The rate of change from Forster et al paper (note the different spelling) in contrast has a physical meaning.
essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/...
@micefearboggis
Occasional climate scientist, diagram monkey, probabilistic historian, science anti-communicator. All views and opinions are my own. This is not, sadly, a promise of novelty: it’s a disclaimer. He/him. https://www.jkclimate.fr/
The rate of change from Forster et al paper (note the different spelling) in contrast has a physical meaning.
essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/...
Alternatively, their model doesn’t address the causes and if we don’t know what caused recent changes then we don’t know if that rate will continue into the future, increase or decrease.
I think the answers to the two questions are related. Their model is statistical with limited physical meaning. It’s not so much that the rate of warming isn’t credible but that we can’t relate that to the physical factors in future scenarios.
A small update to my long and unjustifiably profane blog post on the rollercoaster that is global temperature and the interpretations of its wrigglin' innards.
ENSO is coming
diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2025/07/04/a...
They come after.
Yes! All analyses should be written to be updated on a regular basis.
at this point, if I wrote an opinion piece about how Nature indiscriminately publishes every ridiculous essay about AI, I have little doubt they would publish it
OK, that's one glowing AI article too many in Nature and one cosy fireside editorial too many from Science.
Can we have a prestige journal with a bit of attitude please, a little bite, a hint of tooth. Articles I want to read not shred. Papers the authors might actually have enjoyed writing.
The preprint is now a year out of date. I read it last year, but I wondered if it had improved at all since...
diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2025/02/16/a...
ha!
Still paywalled, alas.
Screen cap from the journal Geophysical Research Letters saying that an article is "Free Access" and instant access can be purchased for between $12 (for 48 hours of fun) and $49 for PDF download and online access.
Which is it GRL? Free or not free?
When you get older, you start making them up by mistake because you've forgotten the correct word.
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
A screen capture of six figures from Nature journals. Each of the figures contains multiple panels, often in wildly different styles and colour schemes. None of them is legible at this scale nor, one suspect, at any scale.
Dear Nature, how are those figure limits working out for you?
Lovely. The word, that is.
Q. What do CGI cigarette butts and global temperature estimates have in common?
A. Verisimilitude.
diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2026/03/03/v...
Word of the day is verisimilitude
On data, reality, realism, the texture of reality and, yes, verisimilitude.
diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2026/03/03/v...
TIL about a large number of operators/tools that can be used to make Google searches much more focused and productive
🧪 #philsci
cardcatalogforlife.substack.com/p/google-has...
We need a realistically realistic reality detector.
Word of the day is verisimilitude
On data, reality, realism, the texture of reality and, yes, verisimilitude.
diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2026/03/03/v...
I would be interested to see what effect they have. For some reason that I cannot now recall, I have the notion that some of the WWII warm bias is a sampling issue and is not wholly due to systematic errors in the measurements. More data would certainly be helpful.
How many?!
I guess the question is what can dataset creators do (or not do, or do differently) to help users make informed choices?
Duo Chan has been working on a process for helping users find their ideal dataset, which might help with such things, but for any particular use it is ultimately the user's responsibility to work out if the dataset they're using has the desired characteristics.
Interesting to see this. And, we have lots more data for WW2 in the Pacific now, but I don't think they've been integrated into any of the datasets yet: rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Some of the HadCRUT biases are fixed in HadSST.4.2.0.0 but the cold early 20th century bias remains and I don't think we're much closer to understanding why it occurs even if we have good reason to think it real.
arxiv.org/abs/2602.03347
I was also delighted to discover another global temperature dataset that I had previously missed, with a delightful name - LaMa. Reading the LaMa paper now and its claims of realism, after this new one that supersedes it and its claims of realism, one wonders how realistic a dataset can get.
It's frustrating because that seems like it would be easy to solve the latter by a small modification of the constraint term to account for the error covariances. The bias issue is one that remains to be widely solved, but the potential uncertainties there are larger than the reconstruction errors.