Sentences with phrase «mean gistemp»

You stated «The red line is the annual global - mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well),...

Not exact matches

The time evolution of the Northern Hemisphere mean for the two data sets is shown in the lower panel, showing a good agreement over most of the record, but with slightly higher GISTEMP estimates over the last 10 years (the global mean was not shown because my computer didn't have sufficient memory for the complete analysis, but the two data sets also show similar evolution in e.g. the IPCC AR4).

First, a graph showing the annual mean anomalies from the CMIP3 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISTEMP products (it really doesn't matter which).

GISTEMP assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as the stations around the Arctic, while HadCRUT4 and NCDC assume the Arctic is warming as fast as the global mean.

Figure caption: (upper left) HadCRUT 3V mean T (2m) anomaly over 1976 - 2005 (wrt to 1950 - 1980); (upper right) The GISS — HadCRUT 3V difference in mean T (2m) over 1976 - 2005; and (lower) the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature variations (red = GISTEMP, black = HadCRUT 3v).

Taking a longer perspective, the 30 year mean trends aren't greatly affected by a single year (GISTEMP: 1978 - 2007 0.17 + / -0.04 ºC / dec; 1979 - 2008 0.16 + / -0.04 — OLS trends, annual data, 95 % CI, no correction for auto - correlation; identical for HadCRU); they are still solidly upwards.

By coincidence, yesterday was also the scheduled update for the GISTEMP July temperature release, and because July is usually the warmest month of the year on an absolute basis, a record in July usually means a record of absolute temperature too.

The time evolution of the Northern Hemisphere mean for the two data sets is shown in the lower panel, showing a good agreement over most of the record, but with slightly higher GISTEMP estimates over the last 10 years (the global mean was not shown because my computer didn't have sufficient memory for the complete analysis, but the two data sets also show similar evolution in e.g. the IPCC AR4).

I was very interested to read that the annual mean UHI adjustment was applied for all months in the GISTEMP data.

GISTEMP assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as the stations around the Arctic, while HadCRUT and NCDC assume the Arctic is warming as fast as the global mean.

For Figure 1, global mean temperatures are plotted from the HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP products relative to a 1900 - 1940 baseline, together with global mean temperatures from 81 available simulations in the CMIP5 archive, also relative to the 1900 - 1940 baseline, where all available ensemble members are taken for each model.

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.

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-:

They show a rising global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties when the satellites (both UAH and RSS), GISTEMP and NCDC all show a horizontal global mean from 1979 to 1997.

2015 was about 0.12 C warmer than 2014 (GISTEMP), which still leaves it below the model mean, but well within the uncertainty.

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.

CBDunkerson @ 4, I have previously caclulated that using the Mann 2008 EIV reconstruction and the 1736 - 1765 mean value as the «preindustrial» benchmark», the gives a preindustrial temperature 0.12 C lower than using the GISTEMP 1880 - 1909 mean.

The GISTEMP analysis was not affected by this error, i.e. none of the results, tables, maps, graphs about global or regional means changed.

GISTemp recently started using satellite observations of lights at night to identify urban regions — more light means more urban.

GISTEMP global mean temperature and OSTIA observed SST anomalies for December 2015 relative to 1985 - 2013.

New Environment Canada stations (recall that some of the Environment Canada data is for stations that are not in GHCN) do not get any brightness information in the v2.inv file; it so happens that in ccc - gistemp this means they get marked as rural, more by accident by design.

In the GISTEMP index, the tables of zonal, global, hemispheric means are computed by combining the 100 subbox series for each box of the equal area grid, then combining those to get 8 zonal mean series, finally from those we get the Northern (23.6 - 90ºN), Southern and tropical means, always using the same method.

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).

Re the GISTEMP Land - Ocean Index graph: I should think that an 8 - year RUNNING MEAN would give an astonishingly - good fit to the data; one that will be statistically - sound as a regression.

And since it is not the «current» GISTEMP dataset, your critiques have little to no meaning in discussions of land plus ocean datasets» (You then describe the well known components of LOTI)

All of the plots are temperature deviation from their own 1951 - 1980 mean (per GISTEMP).