People send me stuff. In this case I have received an embargoed paper and press release from Nature from another member of the news media who wanted me to look at it.
The new paper is scheduled to be published in Nature and is embargoed until 10AM PDT Sunday morning, July 20th. That said, Bob Tisdale and I have been examining the paper, which oddly includes co-authors Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky and Dr. Naomi Oreskes and is on the topic of ENSO and “the pause” in global warming. I say oddly because neither Lewandowsky or Oreskes concentrates on physical science, but direct their work towards psychology and science history respectively.
Tisdale found a potentially fatal glaring oversight, which I verified, and as a professional courtesy I have notified two people who are listed as authors on the paper. It has been 24 hours, and I have no response from either. Since it is possible that they have not received these emails, I thought it would be useful to post my emails to them here.
It is also possible they are simply ignoring the email. I just don’t know. As we’ve seen previously in attempts at communication with Dr. Lewandowsky, he often turns valid criticisms into puzzles and taunts, so anything could be happening behind the scenes here if they have read my email. It would seem to me that they’d be monitoring their emails ahead of publication to field questions from the many journalists who have been given this press release, so I find it puzzling there has been no response.
Note: for those that would criticize my action as “breaking the embargo” I have not even named the paper title, its DOI, or used any language from the paper itself. If I were an author, and somebody spotted what could be a fatal blunder that made it past peer review, I’d certainly want to know about it before the paper press release occurs. It is about 24 hours to publication, so they still have time to respond, and hopefully this message on WUWT will make it to them.
Here is what I sent (email addresses have been link disabled to prevent them from being spambot harvested):
===============================================================
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:01 AM
To: james.risbey at csiro.au
Subject: Fw: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Hello Dr. Risbey,
At first I had trouble finding your email, which is why I sent it to Ms.Oreskes first. I dare not send it to professor Lewandowsky, since as we have seen by example, all he does is taunt people who have legitimate questions.
Can you answer the question below?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
—–Original Message—–
From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:48 AM
To: oreskes at fas.harvard.edu
Subject: Questions on Risbey et al. (2014)
Dear Dr. Oreskes,
As a climate journalist running the most viewed blog on climate, I have been graciously provided an advance copy of the press release and paper Risbey et al. (2014) that is being held under embargo until Sunday, July 20th. I am in the process of helping to co-author a rebuttal to Risbey et al. (2014) I think we’ve spotted a major blunder, but I want to check with a team member first.
One of the key points of Risbey et al. is the claim that the selected 4 “best” climate models could simulate the spatial patterns of the warming and cooling trends in sea surface temperatures during the hiatus period.
But reading and re-reading the paper we cannot determine where it actually identifies the models selected as the “best” 4 and “worst” 4 climate models.
Risbey et al. identifies the 18 originals, but not the other 8 that are “best” or “worst”.
Risbey et al. presented histograms of the modeled and observed trends for the 15-year warming period (1984-1998) before the 15-year hiatus period in cell b of their Figure 1. So, obviously, that period was important. Yet Risbey et al. did not present how well or poorly the 4 “best” models simulated the spatial trends in sea surface temperatures for the important period of 1984-1998.
Is there some identification of the “best” and “worst” referenced in the paper that we have overlooked, or is there a reason for this oversight?
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
WUWT
============================================================
UPDATE: as of 10:15AM PDT July 20th, the paper has been published online here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase
Abstract
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.
of interest is this:
UPDATE2: rebuttal has been posted
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kadaka, so you want to be tested? Since you are as much a computer illiterate as Mr. Mosher, lets see if you can spot the idiocy in this statement,
http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/modis-reprojection-tool/
“Unless you are in fact running Win2000 or NT then #1 will be the choice you want to make. If you are running Windows2000 then the install is going to make a change to autoexec.bat. If you are running NT, XP or anything later than XP ( Vista, 7 etc) Then there is no autoexec.bat to change and the installer will be modifying other files to do the install.”
This is elementary knowledge about operating systems that any competent programmer should know. Your failure to recognize something as simple as this, means you should retire from commenting on anything computer related on the Internet ever again.
Exactly, Willis.
Mark
“Climate models on the mark, Australian-led research finds” – Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hannam
Just once I’d like to see a headline with more info in it:
“4 of 18 climate models pretty dang close to the mark”
“22% of climate models on the mark … sort of”
“Some climate models qualified successes at showing the world is warming”
Matt L. says:
July 20, 2014 at 10:12 pm
4 of 38 CMIP5 models are ‘pretty dang close’. About 10.5%
From Poptech on July 20, 2014 at 9:50 pm:
I run Linux. I don’t have to know Windoze minutiae.
In case you missed the last decade or so of computer science advances, competent qualified programmers can now go their entire careers without knowing the OS fiddly bits. They may not even need to know what OS, for example Java has long been theoretically OS independent.
But I do know what Mosher means. I fired up an old WinXP partition on another machine to confirm. C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT is there, but not there. It’s a zero byte file, just a directory listing, kept for legacy purposes for programs that may look for it, just like CONFIG.SYS.
Thus Mosher is right (although grammatically clunky), “…there is no autoexec.bat to change…” because that file shouldn’t be changed, but there are other files that are available to be changed that the installer will be modifying.
kadaka, I run Windows and Linux so unlike you, I understand both. You fail hard, why would it be changing it in Windows 2000 let alone any Windows OS since 3.11? Thanks for proving you are a computer illiterate like Mosher. He is confusing Windows 2000 with Windows Millennium which is even worse. Every competent Windows programmer I have ever worked with knows these elementary things. Mr. Mosher is an amateur who has no business giving tech advice.
Thanks for failing now please stop talking about subjects you clearly have no knowledge on.
This episode says a lot about the publication source– Nature.
It could be worse, they could be publishing research on new brain surgery techniques.
Away from urban heat islands:
63 F down in the Sabine River bottoms early today in North East Texas.
Add the rest of the data Michael Mann etal.
@avery harden [ I already see massive specie extinction, deforestation, seas being raked clean of fish, toxic dumps and a lot more. Do you have any concern with the quality of the environment you are leaving your grandchildren? ]
And just what does Co2 have to do with any of the problems you list? Maybe if we weren’t wasting billions tilting at the Co2 windmill we’d be able to clean up our physical environment.
Avery Harden says:
July 21, 2014 at 10:07 am
Certainly nothing wrong with everyone keeping an open mind and staying skeptical. That is what scientist do. But if that lack of absolute certainty is purposed to ensure perpetual delay of action from policy makers, then it is a fools errand.
=====================
I don’t think anybody is looking for absolute certainty. The debate is that the evidence does not support what some think they “know” now.
Avery Harden says:
July 21, 2014 at 11:00 am
You just look away from the facts on the ground and say the papers with numbers and stuff is all fraud?
====================
Well, if you’re looking at the “facts on the ground” through the distorting lens of incorrect science, then you’re not seeing what you think you’re seeing. It seems that there was a time in the not too distant past when mass starvation was predicted at 4 billion people. Didn’t happen. There were some local famines, and some starvation caused by power-hungry dictators, but nothing caused by the exhaustion of the earth’s capacity to produce food, or man’s capacity to innovate with respect to that food production,
There’s nothing to suggest that the rate of extinction of animal and plant species is any different than it ever was. Extinction is a part of evolution. Should evolution just stop because we’re observing it?
You should read Willis’ articles on what happens in places where cheap energy is not available — it’s much worse for the “environment” because people chop down trees for wood, and burn toxic stuff in their little huts. The human misery, and “environmental damage” caused by lack of cheap, abundant, energy is far worse than a little CO2 in the atmosphere.
The real problem with the “carbon fraud” is it is diverting trillions of dollars from where it may do some good into the pockets of the politically connected. I fail to see how that’s good for anyone (unless you’re one of the cronies, at least until such time as the people wise up and come looking for you…).
Kate Forney, you said “The real problem with the “carbon fraud” is it is diverting trillions of dollars from where it may do some good into the pockets of the politically connected. I fail to see how that’s good for anyone (unless you’re one of the cronies, at least until such time as the people wise up and come looking for you…).”
This makes me think of the solar panels on my roof. My electric usage bill from the power company has been averaging between $10 and $15 a month. My system will fully pay for itself in less than 5 years. Your alarmism toward mitigating AGW I think is overblown.
Avery,
Where do you live, and what was your utility, and federal, subsidy for your system?
Brad, I live near Baltimore, my federal taxable income was reduced $3,200. The state reimbursed me $1,000. The utility’s contribution is that I have a meter that goes one way when I am generating and the the opposite way when I am using when not generating. What I generate goes on the grid, no batteries needed.
Now, if you don’t like the idea of the government providing encouragement in any way to do this, remember that oil, natural gas, coal and roads also get subsidies. The biggest subsidy of all that we are just beginning to pay for is to cover the cost of having used our skies as a free sewer.
I would have done my photo voltaic system even without the subsidy. I mostly just wanted to learn how it all works. As time goes on and I see that actual electrical usage number consistently low, I’m beginning to believe this really will save me some significant money over time.
Can you provide us with a spreadsheet showing the life cycle costs for your system?
Most residential systems cost around $25,000 if I remember right?
Anthony had a post where he showed his home installation a while back.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/
Brad, you said” Can you provide us with a spreadsheet showing the life cycle costs for your system? Most residential systems cost around $25,000 if I remember right? Anthony had a post where he showed his home installation a while back.”
First, thanks for the link to Anthony’s post, that was very interesting and educational. I wish I was more tech savvy and could give a more detailed breakdown of what I have. I really don’t know what my “life cycle costs” will be. I have had my system for two years. I guess I will learn the hard way.
Mine is a difficult system in that I am a townhouse, inside-of-group, with a small roof to deal with. I only have 4 panels, but they seem to produce close to what I consume. My electric usage was low to being with, about $1,000 a year. Though my electric cost has been $10 to $15 a month with the system, BGE charges me a “delivery” charge that varies up to $20 a month, usually more than my actual usage. (That is an answer to those saying we mooch off the public system.)
I feel I paid too much for such a small system at $10,200, but it was a difficult installation considering it is a townhouse. It took a 5 man crew 3 days to install it, so $10,200 is a fair price for them. The system seems rugged and dependable, and maintenance free so far. The infrastructure of the system is the major cost so I can add panels later if I need them, already having covered the big cost of the project.
My panels are American made with a 25 year warranty. The installation kept a competent crew gainfully employed for 3 days. It was a turnkey operation. The county inspector did raise the specter of the firefighters ability to fight a fire with the system taking up half the roof.
All things considered, it is obvious that photovoltaic electricity generation is a great technology. Sure there are lots of problems to be ironed out and nothing is ever perfect. I like to think I am contributing to the learning curve on this. Independence from the grid someday would be nice. Batteries don’t seem cost effective just yet. Imagine someday folks may be able to plug in their car off these systems. The potential is that someday the clean energy produced will more that mitigate the pollution it took to build them. And I might just save some money as well.
From Poptech on July 21, 2014 at 5:43 am:
Since I was running Win95 in ancient times and altering autoexec.bat to resolve conflicts and find the correct loading sequence was part of the fun, and Win95 came out in 1995 while Win3.11 was released in 1993 thus Win95 is an OS since 3.11, you are certainly showing your knowledge.
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/232558
M$ officially provides directions for altering autoexec.bat and config.sys for Win95 and 98 (Standard and Second Editions), thus they recognize the possible need to alter those files in a Windows OS since 3.11.
Ah! Once again Mosher is right, which I do find annoying. Unlike you, I’ve now looked at the manual for the software mentioned and checked the install instructions. Page 15:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/public/MRTSwath_Users_Manual_2.2_Dec2010.pdf
SOP, first do it by the manual, then call tech support if it doesn’t work.
Manual says for Win2000 you will change autoexec.bat for install, “…then the install is going to make a change to autoexec.bat.” Mosher is correct, again.
I took the time to RTFM, you did not RTFM and you got it wrong. Competent programmers know to RTFM.
kadaka, please stop perpetually demonstrating you are a computer illiterate. The USGS documentation is wrong and anyone knowledgeable would have noticed this,
“The second section is relevant to Windows systems and includes specifics for 95/98/2000 and NT/ME/XP.”
ROFLMAO!
They are confusing Windows Millennium based on Windows 98SE with Windows 2000 which is based on NT. You do not make changes to the path in Windows 2000 using the autoexec.bat file.
Mosher, the computer illiterate clown just repeats it, not knowing it was wrong.
Kadaka, how bad do you want me to embarrass you right now?
WTF are you talking about? What conflicts? If you wanted no conflicts you did not use legacy hardware that did not have Windows 95 compatible drivers.
Yes, only for legacy compatibility, which almost always meant system instability. Microsoft included all sorts of left over crap to make sure as many things that were written improperly still worked as possible. No version of Windows since 3.11 required the autoexec.bat file and properly written Windows 95 or higher applications should never need to edit them.
From Poptech on July 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm:
http://www.computerhope.com/ac.htm
You also have conveniently forgotten about the large wealth of DOS programs available. “Properly written” Win95 programs won’t need autoexec.bat and config.sys as Win95 didn’t normally need them, but there were LOTS of DOS programs that needed those files and needed them properly set up.
Then there was the fun of properly setting them up on a DOS boot disk…
I’ve got it: If you turn the “worst” models upside down, you’ll get the “best” models.
From Poptech on July 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm:
But it’s fun! Both I and Mosher show how we have well above average levels of computer literacy, you keep saying each of us are “a computer illiterate” as if computer literacy had no range and was only yes or no, and you keep demonstrating you’re an anonymous internet arrogant elitist jerkwad! What’s not to like?
Doesn’t matter. You want tech support, you do it by the manual. You don’t tell the tech “But I thought it was wrong so I did what I thought was right, but it didn’t work, so now you have to fix it!”
Besides, what happens when you change things in autoexec.bat under 2000?
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/124551
Put PATH and SET commands in autoexec.bat under 2000, they get added to the relevant 2000 startup files. MRTSwath adds PATH and SET commands to autoexec.bat. The method may seem clunky, but it is not wrong.
And yet you can. M$ confirmed it.
No you have both demonstrated to be computer illiterates. I have never seen someone continue to defend something that is irrefutably wrong.
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/public/MRTSwath_Users_Manual_2.2_Dec2010.pdf
“The second section is relevant to Windows systems and includes specifics for 95/98/2000 and NT/ME/XP.”
“Windows 95/98/2000 users must edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to add the path
information”
“Windows NT/ME/XP users must edit their user keys to add the MRTSwath PATH”
Like I said before they are confusing Windows Millenium with Windows 2000. This is not up for debate not matter how ignorant you are on this subject. As I stated before I am well aware that Windows continued to use those files for compatibility with poorly coded legacy applications (they are overridden by system and user environmental variables) that has nothing to do with the information provided by the USGS and Mosher to be 100% WRONG.
“Doesn’t matter. You want tech support, you do it by the manual.”
ROFLMAO, you sir are one of the dumbest people on the Internet. The USGS documentation is 100% wrong and I am going to make an example out of you now.
They get overridden by the system and user environmental variables. It is not clunky, it is 100% WRONG.
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000549.htm
“The path is now managed by Windows 2000 and Windows XP and not the autoexec.bat or autoexec.nt files as was done with earlier versions of Windows.”
This is a good day I get to embarrass Mosher, you and the USGS all at the same time.
Kadaka, I really feel bad embarrassing you like this,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms954375.aspx
The USGS is wrong, you are wrong and Mosher is more certainly wrong.
Thanks for playing computer illiterates.
For future reference,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/07/nasa-and-usgs-does-not-know-difference.html
From Poptech on July 21, 2014 at 11:35 pm:
Certainly someone here should be embarrassed by now, but by being anonymous and internet arrogant they clearly have no shame.
Savvy readers will note that page’s Reference to the “Certified for Microsoft Windows Logo” program. If you wanted the privilege of that logo then you followed the requirements on that page. If you didn’t care about that logo, for example you’re a government agency releasing a free tool presumably for those sufficiently computer literate to install and use it, you didn’t have to follow those requirements.
You may also notice of the References the two M$ links are dead, VeriTest goes to their main page (bad link), and there’s no link for the SDK.
From the doc:
Technically true that Win2000 does not use them, except as noted in previous reference I provided whereby on start-up Win2000 will check autoexec.bat for paths. Win2000 does not use those files when up and running.
That Win2000 does check autoexec.bat for paths is also documented at another M$ reference:
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/100843
There it is, again. Win2000 checks autoexec.bat at start-up for path info.
That’s the way, sweetie, just close your eyes and keep repeating it and maybe you’ll wake up in a new magical realm where that is true.
From Poptech on July 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm:
That’s the way, darling. Ignore the facts, say it over and over again, louder and louder, declare your grand victory, and maybe possibly someday the world will rewrite itself and you really will be correct!
Wrong, those are the proper ways to write applications to run in Windows 2000. Not caring means you are an incompetent idiot who has no business writing code. The difference between incompetent hacks like you and myself, is I know the right way to do things that does not cause other problems.
It is an irrefutable fact that the computer illiterates at NASA/USGS and Mosher do not know the difference between Windows ME (Millennium) and Windows 2000 or how to properly set the Path environment variable in Window 2000.
Thanks for helping me write my article embarrassing you. I’ll make sure everyone reads it.
Poptech said on July 22, 2014 at 4:31 am:
Nah, it ain’t.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.populartechnology.net/
“This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.”
Since you’re keeping your site from being archived, you can change posts, change dates, and pretend that’s how things always were, even if you make the changes months and years later. Just like SkepSci does, except you do it smarter as SkepSci allows themselves to be archived so the changes might be traceable, and John Cook is not anonymous.
From Poptech on July 22, 2014 at 6:45 am:
The “proper way” is the only way? How many of your climate science postings have you submitted for peer review?
Yet setting environment variables in autoexec.bat with Win2000 is endorsed by M$. If they really didn’t want it to happen, they only had to remove the capability.
Instead, as I have shown, they have documented how autoexec.bat is used in setting paths. If you don’t want people doing it, why detail how it works?
It is an irrefutable fact the method will work, as is confirmed by M$.
And now everyone at NASA/USGS is a “computer illiterate”? Your high standards have already slagged off 99.998% of the WUWT readership as “computer illiterates”. Why not add in NWS and IRS and even the VA to your list, and all other government agencies?
With “everyone” loosely defined as you and the rest of your team of mutual back-patters.
Oh, PS:
Perhaps if you were an English major, you might have noticed with your construct you called yourself an incompetent hack, by using the plural. For example, with “The difference between coffee beans like Arabica and Robusta, is…” it is clear that Robusta is also a coffee bean. The correct form uses the singular, “…between an incompetent hack like you…”
I will charitably write that off as a simple grammatical mistake, such that an English major shouldn’t make, rather than a Freudian slip.
And as you had selected “myself” you should have used “yourself” as well, or the “you and me” pairing instead.