No, don't worry, I'm not giving up. Its is a quote, provided somewhat tactlessly by the normally urbane Crandles:
All of this will soon be moot, anyway. Since last year we have been working on v6.0 of the UAH datasets which should be ready with the tropospheric temperature datasets before summer is out.
Who said that? Woy is the Boy, in 2012: Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures. So, not the most convincing of responses, perhaps? This has shades of Happy Second Birthday to Watts’ paper!
Meanwhile, in the "oldie but goodie" department, Russell Seitz's 1990 A War Against Fire usefully reminds us of Spencer+Christy's New, precise satellite data (my bold), a claim that now looks somewhat over-optimistic: the dataset they had then is now quite obsolete; it even gets the sign of the temperature change to then wrong.
Roy Spencer is busily defending himself against attacks from the Graun; Quark Soup and HotWhopper take the piss. But its all very well playing with the meeja boyz; where's the science? As noted above, S+C rev 6 is decidedly late, and RS appears to have no answer to the heavyweight Po-Chedley. Perhaps RS really has dropped science in favour of meeja.
* Andy Lacis Writes to Steve Koonin - from Eli. Well, I suppose someone has to read the comments at Climate Etc. See-also Beneath Contempt. ATTP isn't exactly convinced, either.
* Stats error has chilling effect on global warming paper - Retraction Watch.
I tried to get Google to translate your article to English, but no such luck.
[I should damn well hope not. One thing that's semi-personal and therefore incomprehensible is the "Woys the Boy"; this is my (pet) reference to a Steve Bell cartoon from many years ago, mocking Roy Jenkins, an English politician with an accent that made you want to call him Woy -W]
Those who have seen Life of Brian may also appreciate the pun, I guess.
He also has a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome...
Thanks for ye olde The National Interest policy quarterly cite.
Credibility in the Climate Wars is very much about location,
and nothing could be more pundit-friendly than a sciency op-ed in Science from a couple of NASA rocket scientists.
By following in Sagan's footsteps to hype an unsophisticated model, the Huntsville duo briefly out-Hansened Hansen.
>"provided somewhat tactlessly by the normally urbane Crandles"
How dare you question my tact! - At least I didnt quote
"The earliest Version 6 of the UAH dataset would be available is the early January update of the December temperature data." from Dec 9th 2011. Oh, errr oops ;)
The link to the old [ dormant] blog post of A War Aganst Fire having gone at least emporarily 404, I've reposted it here
Hmm... no here here -- try
[Odd that its now 404. It worked for me a day or two ago -W]
Russell, if you mean the link here:
it's still working for me.
“The earliest Version 6 of the UAH dataset would be available is the early January update of the December temperature data.” from Dec 9th 2011. Oh, errr oops ;)
Maybe version 6 is embargoed because it's used in Watts's paper, which is going to be published in the Journal of the Open Atmospheric Society ...
...any decade now.
The Open Atmospheric Society aims to let the vacuum ot of CAGW by putting an end to badly sited underwater volcanoes,
Thank you the link and chance to read the 'War against Fire' article.
Most impressive, especially as it stands up so well after ~15 years. As W points out, the source of uncertainty THEN that you could point to about the evolution of the climate with rising CO2 was subsequently shown to be dubious. There is a nice retrospective view of climate modelling, with the limitations of modelling admitted, and the prospect of better modelling if only computer power could be increased by an 'enormous' 500 times!
In the 14 years since, apart from the ongoing improvements to the UAH record, the next 12 years after 1990 have all (but one-98) been cooler than all the next 12 years (but one-08). Despite this almost total lack of overlap in the recent global temperatures, and the ongoing rate of sea level rise seems to be increasing above 3mm/year, doubt and uncertainty seem as prevelent as ever in the public-political sphere. perhaps more so in the US.
I think the intervening observable climate change, and the increased ability to measure and model the climate SHOULD have reduced the doubt, and increased the suspicion that the media sensationalism was not entirely misplaced.
But that would seem to be a mistaken conclusion given the persistent doubts cast by large sections of the media, and the fact that recent 'objective' reporting has been directed at legitimising the same science known in 1990 as in the recent BBC programs. Media hype of catastrophe seems to have receded while a continued defence of the basic climate knowledge seems still to be required.
I wonder if you have a view of why the increase in observation knowledge since 1990 appears not to have reduced the uncertainty around how well we can foresee the future climate?
rythmatic, not my stringest subject, struggle with riting to, can reed....(grin)
Aargh, random thoughts
Weeding Whiting and a withmatic...
Where would I find anyone who knew anything about statistics? I asked myself. One would hope this is a piece of cake in comparison with other works. Regarding several statisticians finding suspect trends in U.S. voting data.