Sentences with phrase «while gistemp»

Scenario B is at +1.035 C for 2010 while GISTemp in a high cycle El Nino - impacted year is going to be a little over +0.600 C (which is still lower than Scenario C (+0.632) which stopped CO2 increases in the year 2000 at 367 ppm — while we are already up to 388 ppm.

Note that the datasets show different quantities; in the sea ice zone the GISTEMP, M10 and CHAPMAN data represent air temperature (though CHAPMAN air temperatures are inferred from SST input data); north of the sea ice edge the M10 and CHAPMAN data represent air temperature while GISTEMP represents SST; MSU represents tropospheric - average temperatures everywhere.

Not exact matches

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.

The latter (used in GISTEMP until 1982) interpolates missing regions while the former (used in HadCRUT) does not.

In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04 ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02 ºC.

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.

In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~ 48 % likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~ 38 %).

we can see clearly that while K08 projected 0.06 ºC cooling, the temperature record from HadCRUT (which was the basis of the bet) shows 0.07 ºC warming (using GISTEMP, it is 0.11 ºC).

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record.

The effect is illustrated in Figure 1: The first graph is from the NASA GISTEMP temperature record, while the second uses the adjusted data of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) which removes some of the short term variations from the signal.

To be specific, the latest GISTEMP shows its peak height as approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius while satellites show the peak height as 0.9 degrees.

While I'm happy to think I might have in some small way helped them to do what they are doing, my decision to focus on «minimal change to GIStemp FORTRAN» for maximal validity of benchmarking has left the field clear for folks to do this much more «sexy» and much more valuable approach.

ccc - gistemp is just one analysis, and while it mimics NASA GISTEMP very closely, rounding and other sources of computational ambiguity sometimes result in a slightly different gistemp is just one analysis, and while it mimics NASA GISTEMP very closely, rounding and other sources of computational ambiguity sometimes result in a slightly different GISTEMP very closely, rounding and other sources of computational ambiguity sometimes result in a slightly different result.

And NOAA has posted for March with a global anomaly of +0.83 ºC, showing a bit more of a bounce back up than seen in the March GISTEMP / TLT anomalies, in NOAA up from +0.68 ºC in February while January sat at +0.70 ºC.

GISTEMP has posted for March with a TLT global anomaly of +0.89 ºC, showing the same tiddly bounce back up seen in the March TLT anomalies, in GISTEMP up from +0.79 ºC in February while January sat at +0.77 ºC.