Cowtan & Way and signs of cooling

The Cowtan and Way 2013 paper should not have been published. The methodology of this paper is so bad that a 2nd grader would trash it. How this ever got through only shows the total lack of knowledge and attention in the climate science community anymore.
What garbage.

An old joke from under communism: “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable.”
Cowtan and Way failing comparison to satellite data like RSS is quite relevant, and Cowtan & Way follow in a long series of repeated revisions of temperature history, turning the actual double-peak in the past century into more of a hockey stick, as in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg . If someone was naive enough to trust such revisionists, they would have to essentially believe the past is essentially greatly unknown and going to change again in the future, as again and again and again it has been drastically changed in activist publications (although publications made prior to the CAGW
movement’s existence are consistent in contrast, without the grand dishonesty movement and motive).

Send the 97% here http://classic.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=59427
On Friday when the high is -9F and the low is -23F I wonder if there is a fisherman in the alarmist bunch that will cut a hole in the ice on Mission Lake.

but he didn’t objected it.

What mins, pliz?
This article is littered with omitted words, jumbled phrases, and the like. Get a proof-reader, next time.

They stitched together multiple data sets each collected by very different means and processed by very different methods, none of which show the trend individually, but only show it when stitched together? The obvious conclusion is the stitching process of disparate data sets is to blame for creating a spurious signal.

Bottom line they knew that the lack of warming was a ‘real problem’ for their careers , they therefore went out to prove in fact there was no lack of warming ‘ and did whatever it took’ to pull this off .
The idea you can take weather data from one area and spread it by some ‘statistical magic ‘ over a much wider area is frankly hilarious and defines good science and common sense . Given , for example , that even two valleys next to each other can experience different weather depending on wind direction.

KR says:
December 3, 2013 at 9:33 pm
—————————————
Nice try, but it won’t wash. No way, now how.
What Cowtan and Way should have done is very obvious to most. Instead of trying to justify their infilling of data, they should have validated their method.
The procedure is simple.
Instead of trying to infill data just for the sparse regions, they should have used a random algorithm to drop data from dense regions of surface data. Create 10 different global data sets and do a a Monte Carlo run infilling globally with their satellite data method.
Why wasn’t this simplest of checks done?
Well, we all know that. Every meteorologist knows that when you have widely divergent results from a Monte Carlo run, you have no predictive ability. And in the case of SKS climate propagandists Cowtan and Way, it would have shown their technique was utter tripe.
CO2 is a radiative gas. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. The future of science, democracy and the genuine environmental movement depends on the end of the AGW inanity. Get out of the way.

Jan Zeman: “I was not much interested in their methods (since I’m not much interested in methods of data torture, besides they have already been scrutinized by much more knowledgeable people), but rather in the following questions: “ … What such data really show and whether such data agree with other data or not?”
Your gymnastic on trends on average hemisphere temperature data of about 290 K is just mathematic gymnastic, but is senseless. All data show a similar temperature function over time with the same temperature frequencies of similar amplitudes in a range of 1 K, which is a precision of about 0.3 % for the same object.
Not such gymnastic can give answers to the basic question, what nature or geometry of temperature frequencies can explain the hemisphere or global temperature function in the past, because there is no reason, why the temperature frequencies should be different in the future.
Please see to this matter my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/23/the-ipcc-goes-for-video-bling-and-cgi-enhanced-doom/#comment-1487084
V.

“The future of science, democracy and the genuine environmental movement depends on the end of the AGW inanity. Get out of the way.”
Well said Konrad.. It is WELL PAST time that this myth was destroyed.. and the funding stopped.
Once the funding stops, people like KR can get on with their lives (without climate funds) and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Show us data (instrument readings, not “adjusted” temperatures) from a global network of properly sited, properly designed, properly calibrated, properly installed temperature sensors. That way we would know how much the globe has warmed.
Show us a universally accepted climate model which accurately replicates the instrumented temperature history. That way we might have some confidence in the modeled future scenarios.
We have spent well over $100 billion analyzing data that aren’t and models that don’t. How much more must we spend to obtain real data and functional models? The ensemble climate models continue to diverge from even the “adjusted” global temperature anomalies, which are themselves inconsistent. This situation hardly constitutes a rational basis for revising the global energy economy.

Cowtan and Way are merely the latest is a series of wannabe, modern day, much improved embodiments of Rumpelstiltskin, purportedly able not only to weave straw (bad data) into gold (good data), but also to weave nothing (missing data) into gold (good data). Just another reason to believe that the status of what purports to be climate science is Grimm.

Maybe i found something to proof global warming bogus. But the strange ting that how easy it looks like its still difficult to work whit. But what i have done now the numbers show that global warming and cold winter,s don’t go to getter that well for proofing global warming.

Is somone going to be able to drive from Iceland to Greenland this year?

I started reading this to see if there would be an interesting examination of the Cowtan and Way “result” and found a completely unwarranted and ill informed attack on the UAH dataset. I mean holy crap, you cannot have read any of the many papers examining the satellite data carefully at all.

F.A.H. says:
“So first, by googling, I found this site: http://www.isidewith.com/poll/965637 . It asks people “Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?” Yes or No. I thought cool, that’s just what I want. I clicked on the results for different political parties and the numbers (statistics!!) are:
Party % Yes %No
Democrat 97 3
Republican 16 84
Libertarian 36 64
Green 97 3
Socialist 97 3″
Please note that “Green, Socialist and Democrat” are redundant. One of the problems in public perception is the use of anomalies, ie delta T’s, in graphical presentations, which automatically introduce scale bias into the visual which result in “hockey sticks”. Though it is necessary to analyse changes, perhaps some graphical depictions of actual temperature should accompany these analyses to ensure that folks understand the actual magnitude of what is happening. Which ain’t much in the real world.

Something that I haven’t seen mentioned yet.
Let’s suppose, for a moment that Cowtan and Way have identified significant warming in the Arctic which significantly increases the global temperature anomaly. Would that not constitute some regional warming affect, rather than global warming?

F.A.H. says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:14 pm
BRILLIANT! Sounds like a dead serious report shifted 180° that I would find on SkS et al.
BC

JohnWho says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:57 am
@ FAH –
“Belief in Global Warming is Correlated with Belief in Socialism at 0.85.”
Well, yeah, but that is only because the supposed “cure” for Global Warming matches a Socialist agenda.
If the “cure” was something that didn’t promote Socialism, the correlation would not be so good. The real idea isn’t to “save the world”.
If more of the environmentalists realized this, they wouldn’t be so supportive of CAGW by CO2.
———–
You’re right, but I think that number is about 0.6 ±17 environmentalists world wide.

KR says:
December 3, 2013 at 9:33 pm
One of the notable aspects of their hybrid method is that UAH trends are completely irrelevant to their calculation… the UAH trend discussions in the opening post are not relevant.
The trends are maybe “irrelevant” (sic!) for the calculation, but they are quite very relevant for the invalidation of the results. And I would think that to such degree, that it begs retraction of the article.
-There is actually a descending trend in the UAH data for tropics for whole the 1997-present period, so the UAH data for tropics cannot in any consistent manner contribute to change the flat 1997-present trend in the HadCrut4 tropics.
-There is no appreciable trend whatsoever in the UAH global data from 2005, yet if C&W global data contain such trend they are clearly inconsistent with the UAH dataset itself in the first place.
– There is actually a descending trend in the Arctic UAH data for the period 2005-present, so the UAH data for the Arctic can’t in any consistent way contribute to rise the Hadcrut4 values up for the period and change the descending global trend (-0.06C per decade) for the period into a rising one.
-There is actually a prominent rising trend for the Antarctica land in the UAH dataset (+0.62C per decade – by far the highest in the UAH dataset for the period), but it is absolutely contradicted by majority of the Antarctica surfacestations especially those inland and also by the RSS dataset (showing ~27 times less steep slope for the period even in the land/ocean data combined), which means already the validity of the UAH dataset for the Antarctica is quite in question.
-There is actually a rising trend for the southern polar ocean in the UAH dataset, but it is contradicted by the Reynolds Ol.v2, RSS (showing still more than twice less steep slope for land and ocean combined) and especially the sea ice index – which I would think means the direct falsification, because the sea ice index dataset is arguably much higher quality than UAH data for ocean, Hadcrut4, not speaking C&W datasets for very obvious reason – it is much easier to measure global seaice extent and area than temperature.
-There is no appreciable trend in the northern moderate zone UAH data for the period since 2005, so it can’t in any consistent way contribute to rise the Hadcrut4 global values up for the period and change the descending global trend (-0.06C per decade) into a rising one for the period.
-There is actually a rising trend for the southern moderate zone in the UAH data for the period 1997-present, but it is absolutely contradicted by the southern moderate zone RSS data, so even if this would be the source of the trend in the C&W global data (but the UAH-southern moderate zone trend is anyway too small for it and there is slightly descending trend in both Hadcrut and HadSST3 for SH), it would be directly contradicted by other dataset and therefore even so in doubt.
So I think we exhausted here all possibilities the C&W global trend (maybe irrelevant to you, but depicted prominently at the article webpage) is doubtless and when we consider this and this, there is quite a negligible chance the C&W are right that there is an appreciable 1997-present trend in the global surface air temperature anomaly – especially when we see the global sea ice trend – which is rising at very least from 2001 for both extent and area, not speking that virtually all global temperature anomaly datasets, including UAH LT-global, contradict C&W for the period 2005-present and multiple even for the 1997-present.
As it looks there are too much things contradicting C&W for it to be true and it actually has a lot to do with trends.

davidmhoffer says:
December 3, 2013 at 10:20 pm
“we could easily have a situation where the global average temperature trend is positive, but the energy balance of the planet is negative.
It could happen, but not for long, because the heat dissipates also faster with the fourth power of T.
There is likely also the opposite possible with oceans for the periods when there is the solar cycle minimum but peak of the visible spectrum region which has likely antiphase varibility in the spectral irradiance according to SORCE SSI data – it heats the ocean deeper, because it penetrates considerably deeper than IR and UV, but it has not much appreciable immediate temperature effect on its surface.

Aussiebear says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:50 pm
“It can be argued that the “assumed” Arctic and African data cannot be disproved as there is no contradictory observational data. Of course, it can’t be proved either for the same reason. It is just a result.
Actually in both the Arctic and tropics their trend is contradicted by the UAH dataset itself, and also by the RSS, the Antarctica UAH then contradicted by the surfacestations, RSS and sea ice. A result which is contradicted by other data shouldn’t be used until the contradiction is solved. And I very much doubt Cowtan and Way didn’t know their results are contradicted by the RSS, but they don’t mention it despite the obvious is couple of clicks away from them on the internet and despite they mention RSS in their paper even in evaluating sense. I very much suspect a scientific dishonesty is at play here.

Jan Zeman, I don’t know if there’s any merit to your essay or not, but I do know that your grammar and punctuation leave a lot to be desired. If English is your second language, perhaps a native English-speaking proofreader would have been a good idea.
No insult intended, just an observation. Presentation is as important as content.

Ed Reid says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:44 am
Cowtan and Way are merely the latest is a series of wannabe, modern day, much improved embodiments of Rumpelstiltskin, purportedly able not only to weave straw (bad data) into gold (good data), but also to weave nothing (missing data) into gold (good data). Just another reason to believe that the status of what purports to be climate science is Grimm.
Well said. I’ll add that what all this people don’t realize is that actually most of the heat in the climatic system is in the ocean (I don’t say hidden), its temperature just slightly changes with it and it takes long time for fluctuations of this content to realize in the surface temperatures. As it takes for a photon created by the fusion in the solar core order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years to get to the Sun’s surface (then travel the 8 minutes to Earth and then penetrate the ocean get absorbed somewhere between zero and 200 meters depth and create the heat there), it takes for the heat to get from the depth some time to get back to the surface. I note that the deep penetraing radiation is the visible specral region, which varies in antiphase to solar cycle, so no correlation study of OHC with TSI would ever succeed to find a positive correlation even if we would be able to exactly measure the thousandth of degree changes in the ocean temperature and get exact OHC profile. For determining the surface global warming or cooling trend is much easier to measure the sea ice extent and area than make the global surfacestations composites. It is also good to note the satellites are unable to measure the surface temperatures, they have good coverage, but what they actually measure is the temperature of the atmosphere in quite thick layers which even for the LT is only a proxy to surface temperatures and the correlation is far from 1. So to infill the satellite data into a surface dataset itself is quite doubtful.

timetochooseagain says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:12 am
“I started reading this to see if there would be an interesting examination of the Cowtan and Way “result” and found a completely unwarranted and ill informed attack on the UAH dataset. I mean holy crap, you cannot have read any of the many papers examining the satellite data carefully at all.
This was not intended as an attack on the UAH dataset at all. In fact I thought I have restrained myself from such implications enough.
But it doesn’t look like that when somebody implies it. So I must declare that I don’t have anything against the UAH data. I note it doesn’t completely agree with RSS, but that’s all. Satellite measurements measure temperature of the atmospheric layers, not surface. It is almost impossible to measure the real surface air temperature as the surface stations do – that’s why nobody does it. It is not problem of the UAH data when one applies this proxy to the surface temperatures nearly as if it would be the surface record itself and ends up with a doubtful result, which for some parts is even contradicted by the UAH dataset itself (e.g. the tropics or Arctica)
Jan Zeman

wlad from brz says:
December 4, 2013 at 2:17 pm
The data and calculation link in article points to an Excel worksheet without the appropriate extension. Add the extension .xlsx to the downloaded file in order to open it in MS Excel or Libre Office Calc.
The spreadsheet extension is actually .xls not .xlsx. It is created in the Open Office and exported to .xls Excel 97/2000/XP format, it opens without problem for me and as I checked with my colleague for him too. So if there is a problem it is most likely on your side.

ATheoK says:
December 4, 2013 at 2:48 pm
it puts hear say against someone’s published paper
What “hear say” you mean? I actually put official datasets against (a result made using one or two) and calculations made from them – linked in the above article.
Take the C&W 2013 paper itself along with it’s data and methods apart to find where they abducted the data.
Why? I’ve stated quite clearly in the article I’m not much interested in their methods. And to brighter ones it is quite clear where – they used the UAH TLT data (which is the record of lower tropospheric layer temperature anomaly which is only a proxy to the surface temperatures – and especially in the polar regions where the solar irradiance has high incidence angle and anyway also more than half of it which eventually reaches the surface is immediately reflected by the snow&ice back to the atmosphere, so what TLT actually measures there is more the insolation variability – at least clearly more than the surface temperatures … that btw is likely one of the reasons why the RSS doesn’t even bother to measure the TLT at the highest latitudes, where the average insolation incidence angle is close to 90° and where the proxy quality of the TLT to the surface temperatures tends to zero…) nearly as if it were the surface data itself. I didn’t mentioned it much openly in the article, because I’m decent person and the task was to falsify their resulting trend, not to embarrass the authors.
Others also pointed out other or related problems I linked in the article.
Whether their article is published or not it doesn’t much matter, it if anything makes the things worse, because their “‘razzle dazzle play’ lot of flash, dash” resulting red bold trend quite clearly disagrees not only with multiple other datasets including even sometimes perhaps with the UAH data itself, but with common sense (especially when we consider their own article in the figure 5 quite gives a hint where/when the red global trend has most of its origin and that there is the rising global sea ice trend for the same period which due to higher cadence of the daily sea ice data is unlike the temperature anomaly trends already on the edge of the statistical significance – and the trend in fact is flat or rising in period at least since 2001…) – and in my opinion quite begs retraction.

reply to
Kip Hansen says:
December 5, 2013 at 7:28 am
First, I’ve already replied this once yesterday (our time here in Europe), but my post never appeared here – which I find quite weird under my own article. I would think that if the WUWT doesn’t want presence of my opinions here I rather wonder it first publishes my article. And in any case one could find it quite unfair.
Second, next time completely avoid directive and offensive tone. The GD arrogant outbursts will have no discernible effect on my decisions anyway. My identity is purely my private business and it only tells scores about you if you call it silly. Not speaking that I have this nick here for years and I will not change it just because you chose want me to, not speaking it is not easy in the wordpress system.
Third, the result or conclusion, or the “red scarf” bold red trend if you want, is what only I find possible to falsify and so maybe scientific in nature with the C&W13.
The rest I don’t at all. – It is inherently impossible to falsify method which using the dataset measuring something else (TLT) changes outcome of a dataset measuring something else (surface temperature). Especially at the high latitudes the TLT proxy validity related to surface temperature tends to zero for obvious reasons (at least to those who unlike the Cowtan&Way, their adherents and would-like critics understand a bit the TLT satellite measurement issue) – and I don’t really even wonder the RSS doesn’t even bother to measure it there (not speaking that it is anyway quite irrelevant for the global temperatures given the area size, not speaking the polar climate has substantially different cycles due to substantially different insolation profile, there is quite different relation – if any positive at all – between the TLT and surface temperature due to relatively extremely high incidence angles of the solar irradiation, endemic cloudiness and extremely high surface albedo than for rest of the world and that a searching for a missing heat at poles through “found data” for troposphere perhaps to account for polar amplification looks especially in times of the solar activity descent unprecedented at least in the last two centuries quite more like a product of the phenomenas frequent with inmates of certain institutions than anything else).
I don’t consider the methods from the realm of science worth of that trademark and especially not in metrologic sense at all (compared to that the Hadley Center methods are relatively quite outstanding example of conservative science), so I really don’t understand why I should be interested in it more than what I deem appropriate for it or even dig in the pile of the nonsense trying to create good data literally from thin air, which good to note they likely would never do if not provided with the computer power to calculate whatever one wishes and never asking whether it has to do something with a reality or not.
But you are anyway quite out of spot when it comes to the primary objective of my article, which was not attacking the C&W13 (I don’t have anything against the authors, I don’t know them and therefore I don’t find impossible they could be congenial fellows). -Unlike my bad grammar (I can’t help myself I’m not English native) the original title of my article was changed (making now false impression it is all about C&W13) as well as other details in the article – which I find on the edge of a censorship and definitely abusive – so I’ll think twice in the future to submit anything here and you must not be too afraid I’ll competite with others here. (-I have more serious things to do than fight with windmills and with my age and education I already know the arrogance, bad manners and breeding is not something too curable as is not the ignorance.)
The primary objective of the article was to show using the suitable framework that there is no rising surface temperature trend recently (whatsoever and in general) using the real data – the data of arguably much better quality when it comes especially to what it really measures and how acurately. And the global surface temperature anomaly is especially not rising in the period where the C&W13hybrid diverges up – and I note not only according to S. McIntyre and B. Tisdale, but the figure 5 from the very paper. In contradiction to that the seaice trends are rising not only in the 2005-present period of the divergence, but – what a coincidence – have flat or rising trend quite exactly in the period the global datasets for the global surface temperature anomaly (I mean before transplanting the incompatible tropospheric data into it and naturally causing the patients health problems to exacerbate) quite unisono show flat or descending trends – in the period ~2000-1 to present.
I wonder how a research paper which has results from the very beginning contradicted by all available data including the purportedly used UAH dataset – in its case at least clearly for the divergence period – moreover putting proverbial apples into boxes with oranges (moreover in the regions where we Czechs for the content of the boxes difference would rather use our own idiom which could be translated as “sky and bagpipes”) and making literally absolutely unsubstantiated claims in their overpublicized paper summary, how it could pass a peer-review, that’s quite a mystery to me.
But in the realm of the CAGW climate propogandistic stunts in fact I don’t wonder so much – we have seen this in the past many times, including claims more or less on par with claiming that water freezes upon warming, that Earth is discwordly flat, not spinning, orbiting at circular orbit, insolated evenly from all sides with negligible variation and with surface ε=1 while at the same time applying the Stefan-Boltzman law to such outstanding planetary size piles of assumptive unrealities all peppered with unseen university kind of manners.
We have seen this many times even here, realizing we are perhaps quite alone with knowledge against the sheer ignorance, game of one legged playing the ball with paraplegic and that perhaps the only consolation which remains is that the nature especially its laws is on our side, so we will prevail – you can be sure about it as that tomorrow the sun will rise and one day you die.
Fourth, I was in fact partially inspired also by your “red scarf” article you link (btw. as I look there you still owe me the answer to my question relevant to the tricking – in that case of yourself – there in the discussion below) so I decided to have some fun with the real data and show what’s really the trick with the global surface temperature anomaly – which you apparently didn’t understand then – and maybe even didn’t want to understand judging from your “moderation note” there – and which you apparently don’t understand now either.
Jan Zeman

Kip Hansen – “They fail to discover/state why their method produces results different in the way that they are–what’s the reason for the differences boxed in my little graphic at the Red Scarf piece?”
They discuss that very point on the FAQ page they put up regarding their paper:

Why did 1998 and 2010 show such large changes relative to other years? … The impact of coverage depends on the global distribution of temperature anomalies. Some atmospheric telleconnections (such as ENSO, Arctic Oscillation etc…) produce unique air temperature patterns which can change the distribution of warm temperature anomalies from being mostly in observed regions in HadCRUT4 to mostly in unobserved regions.
[…]
As a result of the coverage bias in the original HadCRUT4 the year 1998 was artificially warmer than it actually was and the year 2010 was cooler than in reality. This example shows clearly why improved observational coverage is important for understanding recent and past climate.

Kip Hansen – Please read the link to their FAQ; C&W discuss the effects of ENSO and the most negative Arctic Oscillation values in 50 years WRT to those years. They _have_ presented an analysis. As to the rest of the period analyzed, those are dependent on details of global distribution, and C&W give 5×5 degree maps of their data if you are interested in how the extended coverage affects global temperature estimates over time.
Jan Zeman – You have (as Kip noted) attacked the C&W 2013 conclusions without actually evaluating their methods, and (as I noted) without discussion of their validation tests – clearly holding up against hold-outs and wholly independent temperature measurements _in the Arctic_. They have demonstrated improvements on existing methods; you have not actually criticized anything in their paper. C’est la vie – just don’t expect your criticisms to be taken seriously if they aren’t relevant to the work.
The trends since 1998 are not statistically significant, the C&W results are well within the 95% uncertainty range of HadCRUT4, and as they note such short trends are just not meaningful – this is really a demonstration of the errors in looking at (too) short term trends with insufficient data, and how those can be thrown by very small changes in estimates. Trends since 2005, as emphasized in this post, are even less significant, and it is absurd to draw conclusions from them – much as comparing last week in my neighborhood (1C) to this week (14C) cannot support arguing that NH winter has ended.

Kip Hansen says:
December 6, 2013 at 10:22 am
Take several deep breathes and calm yourself.
I’m OK, I amuse myself with all this. Although it is quite a drag when comments you spend half an hour writing then disappear. – And it is not first time – for example I replied also ATheoK last post 9:17 pm – and what a coincidence the same: as I see now it is not here. I only can hope this goes through – I think that if this goes like this the world most viewed will very soon be reported as most often loosing posts in discussions.
It is not about taking myself seriously, it is about taking issues which are important seriously. You can’t do progress with attitude of your “moderation note” and mentoring others i.e. about what to take seriously.
It is not intended to offend you, more like advice, but actually you replies are full of mentoring and I don’t think it makes good impression as well as the repeating yourself in direct insults, only what it insults is a good taste. Just look at your last paragraph – wouldn’t you after all find it pretty insulting to all readers of the WUWT? I would think one shouldn’t take oneself too seriously, indeed.
To the note 2: I actually did only one comment here before 12:22 pm. And apropos what’s the diference between knowing me as Jan Zeman or tumetuestumefaisdubien (a citation from one of my favorites – Marguerite Duras novel Hiroshima mon amour), isn’t more important what I say than who I’m? I didn’t conceal my identity here (and there are several users I’ve communicated with in the past who know my name) and implying something like that is again insulting – because if I would really want to, you would never realize who I’m.
Concerning the graphs and trends – you must not use trends to disprove other trends, but it is quite convenient and graphic for shoving whats really going on within the curves in graphs. You maybe don’t like trends, but it is actually very powerful tool of the statistics if you know what you are doing, which I happen to know, because I have education in statistics. In many cases in science the trends are ultimate means of proof – and it, I strongly think, will work also in this case and quite well, because the trend analysis here finds quite very strikingly simmilar trend turning points in several different datasets, moreoverer the trends in seaice – unlike the ones in the temperature records including CW13 propagandistic product – already touch almost on the standard statistical significance – which is maybe not important for magicians, but in science it usually is pretty important.
And this is not just about disproving Cowtan and Way and their paper, at least not in the first place – although implanting the polar surface record with TLT looks to me like – if I use your favorite word – silly when we consider the conditions there and what plays role in the tropospheric temperatures variation and what with the surface air temperature variation there and what correlation we can expect for the high latitudes.
But I note that’s clearly not the primary cause of the CW13 result, as I look in it the polar and African tropospheric data would be unable to change Hadcrut4 global trend so much -for the areas being too small compared to the rest of the world, not speaking that the UAH TLT global has not so much steeper trend in the 1997-2012 period than Hadcrut4 as “two and half times”, so the inner inconsistence with the “two and a half times faster” warming in CW13 hybrid allegedly made using UAH, relative to the original Hadcrut4 becomes quite apparent. So I would recommend not to trick ourselves into believing much the idea the CW13 is a honest piece of science with result which just happens to disagree with anything else comparable. But that’s furthest I want to go with implications about the methods.
In fact I’m amazed how some people (not all) got tricked into believing my essay is primarily about attacking C&W paper, helped by the unfortunate change of the title. It isn’t.
It is about absolutely central question all this business here is about (and if there wouldn’t be such question, most likely this site wouldn’t even exist and we would amuse ourselves elsewhere): whether there is the global warming or not.
And my article is primarily about showing there is virtually no real data whatsoever making such claim in last more than decade – claim, which C&W explicitely and very prominently in overal message of their article undisputably do and therefore it begs falsification – but not falsification of their data fudging methods, but the claim – not just that there is the global warming, but that it is “two and half times faster” – in general.
Real data falsify such claims and especially the seaice data, which is measured by method giving unlike any globalized temperature data quite extremely little space to a doubt and the hundreds of thousands sq. km of ice is simply a proof one can’t simply dispute out just pointing elsewhere (as you undoubtedly repeatedly do, maybe because the magicians simply tend to conceal the trick). It is a physical evidence many whole states are much smaller than that.
If C&W wouldn’t make the bombastic claim about faster global warming, based on extremely doubtful infilling of the HadCrut4, quite likely made with not scientific, but political activist motivation, virtually nobody including me would ever care about their paper. It has no sense to bagatelize it. I don’t know if you, but many people frequenting this site I believe could actually realize that CW13 primary message – prominently publicized although it is impossible to prove it, simply because their trend is not statisticaly significant – should be rebutted.

tuest;
If you use FF, Chrome or Safari, you can install an add-on called Lazarus which saves every post you make. You can decide for how long. You need never lose an entry.