Ha ha, fooled you. I don't really have much to say about Cowtan and Way. Various people have said just about everything there is to say already; VV has a nice post dissecting JC's failure; to which I commented
> The main serious critical voice seems to be Judith Curry at Climate Etc
I think you're being overly generous here, if by "critical" you mean "careful reasoned analysis". I get the strong impression that she hadn't really read the paper. I think she skimmed it well enough to put up a few quibbles, and you've discussed those. But as the comments by C+W show, her comments are shallow and in many cases are answered by the paper itself.
Even those quibbles are too weak to justify her "doesn't add anything" sneer; that's really rather pathetic of her. She isn't brave enough to reject it, she's not inclined to accept it, so she's trying on an elder-statesman like distain. Which is what her followers want, and its good enough to get her quoted. But as a logical argument, its nothing but hole.
The other thing to say is that what C+W has done is in a sense obvious; and anyone could have done it. Well, not quite, because they did it carefully. NS has a cut-down version that is really rather similar, but probably without the original wouldn't have been convincing. Most climatologists wouldn't have done it at all, because the "pause" stuff is hard to take seriously in scientific terms; but it does make good PR (I'm not dissing C+W as PR-hunters, BTW. What they did makes sense, at the time they did it). The "pause" is shaping up to be the "but the satellites show cooling" de nos jours. Don't laugh; it used to be dead exciting; you could hardly talk to a septic without them talking about the satellite record.
- Log in to post comments
Even if the C+W paper hardly changes the temperature record and in that respect is climatologically not that important, I already like the paper for the innovative method used to fill the Arctic gap, with uses the strength of the satellite and surface data and reduces their weaknesses. But then I am a sucker for methodological problems. And I guess the Arctic researchers are interested, in their region the temperature adjustments are significant.
Thanks for warning about my spelling errors before the readers poor in.
Better methods are always welcome.
elder-statesman like dis(d)ain - that seems to me to be a fairly accurate description. The operating style seems to be one of "plausible deniability."
The ironic thing is Kevin and I submitted the paper long before any significant media attention to the "pause". Really the media coverage has come down to timing. It had a very long and rigorous review process and that placed it on this timeline.
If you look closely at what they have done, using the method to find a better weighting form the various msu channels to construct surface temperature looks promising.
As for Curry, of course rather than engaging in any meaningful debate, she's simply buried her ignorance under several more posts of irrelevant blather. There's not been much evidence of intelligent thought on that blog for a number of years now. But hey, she gets hundreds of appreciative comments, which is the new peer review of citizen science...
Come to think of it, one could say there is not a lot of evidence of intelligent thought on my blog recently, but at least that's mostly because I'm not posting! There's so little interesting stuff going on in climate science these days. (This C&W paper seems nice, not that exciting though.)
I read through the first couple of comments over at Curry's, and the stupidity is truly massive until the first comment of Mosher appears.
"Or perhaps Cowtan and Wray found Trenbeth’s missing heat in Santer’s workshop?."
James Annan, sounds like you are getting old. :-) Maybe it is time to change topic? How about homogenization? It is fascinating.
I love Curry's blog. It's like professional wrestling: rigged via the choreography of the lowest common denominator.
When hot papers reinforce the thermodynamically obvious , Judy tends to take an agnostic view of thermo while her commentariat denounces radiative forcing as a system of religious belief.
The paper can be read here it is now Open Access.