It is too early to tell

...as the famous sage replied. He wasn't talking about the Thompson et al. stuff, but he could have been. RP Jr appears determined to prove me right and is in danger of saltating the carcharhiniforme (ho ho).

Meanwhile, in an abrupt U-turn, James "maverick" Annan is toeing the party line, describing RC's post as "pretty reasonable as ever" :-).

But enough snarking. I should say something.

It now seems fairly clear that "everyone" is accepting the correction as necessary, and in my brief perusal of the T et al. paper I thought it seemed fair enough. Whats up for grabs is how much, and where, the temperature record is likely to change; and how the conclusions the IPCC drew from it would change. If the graph in the Indie is vaguely correct (and though its in a newspaper, its sourced to CRU, which some have leapt over) the answer is: not a lot. The change from a dip to a slow trough won't affect modern trends at all, nor would they substantially affect the sulphate-aerosol cooling interpretation. Which is just as well, because removing it would be embarassing, as JA noted at first.

However, it isn't clear how much the record will change by. Although its likely satellites, buoys, and extra ships will limit the change to the early 1960's, it could be longer. Hopefully all the nice T record people will be even now beavering away at their revised series.

[While I'm here, let me point you to http://sonic.net/~nbs/webturtle/ -W]

More like this

Oh boy, get out the tinfoil. Here's one the conspiracy nuts will howl over. The temperature record that has been showing the lowest anomaly in the recent decades, HadCRU, the dataset managed by the UK's Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), is about to be…
Can we leave out the -gate trash? We had a big argument on wiki about this, and the wacko POV-pushers lost, hurrah. So none of that here, thanks. Keith "baby killer Kloor strokes my ego so outrageously that I can't find it in me to rage much that apparently I failed to use [my] influential corner…
Climatologists have long puzzled over what caused an abrupt drop in global average temperatures in 1945. To explain the anomaly, which, unlike most other similar rapid falls, is not associated with a volcanic eruption, most invoke an increase in airborne industrial activity following the end of the…
Did you notice that RC called it "Meinshausen et al"? Barbarians :-). Anyway, they liked the paper whilst I'm less sure. As far as I can tell its not really a question of science in dispute, just what you make of it. So what M et al. do is instead of the std.ipcc "force a GCM with CO2 and see how…

well if the data were public, then many beavers could be knawing away at it.

Dr. Jones was correct in his comments that climate scientists should pay more attention to data quality.

Pity that he didn't cite McIntyre. Actually, telling that he didn't.

By steven mosher (not verified) on 05 Jun 2008 #permalink

Carcharhinus leucas?

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 05 Jun 2008 #permalink