Sentences with phrase «when hadcrut»

How much the temperature changes in the years before and after 1945, we'll have to wait and see when HadCRUT release the revised data.

Not exact matches

Only when compared to HadCRUT do the models overestimate the warming, against all four other data sets the models underestimate the warming.

When are they gonna fix HADCRUT?

In fact, we looked at the period since 1997 because that's when the previous warming trend stopped, and our graph ended in August 2012 because that is the last month for which Hadcrut 4 figures were available.

If you use HADCRUT temperature record for the Southern Hemisphere from 1850 it is possible to discern a peak in 1880, 60 years before the 1940 peak, and 120 years before 2000 when the infamous «global cooling» period, 2002 - 08, kicks in.

When I read the HADCRUT info and look at what they provide I see massaged numbers left out data, missing information... How would you perform causal inference and actual empirical observations?

Reader Eric Worrall writes: I was playing with Wood For Trees, looking at the relationship between Pacific Decadal Oscillation vs global temperature (Hadcrut 4), when the following graph appeared.

So, what happens when the Dessler methodology uses the gold - standard HadCRUT data that Spencer used?

When I checked Hadcrut i found an increase of ca 7,2 C from 1880 to 2013.

-- 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.

When I use Nick Stokes trend viewer, I get 1.56 K / century (0.67 - 2.00 95 % ci correcting for autocorrelation) for what he calls NOAAlo and 1.34 K / century (0.97 - 2.18) for what he calls HADCRUT (for 1/97-11 / 16).

Incidentally the six HADCRUT steps show a net decline of 0.036 +0 +0.012 +0.01 +0.03 +0.067 = 0.155 °C when you add them up.

When C&W came out I asked the HadCRUT people what they thought, and they told me the had plans to increase the number of stations, esp the big blank areas.

I've written to the HadCRUT people, when Cowtan & Way first came out.

why do you think they character attack Phil Jones and claim his HadCRUT3 work is untrustworthy and inferior to Spencer's UAH, but then when they want to wheel out global cooling claims they use HadCRUT and go out their way to avoid using UAH?

Would you explain how your knowledge apparently exceeds the stated / acknowledged probable errors (which are generally presented, BTW as being symmetric and hence suggest that even the creators of HADCRUT (for example) believe their uncertainty is unbiased and symmetric — except when it comes to making a correction that is supposedly a part of that error)?

I realised HADCRUT couldn't be trusted when I realised the same guys were doing it as those scoundrels «hiding the decline».

On the other hand when different methods (GISS, hadcrut, noaa, BEST) using different data, come to the same answer you can be reasonable certain that your choice of method isnt driving the answer

I realised HADCRUT couldn't be trusted when I started realising that each and every cold month was delayed (I think it was 1day per 0.05 C), whereas each and every hot month was rushed out.

I realised HADCRUT could be trusted, when I went back to check my figures a year later and found that nothing was the same any longer.

Yes, BEST (which I showed) is land and this rises faster than when you include oceans as in HADCRUT or GISS global.

Using HadCRUT when BEST is demonstrably superior isn't per se «wrong» so much as indicative of poor judgement or possibly cherry picking for an agenda; especially this is so when one has so many datasets available and instead of treating each one separately and distinctly and attempting to confirm one's hypothesis on just one of them at a time and commenting on differences among them, one stitches together exactly the pieces one can force into a persuasive but meaningless shape in what can only be viewed as a spoof of graphical analysis.

The IPCC values of 2.5 — 4 C don't fit the data record at all, eg HadCRUT since 1850, CET since 1659 (note — when modelling it helps to include this big ball of fusing hydrogen in your calculations).

If the extra heat in data measured on land is applied to a period 1900 - 2010 — just to get a rough idea of the possible impact — using 35 - 40 % land area as hadcrut does — we get global extra heat of +0,34 to +0,39 K added to the overall warming of the Earth related to the extra heat occurring when measuring from cities, Airports etc..

In the case of Hadcrut temperature series they use around 35 - 40 % land data when calculating global data, but GISS have a temperature product using roughly twice this fraction for land area as fig 7 shows.