Sentences with phrase «said giss»

Elsewhere, you said the GISS data»... also could be indicating another pause beginning about 2000...».

«Despite colder than average weather in any one part of the world,» said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt, «temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we have seen over the last 40 years.»

«It wasn't by the widest of margins, but July 2016 was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880,» said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

«2015 was remarkable even in the context of the ongoing El Niño,» said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long - term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,» said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

Now on to the interpretive part of that paragraphs: yes, to match real earth climate data, if a) you have a given model (say GISS II) with coded physics, with parameterization for physcial processes.

I don't see any blanket apology for saying GISS manipulates data, which it does constantly.»

Not exact matches

«We may have to wait 20 or 30 years before the data set in the 21st century is good enough to pin down sensitivity,» says climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

So as solutions, during both this session, where Tom Rosensteel from the Project for Excellence in Journalism was talking and then another session where Gavin Schmidt, as I said, from NASA GISS and Naomi Oreskes were talking, they had, you know, some real concrete solutions.

«In the GISS model's simulation, Venus» slow spin exposes its dayside to the sun for almost two months at a time,» co-author and fellow GISS scientist Anthony Del Genio said.

«It's an honor to lead the team of talented scientists at GISS,» he said.

As an agriculture expert, «I was the only person at GISS at that time who could begin to answer that question», she says.

Are you saying that there are adjustments made to the GISS data set more than a 100 years after it was collected?

I'd say hold up a GISS graph by way of summary is emminently suitable for the medium in which it was presented.

A question: I have a vague memory of years ago someone «denier / pseudo stats dude» was hassling nasa / giss for their raw data of what they used to feed in the avg / mean models for global temps... saying that the adjustments being made was being done to over-state the extent of warming?

That isn't to say that details of tunings were not discussed previously, but the tendency was to describe them briefly in the model description papers (such as Schmidt et al. (2006) for the GISS model).

Tamino asks why I quote the UAH satellite data and not, say, the GISS «surface» data.

«It's an honor to lead the team of talented scientists at GISS,» he said.

, they just say «average») with a surface temperature anomaly of GISS with base value 1951 - 1980!

He says «Well when I look at it the GISS decadal, climate only, signal trend, matches the weather and climate decadal signal trend.

Gavin, I understand what you said — the two graphs at the top came from GISS, and illustrate ``... different quantities, with different levels of noise.

Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some «interesting relationships we don't fully understand» between solar activity and climate.»

As you can see in Figure 6 of our paper (Foster and Rahmstorf), the slowdown is gone after said adjustment in the GISS data and the two satellites series, but there still is some slowdown in the two data sets with the Arctic gap, ie HadCRUT and NCDC.

I presume the smart people can understand the difference between «warmest on record», «second warmest on record», and maybe even «tied for the second warmest on record», which is in fact what GISS says.

As I said before with exception of GISS, the other four organizations who measure global temperatures [land + ocean] show the same cooling trend from 2002.

Meaning that when GISS (the thing hansen «adjusts») gets out of sync with say the CRU data base they simply «adjust», pretty always taking the warmer and running with that.

And the GISS record says we've warmed by 0.48 Â ° per century.

It's interesting to me that Hansen would wonder back then whether GISS had ever said 1998 was the warmest, and, now that GISS has added the 2009 annual average for the «lower 48,» the figures have changed again.

One, NASA GISS, said it was the second warmest year on record; the other, NOAA, said it was the seventh warmest.

Having said that, it is curious that email logs and holdings appear to function quite well within NASA, possibly because the infrastructure was set up and maintained beyond the managment scope of GISS, I suspect.

What interests me is that the satellite datasets show lower lows for May, something which can't be said for either GISS or Hadley.

If you compare «old» Hopewell VA numbers (fortunately preserved due to my much criticized «scraping» of GISS data) to the «new» Hopewell VA numbers, the GISS «raw» data for say June 1934 or June 1935 has gone up by 0.7 deg C, while the GISS «adjusted» data has gone up by only 0.1 deg C.

But in the concluding remark Bob you say: «When the two GISS LOTI datasets were again combined, we had removed approximately 85 % of what some consider to be the «anthropogenic global warming signal.»

The same has been said about GISS.

While I don't have time right now to do a full analysis as I'm due for a metting shortly, I can say it appears that GISS flattened out the could snap in the 1940 - 1960 period, making the long term slope more positive.

«There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point,» said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

The GISS homepage formerly said: The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established.

The earth is cooling you say, have you seen the latest numbers from GISS, you are right, it has cooled 0.01 degrees from May 1998 to May 2012.

Or, one could say that the estimated GISS temperatures for 2013 are [+ or — degrees] compared to the estimated Hadcrut temperatures for 2013.

«As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human - made greenhouse gases,» said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.

HadCrut4 (I believe they're saying 2nd warmest), NOAA (warmest), and GISS (warmest) all showed strong upticks in November.

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.

«The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century,» GISS director James E. Hansen said.

Is GISS saying this error affects year 2000 only or every year after 2000?

Moreover, the GISS team states, «It is no longer correct to say that «most global warming occurred before 1940,»» an argument sometimes made by those who are skeptical of the link between human - produced greenhouse gases and global warming.

«One more year of numbers isn't in itself significant,» GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said.

If the courts come back and say NASA GISS did nothing wrong, i'll accept it 100 % unless someone gives me an ECEPTIONALLY compelling reason not to.

James Hansen is quoted: «As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human - made greenhouse gases,» said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.»

Instead, the GISS team says, global warming over the last century up until 1975 was slow, with large fluctuations.

«Oil and gas by themselves don't have enough carbon to keep us in the dangerous zone for very long by themselves, but that's assuming we do something about coal,» said Kharecha, a researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University.