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.
You're so impatient.ReplyDelete
As the Auditor might suggest - take a Ritalin.ReplyDelete
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
If someone manages to resurrect it I suppose I could dust it offDelete
Well, a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. Please keep your duster handy Kevin.
Off topic, but does anyone know why sealevel.colorado.edu has not published any new sea level data for 3 months or so?ReplyDelete
I've been wondering the same...Delete
My current guess: it is the changeover from Jason-2 to Jason-3 that is slowing them down. See:Delete
Does not appear to be slowing AVISO down. They have an excellent site.Delete
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.Delete
This is the last entry in the Colorado data: 2016.5512 76.437Delete
This is the last entry in the AVISO data: 2016.983653 7.898977e-02
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.Delete
They might be waiting for strong La Nina conditions when they can claim a review has "discovered" a new fake hiatus.ReplyDelete
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
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
OT, but I see you're sparring with the aristocracy over at WUWT.ReplyDelete
"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
Quote: 'So business as usual is precisely what occurred'
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!