A year and half ago Steve recalled some encounters with NASA GISS. One could imagine that after all that embarrassment the quality control in GISS temperature products was by now highly improved. One could be also wrong. In the March 2010 GISS temperature anomaly map Finland appears as a “hot spot” surrounded by cold temperatures: […]
The Oxburgh “report” on proxy reconstructions is about 1.5 pages long and doesn’t take long to parse – which I’ll begin below. No one should construe the fact that I’m commenting on these nine paragraphs as endorsing the idea that nine paragraphs – especially these none paragraphs – constitute a thorough review of CRU proxy […]
Lousie Gray of the DT reports Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. Stranger and stranger. Unfortunately, Oxburgh “regrettably” “neglected” to mention this in his report. Maybe this is a little more schizophrenic than it appeared at first […]
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took […]
The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently. Harrabin says that “members of the panel are […]
If IPCC authors think that it’s important to improve the measurement of some variable, should they say so in an IPCC report? You’d think that this would be exactly the sort of recommendation that policy makers would appreciate in an assessment report. For example, maybe IPCC scientists could have observed that there was in reality […]
One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting comments by peer reviewers rests with the IPCC authors, as opposed to the Review Editors. Review Editors are supposed to see that authors respond to Review Comments, but don’t follow up to see that it’s actually […]
In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another. Overpeck said that there was “no need to go into details on any but […]
There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6). While the identity […]
Re-reading Climategate and AR4 Review Comments, I noticed an interesting discussion about handling the Law Dome O18 record – a series used in Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) with a very elevated MWP.
Climate Audit 
Hand “Praised” McIntyre of Climate Audit
Lousie Gray of the DT reports Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. Stranger and stranger. Unfortunately, Oxburgh “regrettably” “neglected” to mention this in his report. Maybe this is a little more schizophrenic than it appeared at first […]