Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, what’s the most surprising thing about global temperature since 1998?
Most who call themselves “skeptics” of global warming would probably say “No global warming since 1998!” Under the name “hiatus” or “pause,” it features prominently in public discussion and even in senate testimony (e.g. from Judith Curry). In truth, such a “pause” or “hiatus” is not that surprising, neither from a statistical point of view nor based on climate model output. But there is one thing about post-1998 temperatures, compared to the pre-1998 temperatures, that is quite a surprise.
Let’s be crystal-clear what the issue is. The issue is temperature in the Arctic, not some sector of the Arctic, not some season in the Arctic, and the real issue (the point of dispute) is: temperatures since 2000 compared to temperatures in the 1930s (and/or 1940s if you wish). Don’t let anybody — not Judith Curry, not me — get away with avoiding the issue.
We’ve been looking closely at the written testimony from Judith Curry before a recent meeting of the Environment and Public Works committee of the U.S. Senate. What we’ve seen so far argues against relying on Curry to give accurate and relevant information.
Because maybe the now-defunct “Journal” Pattern Recognition in Physics hasn’t hit rock bottom … yet.
According to WUWT, the journal which was shut down because, according to the publisher, it engaged in scientific malpractice, might be revived by none other than: Christopher Monckton.
I think Christopher Monckton and Nils-Axel Mörner are perfect for each other.
I’ve read the written testimony from Judith Curry before a recent meeting of the Environment and Public Works committee of the U.S. Senate. There’s plenty of stuff that gobsmacked me, but let me tell you what astounded me most on my very first reading.
How bad was the stuff published in the now-defunct journal Pattern Recognition in Physics? So bad, that Anthony Watts and his crew are raking it over the coals.
They have roundly criticized what passed for “peer review” at that journal. Now they’re even criticizing individual papers on purely scientific grounds. Here for example is Willis Eschenbach taking to task one of those papers (by R. J. Salvador) which amounts to nothing more than “mathturbation.” He even used the word “mathemagical” to describe the wishful-thinking aspect (I prefer my own term).
I have heard some criticism of this (in private circles), basically amounting to the implication that they’re only doing so out of nefarious motives (to distance themselves from this fiasco, or to don a cloak of legitimacy). I say, let’s not do that. Criticizing the faulty peer review, and the faulty papers, is the right thing to do. Let’s not assume that they’re doing the right thing for the wrong reasons just because they are our scientific adversaries.