Sentences with phrase «so land data»

Note the arctic ocean has no ocean data so land data (generally interpolated) is used.

Note the arctic ocean has no ocean data so land data (generally interpolated) is used.

Not exact matches

A parade of reports and experts explained away high house prices and debt levels with many of the same arguments we hear today in Canada — yes, prices are way up compared to rents, but the analysis is built on flawed data; debt levels are high, but so are house prices, which minimizes the risk; America's demographics support the boom; and then the classic: There'll be a soft landing.

However, Diego May, the Argentine co-founder of Junar, an open data platform for businesses, says if you promote yourself well and land funding, you will get attention from good engineers — so long as you can provide a job for at least a year.

Nowhere near as sophisticated as things are today, geo - targeting allowed marketing companies to hit a general area (usually a town, county or city) and drill down to the right people in that area using data mined from cookies, so, for example, farmers within driving distance of one of the many Springfields across our great land would get ads from the local Agway there telling them when there was a sale on farmer stuff.

So, I worked with the client's development team to create a simple solution where I could use query string parameters in the ad URL to feed the appropriate search term data to the landing page.

The groups also called for hard data on whether it was economically feasible to get around so - called «constraints» such as the risk of flooding private land or overwhelming bridges, which Mr Burke says limits how much extra water can be pumped into the system.

The Berkeley researchers developed their own statistical methods so that they could use data from virtually all of the temperature stations on land — some 39,000 in all — whereas the other research groups relied on subsets of data from several thousand sites to build their records.

So, to figure out which way the land was sloping at a given time, geologist Karl Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and 10 colleagues pulled together the relevant published data and added some of their own.

It was also the week where at the very start of it, came the discovery of Mario Costume # 112, when not only was a Data miner able to make the discovery of Super Mario Land's Sky Pop plane, but also uploaded it as part of a level so the likes of the masses could see it and try out the costume in action.

So the question is — why the hell would the US Government take the data from Outer Heaven and build one when an even better Metal Gear — one that's already done — was in Zanzibar Land?

The «hump» during WW2 (which includes the subsequent cooling) is only in the SST data and not the land temperatures, so for that I suspect there is still some uncorrected issues in the SST data sets.

Tide gauges (unlike satellites) measure sea level relative to the land, so these data are «contaminated» by land uplift or subsidence.

As Gavin points out, the Tropics are mainly ocean so it is the ocean data, not the land surface data that mainly determine the trend we are talking about there.

The land temp has the most data points of any historical record, so it's interesting.

EAR4CS URCLIM (2017 - 2020) will combine high resolution urban climate modelling, with open source land use and urban morphology data, and with urban land use and morphology simulation modelling, so as to better explore alternative future urban climates in alternative future urban environments.

ERA4CS URCLIM (Urban climate services, 2017 - 2020) will combine high resolution urban climate modelling, with open source land use and urban morphology data, and with urban land use and morphology simulation modelling, so as to better explore alternative future urban climates in alternative future urban environments.

So the infilled GISS data, which extends out over the Arctic, would show the greater warming since the 1970s... until the warming stops for Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures and for the low - to - mid latitude land surface air temperatures.

It's hard to imagine how Cowtan and Way could determine with any degree of certainty how «the hybrid method works best over land and most importantly sea ice» when there is so little surface air temperature data over sea ice.

Of course, if the Sea Surface Temperature data was adjusted specifically so that it better matched the land station data, then you can't then use that adjusted data to claim the land station data is reliable!!!

Some groups have tried to develop models of the rebounding land, so that sea level researchers can apply «Glacial Isostatic Adjustments» (GIA) to their data to correct for the effects.

These climate - related land storage effects could be significant for global sea - levels, though unfortunately there seem to be very few direct experimental measurements of the factors involved, and so the only studies of these effects seem to have been from computer modelling of data from weather data «reanalysis» models (e.g., ERA - 40).

So for us people with some engineering experience, that gives us an intuitive feel for why temperatures are hotter over land than what is in the average SST data.

The tree ring data would have supported that, but of course, this did not fit with the meme of cAGW, and hence the splice on of the adjusted land thermometer record which had been so heavily adjusted that it diverged significantly from reality.

There are no temperature data available in most of the land area on Earth, and so those in charge of the instrumental record just in - fill their guesses (based on computer models) of what they think the temperatures might be.

So Australia's BOM data and NZ's NIWA data, both «adjusted» out of their cotton picking minds whether needed or not and generally butchered [and thats being polite,] around with until it bears little relationship with reality accounts for at least one fifth and close to nearly one quarter of the total global land surface temperature data.

Fitting CDIAC emissions and land - use - change data to the Keeling curve gave a much better fit at 285 years than 287, so for the purposes of illustrating the follownig I've gone with that as a round number for the time being though clearly this needs closer inspection.)

So I would have to ask the deniers to look at Curry's BEST land temperature data of the last 15 years and deny the fact that the data is showing a rise.

The time series land based thermometer records are hopeless (not simply because of question adjustments and homogenisation, and instrument error bounds) but also because that throughout the time series the stations used with which the data is being compiled, at any one moment of time, is continually changing, so too their spatial coverage, such that at no time is like with like ever comparable.

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we'd still have to explain the land blip...» — Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008

There is a major question in my mind of the wisdom of using a «global» surface temperature to begin with and a «global» surface temperature based on a SST which is more related to Tmin averaged with a land based «Surface» temperature that is based on T Ave.. So instead of blindly quoting nonsense, I actually try to verify using all the data that is available.

The tiny, close - knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the «global warming» fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures.

So although a map of land - only data will show smoothed data far out into the oceans, in fact a land - ocean dataset will have discarded this when combining, wherever SST data is available.

Insufficient data is available to permit modeling of the impacts of adopting more than one solution per site, so Drawdown allocated only one biosequestration solution per given land unit.

The land based stations have had their temps «adjusted» to make it appear so, yet weather balloon and satelitte data show there has been no rise in temperatures for approximately the last 20 years.

Of course the BEST data didn't appear until 2011, and it's for land (which is where over 99 % of humans live so it's more relevant to us than sea temperature), but if it's at all reliable it would appear to be showing that 0.2 ºC / decade is way too low by nearly a factor of two!

Note we're using BEST land area, so actual rates of warming are slightly elevated from global levels including sea surface temperatures, however BEST has enough resolution to allow us to work with 12.5 years of temperature data and not have such abysmal CI as to need to reject the comparisons outright..

IMO, the significance of the BEST data in terms of the temperature record of the past 50 years or so is that it puts to rest the concern that Phil Jones and Jim Hansen have «cooked» the land surface temperature data.

I don't mean to step on Michael Tobis» toes, but the level of CO2 has always so far as the various ice core and like data strongly suggest (above 99.5 % with consilience) been seasonally variable over land due to interaction of plants and temperature as proven by NH / SH trends, just as it is diurnally variable due to photosynthesis.

Without land data, the trend would be slightly shallower, but not much, and so we can ask, whether it is justified to average in the land data trend globally, given uncertainties about UHI effects and other variables.

No such complete meta - data are available, so in this analysis the same value for urbanisation uncertainty is used as in the previous analysis [Folland et al., GRL 2001]; that is, a 1 sigma value of 0.0055 deg C / decade, starting in 1900... The same value is used over the whole land surface, and it is one - sided: recent temperatures may be too high due to urbanisation, but they will not be too low.

So, will the author's proposed cycles from the land record fit your SST data over the available 160 time period; and if it does fit, what is «their» near - term prediction for the next 60 years?

, so of course the adjustment needed was to make the less stepped on ocean observations (2/3 of earth) warmer rather than the land «data» (1/3) cooler.

Most of the land data is concentrated in western Europe and eastern North America so these latitudes dramatically overrepresent the record.

Bates takes particular issue with the way Karl handled land temperature data in the Science study which addressed the so - called «climate hiatus.»

In practical terms I ballpark estimated the land record raw data at about 4Tb, same again for the warehouse, the models should be aggregated so maybe 2Tb for them, can't promise on the presentation layer as can't tell how much of it could be kept virtual.

So we find that excluding cells that have ocean data (and no nearby land station) results in an even stronger trend.

Worldwatch Institute is relaying the gist of a new UN Food and Agriculture Organization report which paints a not so good picture just how degraded the world's agricultural lands have become.Nearly One Quarter of World's Farmlands Degraded Prior data indicated that of the world's 1.5 billion hectares of farmland, between 10 - 20 % suffered from degradation.

So we find monthly TLT data above ocean is showing 70 % of the variation (ie s.d. of ΔRSS monthly TLT) found in the data above land and a linear correlation of ~ 10 %.

So the data is faulty, cities and land use change of that sort trap heat creating warmer environments around the weather stations.