by three quarters of that (efficacy of 0.75)... and a comparison of modeled and HadCRUT temperature drops after Pinatubo shows that the GISS simulated drop in temperature is nearly twice as large as the actual drop... which puts the actual real - world efficacy of volcanic forcing way down around 0.40.

CW13 did not set out to «prove» anything one way or another (though admittedly, common sense and speculation by many others pointed to HadCRUT underestimating the global mean).

And since you like «eye balling graphs» have a look at the latest hadcrut or nasa global temperature graph, and it should be obvious to even you the «pause» is a blip of about 6 years duration of flat temperatures, thus easily explained by natural variability.