Hey Timg56,
Subs, 688 class, the Atlanta.
Then Clinton, BWR6 for 14 years.

Nearly met Rickover 4 times, I’m pretty good at hiding from Admirals.

What about E&E, Matt? Did BEST get rejected there too?

You are missing the point. But I will answer your question. I haven’t thought much about E&E, but my impression is that it is a second or third-tier journal. But it is a journal. G&G is the equivalent of a Dominican Republic faux med-school diploma mill. A guy goes down there on a fishing trip and comes back two weeks later with a medical degree.

Why did they put the paper in G&G, Matt? And don’t you think it is too hilarious that it landed in volume 1 issue 1 of a pay-for- play journal of last resort, after the big media splash they made about their Greatest of All Time dataset?

But Mosher is amused at the skeptics, because they are inconsistent on peer review, or whatever. The truth is this incident is just more evidence of corrupt climate science pal review. If Muller had not pissed-off the powers that be, or if the paper had the right names on it, it would have sailed through.

It seems that Chesterton borrowed that line from Tukey:

http://www.chesterton.org/discover-chesterton/frequently-asked-questions/a-thing-worth-doing/

“It was submitted to one journal as I recall”

however

“This was in contrast to previous reviewer comments at other journals”

So submitted to one other journal, or more than one other?

Was interesting to see this article about Dr. Jan Esper’s paper suggesting that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than Dr. Mann thinks
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought.html
“Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. His results suggest the Roman world was 0.6 °C warmer than previously thought – enough to make grape vines in northern England a possibility.

Esper and his colleagues say that warmer summers do not necessarily make tree rings wider – but they often make them denser. He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago.”

Chris Shaker

Perhaps Willis would try to argue that being not so nice is still being civil:

> Steve asked him nicely first. I asked him nicely second. Third time, not so nice. World works that way. Get used to it.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/04/losing-glacier-data/#comment-232381

I don’t think so. Skeptics say it’s not likely (to various degrees) that human activity will cause global warming.

‘Climate always changes’ is just an answer to the stupid, ‘you climate change denier’.

Or that we should apply scientific method and test the hypothesis. Hysteria doesn’t help.

Kip,

This the same Mosher who posted last month in this blog ” Don’t quote me that E&E Crap” when somebody referred to a paper from E&E in one of the hreads. Note the crtiticism. It was not about the paper. It was about E&E, a disdainful remark. And he has made such remarks many times

Now he’s defending a peer review and publication in volume 1 article 1 of a unheard new journal from India run by a dodgy group, who have been documented to show shady practices in publication. See below post frm Jimbo in WUWT yesterday

QUOTE

Hello.
I had a serious problem with one of the journals of OMICS Group. After receiving a lot of emails offering me publish my works in their journals, I asked them about the possibility of publishing a research paper. They asked me to read the paper and I made ​​the mistake of sending it. I did not hear anything about this editorial, until three months later they told me that they had accepted the job and would publish them if I were paid to them $ 2,700. Then the manuscript has not been published yet and I told them to publish in their magazine not interested me. I did not receive any review of the manuscript and I saw that the data on the web magazine about impact index were false. I only asked for information and I never authorized the publication of my work. Two months later, they published it without my permission. The published paper is full of errors. Since then I have sent a dozen emails urging the withdrawal of my work on their site. However, they did not withdraw and would require payment of $ 2700. What do you recommend I do? No doubt this is a fraud, and I do not know how to get them to withdraw the work and they stop sending payment requirements.
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/open-access-interviews-omics-publishing.html

Prof. Natarajan Muthusamy, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and the Ohio State University Medical Center has been named as the Editor-in-Chief of a journal from the OMICS Publishing Group, Journal of Postgenomics: Drug & Biomarker Development. “I am not aware that I am Editor-in-Chief [of this journal]. I do not recall having committed to this job,” he told The Hindu in an email.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/on-the-net-a-scam-of-a-most-scholarly-kind/article3939161.ece

UNQUOTE

These are the people with whom BEST published their study and Mosher has the gall to defend this crap. He’s a hypocrite.

@Eli: Feynman liked barmaids.

Josh, the connection between someone selling you a drink and someone you buy a drink for is that you pay in either case. The difference is who gets the drink.

Logically you’d leave the bar more drunk, and therefore less successful, than Feynman.

Brandon Shollenberger-

I probably will anyway.

Hmmm, I assumed that would be the case.

I just want to figure out what’s with the seasonal cycle in BEST before I do. The fact there’s a clear seasonal cycle at continental and global scales shocks me.

Good choice. For now an assumption on the time independence of the correlation function just may be one of the things that people have to accommodate–ideally BEST eventually will get upfront with a discussion about that aspect. When tackling time dependence we’re talking about a lot of calculations and postprocessing–even when clever. Also as you are undoubtedly aware there are a number of practical issues that have be ‘resolved’ if one has to go by a route other than using the BEST code. A number of folks will be interested in what you have to say on the seasonality question.

[As an aside, I still hope to get back to my geostatistics regional exercise with the US data or a subset. However, that part-time effort can't be considered for about 3 months--other plans and motivation.]

Kriging requires correlation calculations.

This is not a problem when using canned geostatistics software or even in R–but it should not be treated as plug and chug. There is some art in it, and one should have a certain amount of comfort with geostatistical concepts before diving in. I recommend R or an off-the-self-code such as GSLIB (a suite of command-line codes). To me there is no need to duplicate the BEST approach in detail–the objective is to further study the spatial correlation and related issues with BEST data, and not to verify the BEST results. BEST will produce verification in time as a part of their QA or they won’t. That’s their problem/joy.

For me a study of spatial correlation is much more easily handled using documented non-custom codes, e.g., GSLIB. [There could be dataset size limitations, but if one is looking at things on regional scale and having modest goals in the study that is likely not a problem.]

A failure to remove seasonal cycles will necessarily impact those correlations.

[Shudder.]

I doubt it would change the overall results, but it could change area/regional trends, and it would certainly impact the uncertainty calculations.

[Shudder, again.] I don’t think results from a ‘routine’ kriging exercise would be worth the cost of the electrons used in the calculations. Maybe clever minds can extract something from it but I suspect that quite a bit of conceptual underpinnings would have to be developed and/or laid out–much more than seen to date.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the time dependence. Bon chance.

Brandon Shollenberger | January 22, 2013 at 12:01 am |

Sheesh. I never thought other people would defend Eschenbach’s “civility.”

Brandon, not everybody agrees with you. It seems this may be news on your planet, but brace yourself, it’s true.

Is that an uncivil answer to your implication that every decent human being would find my actions reprehensible?

Well, perhaps. I don’t know of an easy way to tell you that you may be the outlier or not, but either way there’s always folks who disagree with you.

I think one of the first times I called him out on his behavior was in response to this comment where he practically spouted off bigotry.

I’m sorry you didn’t like my description of Christians. I’m not opposed to Christianity. If you want to believe that you have an invisible companion accompanying you everywhere, who always is attentively listening for your every whisper and interested in your every desire, an immortal, omnipotent (but immaterial) entity who, if supplicated properly, might temporarily suspend the normal laws of physics just for you and you alone, no job too big … well, if you want to believe that, that’s your business. Me, I view it as a curious kind of arrested development, I mean my daughter gave up her belief in an invisible protective companion who would do her bidding when she was a young girl.

You call that point of view “bigotry”. I prefer to call it “honesty” … which is why there are horse races. However, if you think I’m a bigot on Christianity, read Mark Twain, I’m a piker compared to him. In any case, I will return to your example after discussing your other points.

Since then, we’ve had plenty of exchanges where he demonstrated that same behavior (like calling people delusional because he can’t admit what a word means). And it’s not limited to just me. Even Joshua and I agree on this point (that should tell you something):

Yep, it tells me something. It tells me that you and Joshua agree, which is scary … the surprising part is that you obviously seem to think that finding yourself on the same side as Joshua is a good thing.

Me, if I found myself suddenly agreeing with Joshua, I would immediately take a cold shower and re-examine my fundamental assumptions. I mean, he might be right, but the odds … but heck, Brandon, up to you.

I tell the truth as I see it. Am I civil? Sure, to those who are civil to me. Are you one of them? Hardly, you’re spending loads of time here doing nothing but attacking my character … why are you so obsessed with whether I meet your peculiar moral strictures? Why do you spend even one second bothering yourself with what you imagine are my morals and beliefs? If you spent as much time attacking my science as you have spent attacking my morals, I might have learned something. Heck, you might have even falsified some of my scientific claims … but no, you’d rather spend your time being shocked that not everyone thinks I’m a bad and horrible person.

So yes, I’m civil, it’s my natural state. Unlike some, however, I value honesty over civility. I’d rather have a fistful of honesty than a half tonne of civility … strange, I know, but that’s how I am.

For example, I am willing to name and shame people who transgress the ethical boundaries. People accuse me of being too outraged about what is happening in climate science … whereas from my perspective, climate scientists and people in the field are nowhere near outraged enough about what is going on in climate science. Leading lights of the AGW movement have been found with their hands into the cookie jar up to the armpit, and people like you advise “civility” and say nothing about their actions … sorry, Brandon, but I’m not going to be civil to Peter Gleick, I’m going to call him on his crimes and malfeasance. I’m not going to be civil to Phil Jones, the sneaky bastard lied right to my face, and confessed to it in the Climategate emails.

I do realize that my willingness to be honest about people like Phil Jones makes me an outlier in the discussion. Many folks seem to prefer the civil lie to the ugly truth. However, I do find that when I am honest, often lots of people say that they agree with me, or that I am speaking for them.

I’m willing to have a scientific discussion with anyone, Brandon. But I’m not going to put up with people who attack me personally. I won’t stand for being called a liar, for example. It’s a quirk of mine. I was brought up under the moral code of my great-grandfather, called “The Captain” even by his children, who said “If there is a man who can call you a liar, kill him. If you are one, kill yourself. There is no room for either of you.”

Now, I’m not that harsh about it, this is the 21st century after all and the Captain was born before the Civil War, but I do my absolute best to tell the truth and I won’t brook a man calling me a liar. It is absolutely unacceptable behavior in my world.

So yes, Brandon, in some ways you are right. I fear I am the wild card in the deck, the jerk who can be depended on to point out the Emperor is butt naked rather than being “civil” to His Excellency, and will likely point it out in graphical terms … and I have no plans to change that.

Again and again I say it, and you guys don’t seem to get it. I’m not at the mercy of my emotions. I’m not some wild-eyed firebreather, particularly and most especially when I’m wild-eyed and breathing fire. I don’t let my feelings rule me, I parcel them and package them and use them for my own purposes. You mistake me for a knee-jerk automaton in the thrall of my emotions at your own peril.

For example, depending on the situation I will often stake out a position at the far edge of the positions taken by others in the discussion. This has a curious effect—my own position becomes illegitimate and condemned, but by extension, all the folks who are less out there than I am are tacitly deemed acceptable. I like that effect, and I’m willing to take the abuse that goes with it because the gains are so large. I serve as the lightning rod, everyone agrees that I’m an uncontrolled jerkwagon … and meanwhile, everyone else with a position between my declared position and the mainstream gets a free pass. Think about the effect that that has on a discussion.

That’s the kind of consideration and thought that I give to my posting, Brandon. For example, as you noted above, I took a way outlier position regarding Christianity. What you didn’t notice is that I took that position deliberately, and I pushed my position to the far edge. As a result, as you noticed, I became the focus, I was the pariah, everyone agreed I was out of bounds, that I was wrong again, bigoted, what a maroon …

What few of you noticed, as far as I know, is that by my staking out that far edge and drawing all of that heat, people were freed to say how they actually felt about Christianity, knowing that whatever they said, they wouldn’t be as far out on the edge as I am, so they wouldn’t be subject to the abuse. In that manner, I was able to shelter and encourage a wide range of people whose views are like mine to speak out and speak up … consider how that enriches the discussion by including a range of unheard voices. Not only that, but the voices unleashed are on my side of the issue … not bad for “bigot”, huh?

So like I have said many times before, Brandon, don’t assume that I’m just off the wall, that I’ve lost the plot, that I’m angry, or a bigot, or upset. Forget all of that, put that out of your mind entirely, I am none of those things. I am a very thoughtful man playing an extremely deep, subtle, and long game on this lovely planet. I make my moves deliberately and with consideration. In short, I can guarantee you that I am not the man you mistake me for …

My very best to you,

w.

Shaun,

Recent reconstructions of 20th century TSI have tended to suggest less variability than originally thought. I’m not sure which reconstruction(s) were used in the GCM runs used for your 20th century comparisons. Is this choice likely to modify any of the conclusions?

Also, have you done a scaling analysis for the Christiensen and Ljundquist reconstruction (http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf, figure 5)? If so, how does the result compare to the other post-2003 reconstructions?

Robert hasn’t produced empirical evidence of backradiation (say, at night) making anything that was warmer than its source even warmer still.

Robert wasn’t trying to. Robert was saying that the 2nd law is statistical and that pseudo scattering is scientific gobbledegook.

The system is neither isolated or in equilibrium.

Here is an estimate of global entropy production.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=EntropyProduction.jpg

And here is the source – http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00114-009-0509-x

The most common condition for the Earth is divergence from equilibrium through internal processes and changes in external energy inputs. Maximum entropy implies that perturbations from equilibrium will induce negative feedbacks that will move the system towards equilibrium.

It is however the divergence from equilibrium that is of most interest to rational observers.

“Why doesn’t low frequency high intensity radiation in a microwave oven heat the plastic bowl, when the bowl would certainly get warm in much lower intensity Solar radiation?”

Its 2.4GHz (so maybe not that low frequency) in a microwave oven. Some types of plastic would warm, but the types of plastic used in containers for microwave ovens is transparent at that frequency so don’t absorb any heat.

Robert hasn’t produced empirical evidence of backradiation (say, at night) making anything that was warmer than its source even warmer still.

Clouds at night do keep the ground warm. even though the temperature of the cloud is lower than the ground. That’s an example of backradiation.

Explain how, when less than 1W/m^2 of solar insolation reaches the poles of Venus, they get to more than 730K.

You need to consider the total insolation. Not just at the poles. The temperature difference between the Venusian day and night is quite small even though the Venusian day is over a 100 Earth days in length . The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; high winds maintain a near constant temperature not only between day and night, between what would be considered seasons on Earth, and between the equator and poles.

So let’s drop talking about radiation……

No. Its just not possible to leave IR radiation out of any sensible climatic discussion.

Can you explain what meant by:
“To have a lapse rate there has to be an energy flux.”

What quantity of energy flux?

The quantity of energy flux seems to have
little to do with a lapse rate.

And one could say any matter has energy flux of some amount.

A gas in an atmosphere has certain amount heat or energy content.
For example If earth had much cooler atmosphere, say 100 to 200 K
cooler, it would shrink and become denser and perhaps affect
the distance involved in it’s lapse rate.

Mosh,

The extreme accuracy and unprecedented scientific rigor of the BEST data set enables the authors to derive causation? Pull one of the others, it’s got bells on. Apart from that…

Anyway, the way to use the data is to find things that don’t fit, then think of an explanation for why they don’t fit. Like why the blip. Like

MCCIP ARC Science Review 2010-11
Temperature (Air and Sea)
SARAH L HUGHES1, N. PENNY HOLLIDAY2, JOHN KENNEDY3, DAVID I BERRY2, ELIZABETH C KENT2, TOBY SHERWIN4,
Figure 1.

It’s a shame you went for land temps because

quote
A 2008 study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)
[http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf] states: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”
unquote.

If this comes out twice, my apologies.

Mosh,

The BEST data is unfortunately tackled the wrong way round. The important information is what is happening to SSTs.

See:
quote
A 2008 study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)
[http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf] states: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”
unquote

I like that ‘even’!

Then, when you have a good idea of what is hapenning to SSTs you could explain:

MCCIP ARC Science Review 2010-11 Temperature (Air and Sea)
Hughes et al
Figure 1.

Oh, yes, why the blip?

JF

If the system we lack were in place, then global average temperature would be made up of precisely measured global values. It’s a travesty it ain’t.

In terms of ENSO, several climate scientists have taken 1998 out of their graphs, As well as 1978 through present. One skeptic here, one who says he’s looking for signals, called it “cooking the books”.