Tag Archives: HadCRUT

Shock News! Finally, the GWPF Corrects a Mistake!!

Satire, , , , ,

David Whitehouse has just published an article on the Global Warming Policy Forum web site entitled “How The Recent El Nino Saved Climate Models“.

The article itself is of course straight off the GWPF’s porky pie production line, but in the small print at the bottom there is this “Shock News!”:

Finally, we must correct a mistake. In February a scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us what January’s figure was before its official publication. It turns out they were wrong, and we have corrected the graphs accordingly. Here is HadCRUT4, with its pause and recent El Nino peak.

GWPF-latestHadcrut4-20170313

When the HadCRUT4 data for 2016 was complete the MET Office estimated that 0.2°C was due to the El Nino. So here is that difference.

GWPF-HadcrutMinusElNino-20170313

A scientist involved in the production of the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data set told us that once again David Whitehouse is mistaken:

Can we now expect David Rose to issue an even more abject apology in next weekend’s Mail on Sunday?

Climategate 2 – Episode 3 of David Rose’s Epic Saga

Temperature, , , , , , , , ,

This morning’s instalment of the Mail on Sunday’s serialisation of David Rose’s latest piece of fantasy fiction is headlined as follows:

“US Congress launches a probe into climate data that duped world leaders over global warming”

David is a bit slow on the uptake, since we reported on the “US Congress probe” several days ago. He also seems not to have taken on board any of the copious quantities of evidence that his “climate data that duped world leaders over global warming” allegations are the purest fantasy. This time around Mr. Rose claims, amongst other things:

Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’.

The ‘pause’ is clearly visible in the Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT 4’ climate dataset, calculated independently of NOAA.

Let’s see if we can discover if Peter Stott has any recollection of being interviewed last week by the Mail on Sunday and/or The Mail’s leading fantasy fiction writer shall we?

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/833257983018672128

Here’s the HadCRUT 4 data we’ve been showing assorted “skeptical” fellows on Twitter this week:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/831835739222638592

Perhaps David Rose can assist them by pointing out where exactly the alleged “pause” is located?

 

[Edit – February 19th PM]

Peter Stott has confirmed my suspicions. David Rose’s “last week” was egregiously inaccurate:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/833389662953668610

In addition John Kennedy, also from the UK Met Office, pointed out to Mr. Rose that:

Do you suppose that David & Judy have another “whistleblower” embedded deep within the Hadley Centre?

 

[Edit – March 4th]

The UK Met Office have at long last published the HadCRUT4 January 2017 update:

A theory is proposed that doesn’t involve time travel:

https://twitter.com/GarethSJones1/status/838136044251975682

 

[Edit – March 18th]

The online version of the Mail on Sunday have just published a “correction” to the most egregious of their long list of recent errors and inaccuracies. It reads as follows:

On February 19 we reported a Met Office official’s announcement that the average global temperature in January 2017 was about the same as in January 1998. In fact, this was incorrect, and the temperature was 0.25C higher.

So there you have it. This buck doesn’t stop on David Rose’s desk, or Benny Peiser’s desk, or John Wellington’s desk, or Geordie Greig’s desk. We’re expected to believe it stops on an unidentified desk of an unknown official somewhere inside the UK Met Office.

We won’t get fooled again. Will we?

 

[Edit – March 19th]

The expert opinion of Peter Thorne (op. cit.) on the Mail on Sunday’s excuse for a “correction”: