Cited by 962Climate variability and modelsUrban Heat Island MitigationClimate Change and Environmental Impact

Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model

Open access
Lenssen, Nathan J. L., Schmidt, Gavin A., Hansen, James E., Menne, Matthew J., Persin, Avraham, Ruedy, Reto, Zyss, Daniel·2019·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

We outline a new and improved uncertainty analysis for the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature product version 4 (GISTEMP v4). Historical spatial variations in surface temperature anomalies are derived from historical weather station data and ocean data from ships, buoys, and other sensors. Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty, changes in spatial coverage of the station record, and systematic biases due to technology shifts and land cover changes. Previously published uncertainty estimates for GISTEMP included only the effect of incomplete station coverage. Here, we update this term using currently available spatial distributions of source data, state‐of‐the‐art reanalyses, and incorporate independently derived estimates for ocean data processing, station homogenization, and other structural biases. The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05 °C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15 °C in 1880. In addition, we quantify the benefits and inherent uncertainty due to the GISTEMP interpolation and averaging method. We use the total uncertainties to estimate the probability for each record year in the GISTEMP to actually be the true record year (to that date) and conclude with 87% likelihood that 2016 was indeed the hottest year of the instrumental period (so far).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2018jd029522

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lenssen, N. J. L., Schmidt, G. A., Hansen, J. E., Menne, M. J., Persin, A., Ruedy, R., & Zyss, D.
Affiliations
  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Lenssen, Nathan J. L.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2019-06-24
Volume
124
Issue
12
Pages
6307-6326
ISSN
  • 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-897X
  • 2169-8996
OpenAlex
W2946160190
Cited by
962
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 159 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 189 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 1
FWCI
62.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (NSF DGE 16-44869)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Heat Island Mitigation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Environmental Impact
Keywords
surface temperature anomalies, uncertainty analysis, instrumental temperature records, station homogenization, station coverage, ocean data processing, systematic bias, land cover change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review