Apr 19, 2018 at 8:09 PM | Phil Clarke

..... whereas the Hockey Team Peer Review each others papers and then write them up at Real Climate, Skeptical Science The Guardian etc, with the failed 97% Consensus stamped all over them.

Is ECS too sensitive for Climate Science at the moment?

No. This is not some small coterie of journalists and corrupted scientists. Here's a challenge: name a National Academy or indeed any professional association of scientists of any standing that has not issued some kind of position statement endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC.

I'll save you the time, no such organisation exists.

Here's what the AGU (20,000 members) assert:

Human-Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

But, please do keep on ploughing your lonely furrow. It's entertaining.

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2018/02/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement-Final-2013.pdf

Apr 19, 2018 at 10:12 PM | Phil Clarke

Still no news on ECS then?

As Climate Science has proved incapable of acknowledging its own mistakes and correcting them, why should the opinions of institutions be trusted, if they trusted 97% of Climate Scientists?

Climate Science needs to establish some credibility, so which bits do you want to discard to demonstrate honesty?

CO2, heat-trapping? Why don't you tell me the mechanism which makes anything get warm or lose heat more slowly. Are you a DWIR supporter or do you prefer change of height of 'TOA'? Why not do some explaining instead of all the tedious appeals to authority?

"But are they any better at determining what causes the climate to change?"

I still like long term ocean variability and a Svensmark cloud type effect as it would seem to explain the history pretty well. You obviously can't prove it though. All you can do is collect and study the data and see which theories you can throw out as a result.

rhoda & Rob Burton

Climate Scientists may be experts on what CO2 COULD do, but they have backed themselves into a corner about the Climate, and what alters it.

Climate Science threw out all other ideas apart from CO2, so it could be that 97% of Climate Science needs to be thrown out.

Phil Clarke, do you want to reconsider the reliability and professionalism of Cowtan and Way? Way acknowledged in private that McIntyre made valid criticisms, but still resorted to Climate Snarkology in the absence of any improved understanding of Climate Science. There seems to be a clear signal that overheating in Climate Science is linked to rising CO2 levels and the absence of any correlation with world temperatures.

(yes, there is a typo in the link, Cotwan/Cowtan)

https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/18/cotwan-and-way-2013/
"Nor do efforts to apply kriging seem misplaced to me in principle. On the contrary, for someone with experience in ore reserves, it seems entirely natural e.g. see for example, some of Jeff Id’s discussion of Antarctica. I notice that their methodology results in changes to the Central England gridcell. While I don’t object to the use of kriging or similar methods to estimate values in missing gridcells, I don’t see any benefit to altering values in known gridcells, if that’s what’s happening here. (I haven’t parsed their methods and don’t plan to do so at this time.)"

"Co-author Way was an active participant at the secret SKS forum, where he actively fomented conspiracy theory allegations. Uniquely among participants in the secret SKS forum, he conceded that Climate Audit was frequently correct in its observations (“The fact of the matter is that a lot of the points he [McIntyre] brings up are valid”) and urged care in contradicting Climate Audit (“I wouldn’t want to go up against that group, between them there is a lot of statistical power to manipulate and make the data say what it needs to say.”) [Update Nov 21: While Way did wrongly associate me with conspiracy theory on a couple of occasions, including a tasteless accusation of being a “conspiracy wackjob”, the vast majority of his language is temperate and reasonable and shows remarkable appreciation of the statistical points of our critique, with the slurs being a sort of incidental sideswipe."

Robert Way
Posted Nov 18, 2013 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

“I notice that their methodology results in changes to the Central England gridcell. While I don’t object to the use of kriging or similar methods to estimate values in missing gridcells, I don’t see any benefit to altering values in known gridcells, if that’s what’s happening here.”

I am not sure where this assumption is based from but no we do not change values where there are observations in HadCRUTv4. The hybrid and kriging approaches are only used to estimate for missing values in the final reconstruction. We do however provide rigorous cross-validation where we take out blocks of cells and reconstruct them. Perhaps this is where the confusion arose.

More information on the paper can be found on the website:
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html

"As for the personal remarks I think it is unfair to characterize me as a person who “actively fomented conspiracy theory allegations.” I’m sure there will be instances over the course of the few years I participated at the forum where I expressed things that you (Mc) might describe that way but to characterize the breadth of my discussion there in such a manner is misleading."

"Secondly, to be taking what I said when I was 20, 21, 22 years old in a private forum and then publicizing it with that sort of comment attached really seems like an attempt to embarrass a young researcher trying to formulate opinions on things. I wonder what the world would be like if most young people in their undergraduate college years had to worry about their private discussions being hacked and then published on the internet to try and embarrass them. I have been, and will continue to be a constant defender of good practice in science and in the course of my experiences I have vigorously opposed both in fairly equal measure both denialism and alarmism."

Steve McIntyre: "I will respond separately showing my issue with respect to the central England gridcell. If you don’t adjust actual data, then reconciliation of the differences should be fairly easy. It might relate to taking the anomaly. As to my remarks on your comments in the SKS forum: over the years, I’ve gotten tired of people privately conceding the validity of my criticisms of paleoclimate practices, but failing to do so publicly. In your case, your SKS forum comments show that you agreed with many of my criticisms, but, instead of saying so at SKS, you called me a “conspiracy wackjob” – an offensive and untrue allegation. instead of apologizing when I took issue in my above remarks – as you ought to have done – you complained that your remarks had become public. I understand that you were young at the time and I would be quite happy to accept your withdrawal of these offensive and untrue remarks and move on. But first you have to withdraw the allegations, rather than complaining about how they became public."

Classic McIntyre quote-mine

McIntyre is a tough person to target... Even for the experts. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the points he brings up are valid the challenge is that he associates them with too much skepticism. He finds a mistake and suddenly its a conspiracy whereas a normal person would call it a reasonable mistake. But I wouldn't want to go up against that group, between them there is a lot of statistical power to manipulate and make the data say what it needs to say.

Sound about right. Tell me, which were the criticisms of Cowtan and Way that made any difference to the conclusions; McIntyre has a record of making points which while they may have some merit, make a negligible impact on the big picture.

Apr 20, 2018 at 5:48 PM | Phil Clarke

Still running from ECS? Is this based on Hockey Team orders?

If you would rather go on about Cowtan and Way, and the incompetence of Climate Science Peer Review, you could try reading the comments at the Climate Audit post. Way does have the decency to make an appearance, but lacks the honesty to admit being two faced.

Alternatively, you could try Judith Curry or WUWT:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/curry-on-the-cowtan-way-pausebuster-is-there-anything-useful-in-it/Curry on the Cowtan & Way ‘pausebuster’: ‘Is there anything useful [in it]?”

Anthony Watts / November 14, 2013

"Dr. Judith Curry writes about the Cowtan and Way paper which (according to some pundits) purports to “bust” the temperature pause of the last 17 years by claiming we just didn’t pay enough attention to the Arctic and Antarctic where there is no data. They do this by infilling data where there is none, such as NASA GISS tries to do by infilling temperatures from stations far away with their smoothing algorithm."

If you are happy that Climate Science can simply "make up" data to prove a failed theory, then does Trump need to make up an excuse to dump Climate Science funding? He can simply point out that Climate Science that has been Peer Reviewed, with the approval of Real Climate, Skeptical Science etc, is not necessarily reliable, as Harvey et al proved.

Your constant bellyaching about Steve McIntyre (and others) only emphasises that Peer Review in Climate Science is not fit for purpose.

Can you explain what reliable conclusion can be drawn from Cowtan and Way?

Apr 20, 2018 at 5:48 PM | Phil Clarke

If Skeptcal Science did not produce rubbish, their "authors" might have credibility
97% Consensus
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024+

Only Way of Cowtan and Way was involved, but you are very keen on discrediting criticism based on tenuous connections, so might not understand something so blatant.

Are there bits of Climate Science linked to Skeptical Science that are worth saving, as all you are doing is focusing attention on the dodgy bits.

Is it condescending drivel like this that prevents you from answering anything about ECS?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html

Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition Posted on 18 April 2013 by dana1981(presumably Nuccitelli)

"Nic Lewis has written a paper on the subject of the Earth's climate sensitivity (how much surface temperatures will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) which has been accepted by the Journal of Climate.  First of all, we would like to offer kudos to Lewis for subjecting his analysis to the peer review process, which is something few climate contrarians are willing to do."

What is the value of "Peer Review" in Climate Science as abused by one of the Authors of the 97% Consensus? Then we are back to Mann's Hockey Stick, Mann's Harvey et al, and the infamous pause busters by Karl and Cowtan and Way.

Where is ECS now?

How would you handle areas with no data GC? Missing data is a problem, especially in the Arctic, where for obvious reasons there are few surface stations. Since 1979 we have had satellites capable of estimating lower tropospheric temperatures, but prior to that there were several gridcells with no readings.

Different datasets handle the problem in different ways: NASA interpolate from nearby stations, HADCRUT fills in with the hemispherical average (I believe). This gives a lower trend in HADCRUT, not surprising as known data indicates the Arctic warming faster than the average.

Cowtan and Way's innovation was to use a statistical interpolation technique called Kriging on the difference between the satellite and the surface readings. They then validated the technique using known observations and found it had greater skill than the NASA or HADCRUT estimates.

You may disparage this as 'making data up', but you have to do something with sparse data areas, and every choice has consequences. Cowtan & Way has better validation skill than other methods, but if you don't like it, stick with HADCRUT, which shows the Arctic warming at 0.4C / decade during the satellite era.

Which might explain this.

Cowtan and Way : https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.2297

Phil Clarke:

"but you have to do something with sparse data areas" Why?

Why do you have to fabricate data when none is available?

Is it not more sensible to say we do not know the answer, or increase the error bars to such an amount that the exercise becomes irrelevant.

To assume that the temperature of the polar areas can be guessed from a couple of measurements from each pole, and massaged to give values that fit your beliefs is a stretch too far in any thinking persons view of science.

Until science gets its act together and starts to admit there are many things we do not know, we will not make the rate of progress that we ought.

Apr 21, 2018 at 10:25 AM | Phil Clarke

Missing, or sparse data is a problem in any field, whether it is accountancy, medical research etc.

Infilling data is a necessary consequence, but when the "made up" data is what produces the intended result, announcing the intended result as "science" is optimistic, especially if the intended result could not have been achieved without "made up " data.

This is the sort of statistical trickery that Steve McIntyre has an ability to spot, as Way acknowledged in the secret SKS Forum. Which bits of the criticism at Climate Audit do you still take issue with?

These are of course, the issues that Peer Review should have picked up. Why didn't Cowtan and Way seek some statistical Peer Reviewers? He explains that they had some ability to choose their Peer Reviewers. What were the criteria?

You are keen to make disparaging remarks about "The Auditor", but clearly ignore his suggestions about improving Climate Science as Way demonstrated on the same thread:

Posted Nov 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM | Permalink
I think there there can be a lot of interesting discussions which go on here and that the statistical and scientific questions that arise can help move things forward in terms of finding better ways of doing science. There are sometimes insinuations about personal motivations and personal issues brought up as well as blanket statements for anyone involved in climate related work and I think that can be what keeps scientists from engaging here in ways they perhaps should. For myself I am able to handle most anything personal thrown at me but many people find it difficult to not take the negativity home with them.

That being said I do draw the line at what Steve did above. He said basically that in my hacked personal correspondence I said things about him (and many other people) that he didn’t like so he will continue to spread the contents of this hacked correspondence until I “apologize” to him personally. To me this is the type of behavior you very often see in classrooms where a cellphone is stolen and one person says to the other either you apologize to me or I’m going to keep spreading around the bad things you messaged people. You can each yourselves be the judge of what grade level this type of situation occurs the most at 😉 I will be issuing no apology to an implied threat or some form of blackmail. If there was an issue that bothered Steve about what was said he could have brought it up to me privately and we could have settled it that way like men. I am still open to that type of discussion but certainly not when there is a threat on the table.

[1] We have produced a long-kriged series which does show that coverage bias is an issue that affects both warm and cold periods of time with the particular observation that when the arctic(antarctic) warms(cools) quickly there will always be some form of underestimation of those magnitudes when you have incomplete coverage.
(a) The warming of the 1910s to 1940s is not comparable to that of the last 15 years in the Arctic even considering coverage bias. In some areas of the Arctic it may have been (though I can’t confirm this) but the unique difference is that this period shows extreme warmth over the eastern Canadian Arctic that is certainly not comparable. Note that for my definition of the Arctic I use north of 60. Based on the other types of evidence – the physically based evidence – it is fairly easier to see that warmth in the Arctic is beyond that of the early century warming both using the limited instrumental records, the sea ice record, ice core melt rates and simply observations of glacier changes.

(b) We have also tried to use the 20th Century Reanalysis to produce such a comparison but it did not perform well – particularly before the Antarctic stations came online. There are some odd features in the reanalysis product and I presume more high latitude surface pressure information (ISPv3 versus v2?) will help to constrain the solution better in the next iteration of the 20CR product.

[2] We do not explicitly assume that the records making up the temperature records are non biased or adequately homogenized. We used the dataset which had dealt with the SST bias and did not have a form of interpolation (e.g. GISS, NOAA). In the future it would be worth testing this approach on a dataset that is quality controlled and homogenized statistically like BEST but they will need to include oceans and will need to use the bias adjusted SSTs instead of the standard NOAA products. If there were other datasets available that met those conditions then we would have used those as well. The preference is always to include as much data as possible.

[3] We are investigating the Antarctic region separately and will be taking a more in depth look at the data there in the future. We spent most of our time on the results for the Arctic because there were additional sources of data and a fairly consistent signal there whereas the Antarctic is more nuanced and does not contribute a significant chunk to the overall bias in terms of warming in the past 15 years. The Arctic was the primary contributor to the changes due to coverage bias so it was worth investigating that region in particular.

We are aware of the work and debate between O’Donnell et al (2011) and Steig et al (2009). Future Antarctic work will include spatial comparisons with O’Donnell et al (2011), Screen and Simmonds (2012), and Steig et al (2009). I think that both papers were interesting contributions with Steig et al (2009) proposing a new method and O’Donnell et al (2011) trying to improve upon it. The debate over those two papers became rather silly with a lot of back and forth between the authors of their respective studies. I anticipate any work in the future we do will be trying to be as inclusive of outside opinions as possible.

We do have some ideas for better constraining the results in that region and several others. This paper was a good first step and hopefully it leads to new ideas to better understand high latitude regions. The biggest challenge that remains is some regions is still the quality of the satellite products which either lack coverage (RSS) do not have a TLT product (STAR) or may have remaining biases (all three). The NOAA group have recently shown (Weng et al 2013) that some ocean warming has been underestimated over the past 15 years due to cloud and precipitation biases. They used a cloud detection algorithm AND a single sensor covering the entire period for this analysis AMSU-A.

From the abstract
“It is shown that the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30 % higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.”

Weng et al. 2013. Uncertainty of AMSU-A derived temperature trends in relationship with clouds and precipitation over ocean. Climate Dynamics. Published October 6th.

[P.S.] Thank you – I appreciate the well wishes but I am afraid I must warn you that my PHD studies are on permafrost relationships with climate and will include spatial modelling mostly at the local-to-regional level so this project is not a contributor to my PHD or MSc project (Torngat glacier sensitivity to climate etc..).

As a side issue related to this I would like to say at the outset that for our paper we suggested reviewers who we knew would give us a difficult time because we wanted to ensure the paper was as strong as possible – it resulted in a very long and difficult review process which greatly improved the manuscript. We also placed the paper in a technical journal rather than a more flashy alternative for the same reason. The code and the majority of the datasets are available and we have made a FAQ section and a website to help people better understand and be able to replicate the work. This has been a clear and transparent process and the hope is that rather than engaging in quote mining and other personal distractions that people take the time to give reasoned scientific discussions(and critiques) like the ones you presented.

Steve (McIntyre): " Robert Way’s comments about me in the post contain the sort of misrepresentation that is far too characteristic of SKS. I observed that Way had made untrue and offensive remarks about me at the SKS forum. Way said that he was young at the time and did not withdraw the false remarks. I said that he ought to withdraw the untrue remarks, presuming that an honorable person would withdraw untrue remarks voluntarily. This was not a “an implied threat or some form of blackmail”, but a simple request that someone do the right thing. Rather than doing the honorable thing, Way characterized his false and offensive remarks as merely saying things about me that I “didn’t like” and tried to claim that I had threatened him:

That being said I do draw the line at what Steve did above. He said basically that in my hacked personal correspondence I said things about him (and many other people) that he didn’t like so he will continue to spread the contents of this hacked correspondence until I “apologize” to him personally. To me this is the type of behavior you very often see in classrooms where a cellphone is stolen and one person says to the other either you apologize to me or I’m going to keep spreading around the bad things you messaged people. You can each yourselves be the judge of what grade level this type of situation occurs the most at 😉 I will be issuing no apology to an implied threat or some form of blackmail

Yes, I didn’t like the remarks, but my objection was on the basis that they were untrue. And no, I didn’t threaten him. I asked him to behave honorably, unlike, for example, his SKS associate John Cook, who baldfacedly lied to Geoff Chambers about posting the Lewandowsky survey."

Even with Way's best efforts, Steve McIntyre does come across as having a better understanding of statistical analysis. Does Way understand sufficient to understand his own deficiencies?

Apr 21, 2018 at 1:03 PM | Radical Rodent

When Scott Pruitt requires some experts to adjudicate on Climate Science papers that have "settled the science", 97% of Climate Scientists will have approved of the 97% that should be considered for rejection, so will have ruled themselves out of further US Taxpayer Funding.

Science should not be about Consensus or negotiation, but Climate Science has ruled by Consensus, simply by excluding and ignoring the views of outsiders.

Entropic Man and Phil Clarke remain unable to reconsider Mann's Hockey Stick or ECS, but are allowed to consider the possibility of a MWP and LIA providing their significance is downplayed, so as not to compromise Mann too much. They are not allowed to consider any causes of Global Warming that do not involve CO2.

So Martyr McIntrye wants a public apology for something said in private? Poor lamb. Not sure that would be a brilliant precedent to set. McIntyre seems to object to Robert Way expressing a view of him as a 'conspiracy wackjob'. Not sure I'd go that far personally, but examples of McIntyre insinuating nefarious and dishonest intent that turned out to be completely unfounded are not hard to find.

EG

Had their Yamal-Urals regional chronology had been in accordance with their previous results, I am completely convinced that they would have used it in Briffa et al 2008 and/or their October 2009 online article without a second thought. My surmise is that the apparent failure of the (still withheld) Yamal-Urals regional chronology to accord with their expectations caused CRU not to use it in Briffa et al 2008. I realize that this is a harsh statement, but it’s what I think.

From <https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/>

The research that was the subject of this information request has now been – as we said all along that it would be – completed and published, coincidentally, within days of the Information Tribunal’s decision. Our publication of this work contradicts McIntyre’s explicit accusations that we were hiding the requested chronology because it would have exposed long-standing scientific fraud on our part. These accusations were, and remain, baseless and mistaken.

From <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/>

Similarly, McIntyre recently accused Eric Steig of suppressing ‘inconvenient’ results from an ice core record from Siple Dome (Antarctica). Examination of the record in question actually demonstrates that it has exceptionally high values in the late 20th Century (reflecting the highest temperatures in at least the last 700 years, Mayewski et al.), exactly counter to McIntyre’s theory. McIntyre made these accusations public “a couple of days” – his words – after requesting the data, since apparently university professors have nothing more pressing to do than than respond instantly to McIntyre’s requests. In short, you have to give McIntyre what he wants within 48 hours or he will publicly attack your integrity. Unsurprisingly, no apology for that unjustified smear has been forthcoming.

From <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/>

More here,

https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/read-effing-editorial-guidelines.html
https://archive.is/HrRvO

Many more out there.

Before blogs and bulletin boards were a thing, we had Usenet, an online discussion forum. McIntyre would regularly log onto paleoclimate Usenet groups to attack Mann et al and big up his own work. Unremarkable, except he did this under a false name, 'Nigel Persaud'. Not perhaps the full 'wackjob', but not exactly the actions of an honest seeker after the truth either.

My guess: the Auditor will not get his apology.

Apr 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM | Phil Clarke

Yawn. Sigh.Boring. Does your faith in Climate Science require you to deny facts?

Anything else to avoid admittng fault on behalf of the Hockey Team?

You do seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow, but not as isolated as Mann and his Hockey Stick, as no one seems prepared to admit believing in that. If Cowtan and Way, Karl and Gergis had survived, Mann might have had a hope. Now Harvey et al identifies the true wackjobs of Climate Science who will need to survive without US Taxpayer funding.

Meanwhile, back at the thread .... Any news on ECS? Still not allowed to say?

Contrary to Lewis Carroll, it isn't very hard to find a snark around here.

My guess: the Auditor will not get his apology.

Apr 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM | Phil Clarke

Probably Climate Science's most accurate projection/prediction, based on past patterns of dishonesty and unscrupulous behaviour, coupled with your inside knowledge?

Did Gavin Schmidt ever own up to this pointless deceit? What message about Hockey Team dishonesty does this convey? Is it as simple as they always deny making mistakes, and have to go in for character assassination to make up for their errors?
https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/03/gavins-mystery-man/

Which bits of Climate Science can be trusted? Are Climate Scientists able to judge what is reliable evidence, admit their own "errors" in pursuit of their faith in CO2, and be trusted by politicians and their electorates?

Clearly not.

Any news on ECS, or should Climate Audit's post be accepted as superior to recent Hockey Team speculations? (Parts 1 & 2 are still available from the same respected source)
https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/29/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-in-global-climate-models-part-3/

Indelible Ink

Footsoldiers of history, two researchers in a corrupt and impoverished mid-90s Russia schlep through the tundra to take core samples from trees at the behest of the bigger fish in far-off East Anglia.

Some are boojums

http://web.archive.org/web/20090208163445/http://www.climateaudit.org:80/?p=5134#comment-325384

Apr 22, 2018 at 10:44 AM | Phil Clarke

So Gavin Schmidt is dishonest. Who knew?

No one is able to defend Mann's Hockey Stick or the scary numbers for ECS.

Global Warming panic over.

Dishonest is accusing people of stonewalling requests for data that you were given years earlier. Dishonest is cutting sentences out of quotes to change the meaning (etc)

True: Schmidt initially failed to credit McI with finding an issue with data held by the BAS, but subsequently contacted BAS to ensure the correct attribution was given. Not sure Schmidt has too much to worry about, reputation wise.

Where in the series on constraints does Lewis give a figure (or a range) for ECS? In his previous (model-based) published work he came up with a 95% range of 1.05–4.05 K, which is compatible with the IPCC range

there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ClDy...45.1009L

Why do you have to fabricate data when none is available?

Say for example you have data for 90% of gridcells in the Arctic. You could report just that data (and it is indeed available if you want it), but then you wouldn't have an 'Arctic' dataset. Alternatively, and more useful, you could estimate or interpolate or just infill. Cowtan and Way use a hybrid Kriging method and compared the results of the method with known observations and found it had good validation skill.

Estimating is not fabricating, so long as you make clear what you have done.

Phil Clarke, you still have not elaborated on ECS, preferring to rely on Hockey Team dishonesty instead, so ......

Clipe, from your Link, it seems that Phil Clarke is resorting to Mannian abuse techniques to evade inconvenient truths (again)

"Dear Professor Mann
I'm putting together a piece on global warming, and I'll be making reference to your paper in Geophysical Research Letters with Prof Jones on "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia". When the paper came out, some critics argued that the paper actually showed that there have been three periods in the last 2000 years which were warmer than today (one just prior to AD 700, one just after, and one just prior to AD 1000). They also claimed that the paper could only conclude that current temperatures were warmer if one compared the proxy data with other data sets. (For an example of these arguments, see: [1]http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n34c4.htm) I'd be very interested to include your rebuttals to these arguments in the piece I'm doing. I must admit to being confused by why proxy data should be compared to instrumental data for the last part of the data-set. Shouldn't the comparison be a consistent one throughout ? With many thanks for your patience with this Robert Matthews ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Matthews Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph

Dear Mr. Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a separate reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore taken the liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British colleagues. The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements belie the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate analyses of the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe. An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of information. Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further inquiries from you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues, however, I will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources of information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather than fringe, scientific opinion.
Sincerely, Michael E. Mann"

● Professional journalists I am used to dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources of information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather than fringe, scientific opinion.●
●Sincerely, Michael E. Mann●

The only thing Mann was sincere about was what?

All the more reason for Trump and Pruitt to dump Peer Reviewed Climate Science, unless it has been reviewed honestly. They should "Take No Hockey Teamsters Word for it".