I’m assuming you chose the “Anomolies” map type, since that matches what you wrote, that the only significant positive area is Arc. Pen. When you choose “Time Interval: 1880-1999” you are not looking at the change from 1880 to 1999, you are requesting a comparison between the average from this time interval and the base period. You merely confirmed that the average temp. from 1880-1999 closely matches the average temp. near the midpoint of that range.

If one were looking for global warming, one would either choose the “Trends” map type with that time interval (base period is not used) or choose the “Anomolies” map type with an early base period (say, 1881-1910) and late time interval (say, 1971-2000).

]]>The 0.445 on my last line should be 0.455. Plus, I’ve figured out why the graph slopes downward near equator of the first plot. The first two “pairs” are actually sets of 5 points (3 of the higher and 2 of the lower), and the last “pair” is a set of 2 points.

I’ve been able to recreate all graphs with the given data (using straight averages), but not the summary numbers. Remember that the ends (poles) of the graphs are based on fewer and fewer data points, so a line shooting upwards may be misleading.

]]>Go to GISTEMP and enter the following:

Land: Unadjusted 1880-1999

Ocean: None

Mean period: Annual (Dec-Nov)

Time Interval: 1880-1999

Base Period: 1935-1945

Smoothing Radius: 250 km

Projection Type: regular

and hit submit.

Would anyone like to tell me where (other than the Antarctic Peninsula) where the global warming is?

Yes, I know that I chose the warm 1935-1945 period as the base, but isn’t that the point? Without adjustment (which is a mystery wrapped within an enigma) and without selecting a known cold period (1950-1980) as the base, where’s the warming?

]]>The answer is: nobody knows why. Perhaps the laws of algebra are slightly different in Norwich.

The whole question should be investigated by a statistical audit team, wouldn’t you agree?

]]>1. Pedantic note – smoothing is 250 km, not 250 cm.

2. Entering “none” for Land AND Ocean gives an Internal Server Error (The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request). I think they save search results (for quicker retrieval) so that subsequent attempts using the same inputs may give a results page with no graphics or data instead of the error message.

3. My non-expert theory on Jean’s reported peculiarity is that these are geographically weighted averages*, so when the geographic extent of data for the base period changes, maybe the weightings change. So the equation would be where *w* is a number or function (I don’t know). For example, the graph for the Jean’s first set of inputs has a small, isolated segment near lat=0. Even though the data for the segment is 3 pairs of *identical* numbers at lat=7S, 5S, and 3S, the segment slopes downward to the right.

* You can download the data using links below the map/graph. Straight averages using Jean’s inputs are 1.418, 0.964, and 0.455, compared to the given results of 1.11, 0.73, and 0.30. (0.964 + 0.445 = 1.419, close enough.)

]]>While I’ve noticed various oddities in some GISS calcs, including funny rounding, I can’t help with that one.

The “Input Elements” section of that page is cute: “NO land temperature data are used” and “NO ocean temperature data are used”. Hmmmm.ðŸ™‚

]]>