Word is going round that Richard Muller is leading a group of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists to re-estimate the yearly global average temperature, from which we can say such things like this year was warmer than last but not warmer than three years ago. Mullers project is a good idea, and his named team are certainly up to it.
...
Now contrast Rohde with Dr. Muller who has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with some of the methods seen in previous science related to the issue. We have what some would call a warmist and a skeptic both leading a project. When has that ever happened in Climate Science?
...
His method, which Ive been given in confidence and agreed not to discuss, gave me me one of those Gee whiz, why didnt I think of that? moments. So, the fact that he was willing to look at the problem fresh, and come up with a solution that speaks to skeptical concerns, gives me greater confidence that he isnt just another Hansen and Jones re-run.
But heres the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.
As a reflection of my increased confidence, I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data. The only caveat being that they wont release my data publicly until our upcoming paper and the supplemental info (SI) has been published. Unlike NCDC and Menne et al, they respect my right to first publication of my own data and have agreed.
And, Im prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. Im taking this bold step because the method has promise. So lets not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I havent seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isnt the madness that weve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there arent any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either.
That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything weve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods.
Facebook
Twitter