Sentences with phrase «temperature series does»

The GISS temperature series does not meet the theoretical requirements that would allow you to make the significance tests you are quoting.

This most widely cited temperature series does not account for missing areas, especially in high latitudes, likely leading to an underestimate of the overall rise in global temperature since the 19th century.

Using the New Karl, or better described as the ERSST v4, temperature series does indeed make the hiatus go away but not the significant slowdown in warming from the period 1976 - 1999 to the period 2000 - 2014.

Not exact matches

«This is part of a series of work we have done in our lab on high - temperature dielectrics for use in capacitors,» said Qing Wang, professor of materials science and engineering, Penn State.

How do you renormalise the absolute values of the 3 temperature anomaly series NCDC, GISS and Hadcrut4 when each uses a different seasonal normalisation period.

The series of reports concludes: «The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not invalidate previous estimates of climate sensitivity.

Alas he did not: He found a series that just happened to have the shape of a signal that coincided with a part of the recent surface temperature record and appeared to support a strong AGW hypothesis.

But the point is that the analysis doesn't indicate «temperature extremes have gotten enormously hotter» at all, and the «valid analysis» that indicates that temperature extremes have gotten a bit hotter are readily apparent simply by inspection of local temperature series.

They may differ from the ground readings either because temperature trends at that height really do differ from ground trends (i.e., both series are right, but measure different things) or due to purely technical issues (i.e., one or both are wrong).

Thompson et al. do not provide a time series estimate on the effects of the bias on the global temperature record, but Steve McIntyre, who is building an impressive track record of analyses outside the peer - review system, discussed this topic on his weblog

Osborn and Briffa quite clearly describe an objective screening process which eliminated proxy series that did not correlate significantly with local instrumental temperature measurements over the 20th century.

(@cynicus; Re: # 58) I did recently some statistical experiments with temperature series.

This also explains why the Schweingruber series did not well correlate with the instrumental temperature.»

In order to do your own calculations (likely not as scientific as the real scientists), you have to build temperature series of your own that would have f.e. latitudinal bands of the freezing point of water, which is pretty relevant info for everyday applications.

How long a time series of temperature data do you need to determine a trend?

Thus, the simplest thing to do is to: a) construct a time series of annual global temperature averages, add a random component to each year (value drawn from a gaussian with the given standard deviation and mean zero).

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

The automatic adjustments used in global gridded data probably do a good job for what they were designed to do (remove spurious trends from global or hemispheric temperature series), but they should not be relied upon for more detailed local analysis, as Hansen et al. (1999) warned: «We recommend that the adjusted data be used with great caution, especially for local studies.»

But... http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ My point is that what I observe personally doesn't match particularly well with the local regional temperature record — despite that record being one of the better respected series in existence.

The results are at best inconclusive, since three of the updated series, including Michael Mann's celebrated and controversial tree - ring reconstructions, do not refute the hypothesis, while the others quite significantly point to different dates of maximum temperature achievements into the past centuries, in particular those associated to the Medieval Warm Period.

Bob Tisdale would have obtained the same results had he used the GISS met station air temperature series, which include both the Arctic and the Antarctic (and also doesn't use SSTs) instead of the 60N - 60S GISS LOTI series.

And as far as the Antarctic is concerned: There hasn't been no significant warming since 1955 (the 7 station series from New Zealand show the same and for what it's worth I don't trust the BOM temperature - series)

If you want to trim it down, show only the middle panel, but don't pretend that showing a less accurate ice core temperature series together with an instremental based series at two low a resolution to show relevant detail is a substitute for showing an accurate graph.

16 years of Kyoto Treaty results in 16 years of temperature flat lining: an absolutely incontestable positive correlation, and at that level of correlation one might reasonably surmise causation... And I didn't even have to splice the Tornetrask data series into my graph upside down to get that result.

The wiggles make the projections look like a «real» temperature series, but how did they get there?

Did you notice that global temperature series are not the same thing as deriving an ECS with simplifying assumptions from a limited time series of that temperature?

Anyway, a correct evaluation of these old charts dated 1975 and even before can only be done by generating for example a temperature series ot of exactly those GHCN stations which existed at that time.

Various dubious techniques were used to promote this idea, such as the infamoous «hockey - stick» graph produced by Michael Mann in which proxy temperature series that did not support the narrative were truncated.

In the case of temperature time series, we do not have enough data to establish a period of ~ 70 years, and the physics says you are wrong.

While they do talk about the TEX86 proxy, I don't think they can calibrate it to this particular lake, because they have no temperature series to calibrate it to.

Of course we do nt want to use any tree ring series that does nt show a hockey stick in the instrumental period for temperature reconstructions, because they do nt exhibit increased growth with increased temperature.

So you will draw 200 cores from a stand of trees, screen them for correlation to temperature from some series of instrumental temperatures, hopefully taken at more or less the same altitude within 100 miles of the stand of trees, and claim that tree X is a good treemometer because it correlates with the temperature record while tree Y which grew 20 feet away is a bad treemometer because it correlates less well, and throw away 60 % of the cores accordingly, and then claim that you can extrapolate what the temperature in that stand of trees was doing 500, 700, 1000 years earlier based on the 40 % you retain?

The other 35 are tree ring series — where I don't think that one could have assumed in advance that the series were inversely related to temperature.

You can do it yourself, download the Mauna Loa data and compare it to any of the global temperature series using Excel, you will probalbly get a value between 2 and 2.5.

The revised 2010 series does not use data prior to 1900 whereas the original Seven Station series published in the 1980s starts with data from 1853, although both result in similar temperature trends.

I know enough about time series with limited data to not read too much into periodicities, yet all when has to do is some simple comparisons on the residual temperature anomaly against noise models and one can see what role it plays.

Not shown, of course, by this study, but many series do show higher temperatures at the Holocenic climate optima.

Without CO2 imagine the temperature continuing to follow the solar forcing as it did in the first 100 years of this series.

If they had said openly that the proxy series does not fit — they say in their evidence here that it was only after 1950 or 1960 it did not fit, and that is actually not true, it is not a good fit in the latter half of the nineteenth century either, but, anyhow, if they had said it does not fit — so what we are going to do is have the proxy series for the period before the temperature readings were available and then, after that, splice on the temperature readings, and we admit that there has been a complete divergence of the two series since 1950 or 1960, if they had said that and been out in the open, it would be one thing, but they did not, they hid it.

I realise that this is more easily stated than achieved, but if it can be done, it is a more rigorous test of a model's validity than comparing a temperature time series with a model output.

That allows for comparisons of time series of different overall temperature levels and that's necessary for the use of average temperatures in the way they have done.

Doing the additions gives a new series, whose correlation with the hemispheric temperatures is 0.52.

There is mostly no actual past temperature series to compare, and so the techniques you cite are of little relevance — what model is Frank supposed to do a chi - square test against?

So, how do we tell the homogenized, infilled global average temperature series are warming from Co2?

Do you have (does anyone have), time series of the state of the ocean heat sink, global mean temperature, and solar activity, over a span of 3 centuries?

Alas he did not: He found a series that just happened to have the shape of a signal that coincided with a part of the recent surface temperature record and appeared to support a strong AGW hypothesis.

Practically everyone doing temperature time series in primary literature finds a long - term secular trend.

Matthew R Marler says: October 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm «Do you have (does anyone have), time series of the state of the ocean heat sink, global mean temperature, and solar activity, over a span of 3 centuries?»

It doesn't mean that there can't be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.

Jan Perlwitz says:» It doesn't mean that there can't be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.»