Friday, April 29, 2016

GWPF inquiry anniversary.

Just over a year ago, the GWPF announced an inquiry into global temperature adjustments. There would be a panel of experts, chaired by Professor Terence Kealey. It was exuberantly promoted in the Telegraph - "Top Scientists Start To Examine Fiddled Global Warming Figures". Terms of reference were promulgated, and submissions called for, deadline June 30th. I made a submission, and wrote more about the process here.

As said there, the GWPF did mount a news page here. About three weeks after the submissions deadline, the panel said that they would not write a report, but would aim to write papers etc. The last update here was Sept 29, 2015.

So after a year, what has happened? Nothing more to report. The inquiry web pages are still up; submissions have not been published. No further news.

I have been reporting occasionally on progress; maybe I'll report again on the next anniversary, unless there is news in the meantime. But it sure doesn't sound like they have found those "Fiddled Global Warming Figures".


  1. I think it's going to appear in the first issue of the OAS journal... A special procedings, of course!

    R the Anon

  2. I sent them ( a mail:

    Happy Birthday!

    How's it going? Bit thin on the news front recently.

    Got anything to show for a year's worth of diligent "inquiry"?


    William Connolley

  3. GWPF fiddles while the world burns?

  4. Roger Pielke Sr has claiming - on Twitter - that a report will be completed "this coming year".

  5. and so on?

    I think I can see how this is going to go. RP Sr will write a paper that he was going to write anyway, and the GWPF will pretend its the outcome of their "inquiry".

    1. Almost certainly, although it is interesting that he is claiming a report will be completed.

    2. Does Roger normally write on this sort of stuff? I think getting something published that is remotely in line with the terms of reference will be a challenge.

    3. If you mean, has he done any work on temperature datasets, then I think he has. I agree, however, that publishing something relevant is going to be a challenge. Feature not a bug? :-)

  6. Sorry to post this message here even if doesn't match the context.

    I've read today, for the nth time, J. Christy's US senate testimony dated Feb 2 2016.

    1. On page 3 of the document there is a plot comparing at mid-troposphere level UAH6.0 with US ("VIZ") and australian radiosondes.

    About these VIZ guys I could solely find this:,d.bGs&cad=rja

    with, in the .doc file, a very interesting coverage:

    Coverage: Areal coverage includes the contiguous United States, Alaska, Caribbean Islands, Pacific Islands, and other overseas stations operated in agreement with the NWS.

    a. Southernmost Latitude: -15S
    b. Northernmost Latitude: 72N
    c. Westernmost Longitude: 130W
    d. Easternmost Longitude: -60E

    2. Until now I thought mid-troposphere would be identical with 500 hPa pressure level. See e.g. :

    I built a chart combining RATPAC A (from surf upto 250 hPa) with UAH6.0 and all RSS variants (3.3 TLT/TMT/TTT, 4.0 TMT/TTT), all data adjusted to UAH's baseline; here is an extract of it with only a few of them:

    Here you can see that RSS3.3 TLT and UAH6.0beta5 TLT both are far far away even from the levels of mid-troposphere, though their lower troposphere level TLT in fact should be in relation with an atmospheric pressure of 850 hPa.

    The only satellite dataset between 850hPa and 500 hPa is... RSS4.0 TTT !!

    My question to Nick, Olof & alii: what's going on here?
    Which radiosondes did Christy compare with his UAH data?

    Thanks in advance for a response...

    1. Well, for Spencer & Christy mid-troposphere means the TMT-layer, a somewhat artificial layer that spans from the surface far up in the stratosphere.
      A drawback with models/observations comparisons with the TMT-layer is that the stratosphere share has cooled more in the real world than in the models. Thus it is difficult to discern if the tropospere has warmed less than expected by the models.

      Also, there are issues with troposphere satellite data (UAHv6 and RSSv3.3-versions) during the AMSU-period, but this has now been (at least partially) amended with the new RSS v4. See Taminos post

      VIZ refers to an old radiosonde brand, which NWS now largely has replaced with newer and better equipment, that probably suffer less from spurious sun heating and rain-evaporative cooling. Anyway radiosonde and satellite data agreed much better back in the MSU-days...

      Another strange thing with Christys chart is that it has five-year means for satellites from 1979 through 2015 (the maximum extent for such an average is 1981-2013)

    2. PS Bindidon,
      We shouldn't let Christy steal the concept "mid-troposphere" and smear it out over the lower 25 k of the atmosphere. The mid of the troposphere is 500 mbar, and here you can see how the observed temperature compares with models at this level. Not too bad, and 2016 Ratpac data will likely jump off the chart. Unlike Christy I conclude that there is no evidence that the models are wrong about troposphere temps..

    3. Many thanks Olof for the 2 answers.

      Tamino's plot
      I had seen last month.

      With CMIPi I'm not at all familiar, it's a bit too specific for me layman... but the plot you added comparing models with sondes is eloquent.

      I compared UAH and RSS with RATPAC B monthly-combined, of course with identical results.

      But the RATPAC sondes are not part of the set J. Christy used for his testimony (NOAA, UKMet, RICH, RAOBCORE), so probably I should try to download their data too, in order to have a more complete view.

  7. I got an invite to be a joint author of a review paper in November 2015 based on my submission. However, I haven't heard anything since.

    1. Clive,
      They said in the most recent news of 29 Sept 2015
      "One of our projects is an analysis of a subset of the submissions made to the panel by members of the public which have a common theme of the impact of adjustments on individual station histories."
      Maybe that is it. I think they were arguing that because of that project the submissions were sort of sub judice, and couldn't be published as promised.

    2. It was supposed to be 'peer reviewed'. Maybe they just got cold feet.
      I would prefer them simply to put all submissions on-line. I am quite prepared to defend mine. If I hear nothing more soon I will simply publish it on my blog. Suggest you do the same.

    3. Clive,
      Yes, I did post my submission here, as described in this post.