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.
If you care about your application running in a stable and reliable way in Windows and not breaking anything else then yes. Articles from my website have been cited in four peer-reviewed papers. I have submitted none because my articles were never meant to be published in a journal.
Quote, where they tell developers to do this. Many things in windows are still around for backwards compatibility and to get crappy code to run, that does not mean you should do it that way. I suggest a proper education in Windows application development.
You continue to miss the main point,
1. Did the authors of the MODIS Reprojection Tool Swath confuse Windows ME (Millennium) with Windows 2000?
2. Did Mosher fail to recognize this elementary fact that any competent and professionally trained programmer would have?
No, only people like yourself who argue about subjects they know nothing about. I respect people who do not get involved and do not make fools of themselves like you have.
From Poptech on July 22, 2014 at 8:17 am:
Given the metric tonnes of bovine-processed vegetable matter that we regularly find in peer-reviewed papers around here, and that includes other peer-reviewed papers that are given as references, that’s hardly a sterling endorsement. Besides, a sociology paper might cite a tampon commercial.
That’s two points. Which are you now calling the main one?
The point is you say it’s wrong, it wouldn’t work, and I have shown it does work.
You may now return to your anonymous blog, where you can write more nasty anonymous posts, which may be cited in a peer-reviewed sociology paper as perfect examples of the small-minded pettiness and meanness prevalent among the anonymous oil-funded well-organized climate “skeptic” community.
Ah, so people who shut up and never say a computer-related word around you are the computer literates, but those who dare to say anything computer-related that you will object to are clearly the computer illiterates. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
None of the citations were in a sociology journal.
You forgot to quote where Microsoft “endorses” telling developers to make changes to the Path Environment Variable in the autoexec.bat file in Windows 2000.
You are dodging the questions:
1. Did the authors of the MODIS Reprojection Tool Swath confuse Windows ME (Millennium) with Windows 2000?
2. Did Mosher fail to recognize this elementary fact that any competent and professionally trained programmer would have?
Avery Harden says:
July 22, 2014 at 11:03 am
=========================
The little subsidy problem is certainly one issue. You took money from someone else to have solar panels.
The environmental damage caused by building solar panels is another: http://voiceofsandiego.org/2009/02/16/the-not-so-sunny-side-of-solar-panels/
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/chinas-solar-panel-production-comes-at-a-dirty-cost/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
The economics of solar panels on your roof vs. the economics of supplying solar and wind power for industry are like chalk and cheese. You see, if you don’t want industry to stop on a cloudy day or when the wind isn’t blowing, you need backup generation on-line (because starting coal or nuclear, and, I believe, gas) takes quite a bit of time, so they can’t just be shut down, to be started when the wind speed/sunshine drops below what is needed — they must stay running.
You can make out OK with the solar on your roof, because, as you rightly observe, you have the backup of the utility company. Try cutting that little umbilical and see how you like your solar power.
The engineering doesn’t really add up.
Maybe my realism about “renewable” energy seems alarmist to you because, with all due respect, you don’t seem particularly well informed.
Avery Harden says:
July 22, 2014 at 2:30 pm
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.
=========================
More propaganda. The state builds roads. Oil, natural gas and coal get the same deductions as any other business — they receive few if any cash subsidies.
From Poptech on July 22, 2014 at 9:12 am:
And, as I alluded to, those could be negative citations, not positive ones. You have to look beyond Google-generated metrics. Those could be four citations from using your articles as examples of poorly-sourced biased ignorant dreck.
Does it matter if it is implicit or explicit? That last reference never did say to not do it. The capability is there, and M$ documented how it works. Programmers naturally follow the path of least effort, and M$ knows it. They knew the capability would be used if offered. That’s endorsement of the method.
You’re really asking for a written recommendation, which M$ wouldn’t do, as per that ancient “best practices” document you dredged up they preferred no one using them.
You cited as “evidence”:
Windows 95/98/2000 users must edit the AUTOEXEC.BAT file to add the path information and set the MRTSWATH_DATA_DIR variable.
and
Windows NT/ME/XP users must edit their user keys to add the MRTSwath PATH, MRTSWATH_HOME, and MRTSWATH_DATA_DIR to the system variables.
Yet that is what works. Win 95/98/2000 users can set those environment variables in autoexec.bat, NT/ME/XP can play with regedit.
The possible fault is “must” as path changes in 2000 can also be done with regedit.
So you were presented with legitimate directions, did not recognize them as legitimate, and proceeded to conclude the fault must be with NASA/USGS, namely getting ME and 2000 confused.
You even went so far as to write up an anonymous smear piece on your anonymous blog to loudly proclaim NASA/USGS and Mosher had all screwed up, you were the one who discovered this obvious truth.
So now for as long as your ego will allow that post to remain up and unchanged, knowledgeable people who read it will know NASA/USGS were right, Mosher was right, and it was all just another case of PEBKAC. Again.
[snip – way off topic this thread is not about Microsoft or software competence. no further responses. -mod]
[snip – off topic – not a thread on software -mod]
Bullshit, stop preventing me from responding.
Poptech says:
July 23, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Poptech, we all understand that by your lights, only the brilliant Poptech and his team know about software, Microsoft, programming, and all the rest.
We got your message. None of us measure up. None of us pass the Poptech test. You are the ultimate judge of whether someone is a programmer or not. And in your world, I’m not. Mosher is not. Never mind that I’ve put thousands of lines of code up in support of my work, and you’ve never commented on my code or found a single flaw in my work. Never mind that I programmed my first computer in 1963, when you were likely wearing diapers. Never mind that Mosher has written an entire suite of tools in R so that people can follow the work of Berkeley Earth, and you haven’t found flaws in those either … or perhaps you just can’t program in R, I don’t know. But clearly, on your planet, we’re just bumbling fools pretending to be programmers. Ok, we got it, enough already.
So could you move to a more interesting topic? Seriously, Poptech, it’s gotten really, really old. We know you don’t think we can program. We don’t care. We just continue to program, and you continue to complain … who are the programmers here?
So a change of subject would be in your best interest. You’ve convinced everyone you are going to convince, and at this point the rest of us are just pointing and laughing. Talk about something else for a while, OK? You know, like say … the science?
Thanks in advance,
w.
Nope, neither one of you have ever been professionally trained in computer science and neither has been professionally employed as programmers. Mosher does not even know the difference between Windows Millennium and Windows 2000, that is embarrassing and everyone here who is technically competent knows it. So I don’t have to show anymore to prove this.
More BS. I programmed a computer when I was a kid, but I did go around proclaiming to be a professional programmer and misleading everyone. You don’t even know elementary things like how to properly format your code.
Yawn, I don’t help hacks who do not know what they are talking about. The last thing I am going to do his help make his code better, which is why I have specifically avoided criticizing what is wrong. Any competent programmer can review his work and see he does not know what he is doing. I did a test and asked other professional programmers to review his stuff for competency and they came to the same conclusion I did. Take that however you like. Just remember we are laughing at you.
From Poptech on July 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm (bold added):
And never grew out of it.
Somebody pour some tranny fluid into Poptech, when his mouth goes on automatic there’s Freudian slippage. But not ATF, that’s also full of computer illiterates.
If it passes the syntax and other checks, compiles and assembles as applicable, runs as you want and doesn’t misbehave, then it was formatted correctly. Anything else is window dressing. All programmers know that.
Excellent strategy, by never venturing forth possible improvements you avoid revealing your own inadequacies, thus never have to suffer programmers showing you how you failed to comprehend how their code works or even failed to understand how the language works.
You have shown you have truly learned from the great pretenders of history and adhere tightly to the “lest you remove all doubt” principle. Oh wait, in this thread you didn’t. Sadness. Oh well, maybe you can find a new blog to baffle with… your professionally educated opinions.
Do you know any?
You had said it was your team that reviewed Mosher’s stuff. This is all boiling down to marketing. You and your team are the only ones you will admit are competent, or even computer literates, as saying otherwise means equivalent expertise could be found elsewhere.
Thus you are a salesman, promoting you and your team above anyone else, and thus a lying sniveling salesman as sufficient computer competency for all but rare niches and/or ancient equipment is easily found throughout the industry. Thus you would deceive your customers into believing your offerings are invaluable, to keep them from finding cheaper and better alternatives.
Which is a good reason to remain anonymous forever. If your clients would learn you consider all of them to be computer illiterates, complete morons no matter what skills they have, and have repeatedly oversold the quality of you and your team, they would make certain you and your team stop laughing at them and anyone else.
Found the secret name, perhaps, you be the judge. Much other info to consider.
Poptech uses “Andrew” at his site, lists himself as a “computer analyst”.
Here at this site, which appears to contain potheads, that was expanded to “Andrew K”. From Feb 2014. Reputed spoofing, you’re adults and can judge for yourselves actual identity and possible state of inebriation. Wording on pg 2 of comments is NSFW. I’m torn about including it, could be considered smearing, but it was the first part of the evidence trail I found.
http://www.limboclub.com/forum/threads/populartechnology-net.83268/
There was found a 2007 thread where there was a spirited discussion about “Mastertech” with a “Firefox Myths” site, “Andrew K” with his anti-Firefox anti-Open Source postings at Popular Technology, and how both claimed to be someone else but it was revealed they weren’t. And similarly “Andrew K” was “Andrew”. And “Andrew K” has been banned from forums for spamming, trolling, and also he was using sock puppets as found out by him using the same IP addresses.
http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2007/09/debunking-firefox-myths-page.html?showComment=1191099780000#c5404806598880480514
And that link goes to where he rebuts as Andrew Khan while complaining about potheads, then quickly posts an ‘Oops, typo’ comment as “Andrew K” a minute later.
The link comes from this well-researched post with more about “Andrew Khan”:
http://ipka.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/populartechnology-net-by-andrew-khan/
At the Avast! forum link, said forum reported as having banned Mastertech/Andrew/Andrew K, the following is apparently quoted from Mastertech’s profile, to verify you’d have to register. This is from 2007, I’d say it pretty well matches what we know about “Poptech”.
Sure sounds like someone who’d lay claim to unparalleled vast computer knowledge with tons of Windoze minutiae, looks down on virtually everyone else as “computer illiterates” who haven’t a clue, yet won’t even show they themselves can program “Hello, world!”
This is what I’ve found. You’re all intelligent rational people, decide for yourselves what you want to accept, including if Poptech is Andrew Khan, or perhaps the “accidental” reveal was merely planned misdirection. Search for yourself.
Although I’m finding Poptech being burned-out tech support who sneers at everyone else for being incompetent computer illiterates to be completely believable.
Kadaka why do you have to hide behind the moderators?
Kadaka this is old and you are not even original.
Did you just learn how to read?
Kadaka this is old and you are not even original.
Did you just learn how to read?
That is libel and you are one sick puppy. A demented user named “MrCharisma” from the Big Footy (Aussie Rugby) forums after losing a debate with me made a fake account on that site using my screen name. I commented here but nothing was done about it.
LMAO you are truly incompetent. More like, after I made a post about Firefox Fanboys the fanboys got mad, http://www.populartechnology.net/2005/01/firefox-new-religion.html
I have never used sock puppets. I dare you to find a single reputable site and prove me wrong. I always comment under Poptech, PT or some obvious variation of it.
You are now my puppet.
IPKA is a blog for an admitted Internet stalker that was started after he was banned from the Ron Paul forums for being, “a useless, annoying troll”.
“Andrew can shut up if he wishes not to be …followed or stalked.” – Bud [IPKA]
“I’m a real life stalker too, you just think I’m an internet stalker because you only see my online.” – Bud [IPKA]
“…can’t stalk you [Poptech] if you shut the f#ck up, so as long as you speak, you’ll be followed.” – Bud [IPKA]
“Bud” is a sockpuppet for “WaltM” and his blog IPKA. “WaltM” [IPKA] was so much of a lunatic he was banned from the Ron Paul forums.
“The guy [WaltM] is a useless, annoying troll, whether he realizes it or not.” – Ron Paul Forums
He has had a problem with me after I suggested he get a lobotomy.
This lunatic has compared me to a cop killer, http://ipka.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/james-sapp-was-a-global-warming-denier-just-like-andrew-of-populartechnology-net/ and a child molester, http://ipka.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/populartechnologys-latest-smear-against-skepticalscience-sks-al-jazeera-what-next-homosexual-womanizer-child-molester/
But this is where you go to get your “well researched information”. You are a reprehensible disgrace.
ROFLMAO, not even close. Popular Technology.net has been up since 2004 you computer illiterate. Do you need an education in how to use Google to do proper research?
Hello World, LMAO. Unlike you I was the lead coder on a game that was featured in things like PC Gamer Magazine.
Kadaka why do you have to hide behind the moderators?
This is why I only use real commenting software that has preview and editing features. The WordPress commenting system is garbage and always has been. It is the equivalent of running dial-up Internet today.
Says all hacks who are not professionally employed as software developers.
I don’t teach hacks either. R is essentially a glorified scripting language with just enough non scripted elements to fool people into thinking they are really programming.
There are a few other competent people that comment here but none of them are you.
Keep this in mind, you have no idea who I am or what I do. Yes, we are still laughing at you.
I only consider hacks and bullshit artists like yourself computer illiterates. Those wise enough not to embarrass themselves and pretend to be someone they are not, I have no problem with.
Wrong, none of them were negative, everyone positive and nothing had to do with a “Google-generated metric” or whatever that is.
Quote where Microsoft “endorses” telling developers to make changes to the Path Environment Variable in the autoexec.bat file in Windows 2000. Put up or shut up.
So you are in abject denial of irrefutable evidence that they confused Windows ME with Windows 2000? I have never seen someone lie like this before. Windows ME, NT and XP all parse the autoexec.bat file too for legacy compatibility reasons genius that does not make it the correct way to set the Path enviroment variable in any of them. It is irrefutable these computer illiterate hacks confused Windows ME with Windows 2000.
They were not legitimate directions but a computer illiterate hack screw up that is embarrassingly bad. Legitimate directions would be to set the Path environment variable the correct way in Windows 2000.
They did and it is embarrassingly bad. Keep lying you computer illiterate hack,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms954115.aspx
“Chapter 1. Windows 2000 Fundamentals
Requirements
5. Do not read from or write to Win.ini, System.ini, Autoexec.bat or Config.sys
Your application must not read from or write to Win.ini, System.ini, Autoexec.bat, or Config.sys. These file are not used by Windows 2000 systems“
I highly suggest the moderators let me respond.
I will do whatever is necessary to make sure my responses are seen here.
Kadaka how does it feel knowing you cannot debate me without the bitch moderators deleting my responses? Why are you such a coward tough guy?
From Poptech on July 24, 2014 at 6:02 am:
I am in no way whatsoever a moderator, manager, or owner of this blog. You might as well be the Sun asking me why I hide beneath the clouds.
If my comment at July 24, 2014 at 6:45 am is snipped I go to Defcon 2.
This thread is closed as it has turned into a poptech thread about software
From Avery Harden on July 23, 2014 at 11:04 am:
Many people are waiting for plug-and-play panels. The electronics are good enough, with micro-inverters sized for a panel, that you could prop one up on your deck or yard and just plug it into an outdoor wall socket.
http://plugandplaysolarkits.com/product/
However, they may be illegal as all hell. There’s the very real possibility of backfeeding from home power generation. A utility crew shuts down the high voltage line for work, but some idiot has a generator improperly hooked direct to his house wiring. Lights go out, generator automatically kicks in, the house voltage goes out to the transformer and a lineman gets fried from the resulting high voltage.
While the modern inverters for grid-tie have automatic cutouts, if there’s no line voltage coming in then they shut down to avoid sending out current, that’s not good enough. The utility wants shut off boxes outside, if they need to they can go around and shut out individual sources from the grid, with locks.
That site I linked to mentioned the 30% federal tax credit. But to get it you need an above-board installation with whatever permits and inspections the utility and anyone else wants. Which will be a pricey hassle.
So you can see the great wisdom in naming their product “Plug & Play Stealth 2.0” like you can sneak them onto your property, make your own current, and no one official has to know. It’s just a temporary installation, right?
They say the unit can make up to 216W in the example on the main page, which is why this Amazon listing says 250W, and also no contractors and permits. The site’s “Buy now” page clarifies it’s a 250W panel with a 240W inverter.
First unit is $1,147.95, which includes a wireless digital monitor. It’ll take up to five add-on units at $50 less for each, sans monitor as the first can handle the add-ons.
Meanwhile Home Depot sells a 250W panel for $375, which is about $100 more than the high-volume online stores. I’m pretty sure I could build a wood frame, grab a micro-inverter and any other wiring needed, and put together a “plug and play” system for under $600, possibly $500.
Now if an acceptable shut-off would be them unplugging a unit and locking a box around the plug (good enough for OSHA) and all the legality involved was that the utility knew where you plugged in and could do that quickly, wouldn’t solar look a whole lot better to a lot more people, even without tax credits?