Wednesday, April 26, 2017

GWPF International Temperature Data Review - second anniversary

I've been intermittently tracking the progress of this review, which seems to have zombie status. The web site is still there, with no sign of news or termination. The project itself was announced here, with banner headlines in the Telegraph ( "Top Scientists Start To Examine Fiddled Global Warming Figures" )  and echoes. I described the state of play in September 2015.

I posted on the previous anniversary. I thought it necessary to maintain a watch, because they had said that despite not proceeding to a report, papers would be written, including one on the submissions. Publication of those would be held back until then. But Sept 2015 was the last news posting, and I have not heard of any progress with papers.

This is probably my last post on the topic - I think we have to deem it totally dead, despite the GWPF website still promising progress.



Posted by Nick Stokes at 7:39 AM

15 comments:

  1. JCHApril 26, 2017 at 8:12 AM

    You're so impatient.

    ReplyDelete
  2. willardApril 26, 2017 at 4:05 PM

    As the Auditor might suggest - take a Ritalin.

    http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/555096665

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownApril 26, 2017 at 6:54 PM

    I was going to do a paper on the David Rose nonsense, but with the morbidity of the GWPF study there didn't seem to be much point. If someone manages to resurrection it I suppose I could dust it off, but otherwise I've got a long list of other projects which are even more overdue for writing up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PGApril 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM

      If someone manages to resurrect it I suppose I could dust it off
      Well, a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. Please keep your duster handy Kevin.

      Delete
  4. OwenApril 27, 2017 at 1:33 AM

    Off topic, but does anyone know why sealevel.colorado.edu has not published any new sea level data for 3 months or so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 28, 2017 at 2:21 AM

      I've been wondering the same...
      -MMM

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 3, 2017 at 4:45 AM

      My current guess: it is the changeover from Jason-2 to Jason-3 that is slowing them down. See:

      ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/GMSL_TPJAOS_V4.jpg

      -MMM

      Delete
    3. JCHMay 3, 2017 at 7:14 AM

      Does not appear to be slowing AVISO down. They have an excellent site.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 3, 2017 at 9:20 PM

      When I look at AVISO I only see data through December 25, 2016 for their combined Reference product, though they do have a tool that allows looking at individual satellite products, and both Jason-2 and Jason-3 have data which goes into February 2017.

      -MMM
      -MMM

      Delete
    5. JCHMay 3, 2017 at 10:38 PM

      This is the last entry in the Colorado data: 2016.5512 76.437

      This is the last entry in the AVISO data: 2016.983653 7.898977e-02

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMay 3, 2017 at 11:49 PM

      Ah, good point. I was going by the last date of update for the Colorado graph (in December) rather than the last data point. So, yes, you are right, AVISO is nearly a half year better than Colorado on this.

      -MMM

      Delete
  5. AnonymousApril 28, 2017 at 4:03 AM

    They might be waiting for strong La Nina conditions when they can claim a review has "discovered" a new fake hiatus.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 28, 2017 at 5:08 AM

    Has anybody tried to translate global temperatures into a number roughly proportional to total environmental heat content by weighting temperature data according to whether it is on land or sea? I was wondering because that might produce a plot that smooths out a lot of short term variability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick StokesApril 28, 2017 at 6:26 AM

      You could certainly do it. In fact, HADCRUT is just a weighted combination of hadsst and crutem. They weight by area - you could choose something else. It would be smoother, because SST is.

      Delete
  7. Phil ClarkeApril 28, 2017 at 9:36 AM

    OT, but I see you're sparring with the aristocracy over at WUWT.

    "You compare predictions against what was predicted."

    Indeed, and Monckton is being doubly duplicitous. His take on the IPCC projection bears little resemblence to what was actually projected. There were 4 scenarios A-D. While they labelled A as 'BAU' it turned out to be pessimistic in terms of how forcings actually developed, which was somewhere between B&C, and the associated temperature projections were pretty good.

    I used to engage with Lord M at WUWT before being enveloped by a sense of futility (not to mention the censorship)

    See e.g. these threads

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/28/global-warming-is-still-on-the-great-shelf/

    Quote: 'So business as usual is precisely what occurred'

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/'

    Quote "I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred"

    So Scenario A (BAU) both did and did not occur. Quantum indeterminate blog science!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)