Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,961 other subscribers
Shock News : Anthony Reports That The Temperature Record Sucks – Mosher Disagrees
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
So where’s Moshers paper?
That’s the exact same thing I was thinking.
Anthony let Mosher et al do a post critiquing Ross McKitrick. It’s an essay. That may be the closest to a peer reviewed work you’ll find of Mosher. Mosher’s understanding of the word “weighting” leaves something to be desired.
Link to the essay:
Ross McKitrick shows the flawed argument of Mosher et al:
On the second issue, you say “McKitrick supposes that the drop in altitude means a heavier weighting for coastal stations. The data do not support this” But then you proceed to show the sample of dropped stations, post-2005, is skewed towards inland sites. Only 9% of stations dropped are coastal as opposed to 30% in the larger sample, and 83.7% of dropped stations are inland rather than 64% in the sample. This represents a bias towards dropping inland areas and retaining coasts.
He has more to say of Mosher et al’s opinions in that post:
EM Smith on Mosher et al’s flaws in that post:
tallbloke had an issue with Mosher et al’s essay:
So quit it with ‘the pace of global warming’ rhetoric please.
Amino Acids in Meteorites also had issue with it 😉
Taking cooler location stations out of the record will potentially bias the actual temperature upward while not statistically significantly affecting anomaly.
I had more to say of the essay and Mosher’s feeling that GHCN is unbiased and reliable:
But anomaly is not an important issue in the media. We only hear about hottest year ever this, hottest decade ever that, in temperatures, not in anomalies.
rbateman had issue with it:
The diurnal, as in the difference between the high & low temps as a function of altitude.
If the rigor applied to climate change work product were equally applied in the financial community, arrests and prosecutions would follow.
dunno bout that..the banksters are well exposed same as climate frauds, and yet??
they are all walking free and doing fine on taxpayers funds so far..
Gleckler et al 2012 which was trumpeted from the rooftops last month showed a SST rise of only 0.125 C in 50 years.
But it is very hard to build airports and cities on the surface of the sea, then put themometers in them on black asphalt.
Done all the time. Washington National was built on the Potomac on fill.
Well, you could count on Mosh for that.
On related topic, Masters has gone nuts as usual, and claims that , “Oil-industry funded BEST study finds GW real and manmade.” Wow, he obviously hasn’t seen Anthony’s recent press release.
BTW Mosher is not a scientist is he? Hes really good at criminology ie GLEICK affair
As ‘best’ (no pun intended) as I can determine, his field is ‘logos’ (logic); the rendering of an opinion based on the step by step analysis of a situation …
He does a poor job at it!
I don’t think it’s going to matter for the next few years, as it won’t be official and out (assuming it can even get through the biased peer review) in time for AR5, so it will be ignored.
I read that the IPCC is apparently going to use Muller’s new paper as grey literature … that will not give them any wriggle room not to use Watts et al (2012).
Even if it was “peer reviewed” it would be out of AR/5 anyway.
AR/5 will be something that makes Tamino look like a real doubter.
By the way the only thing that will immediately detract from AR/5 credibility is an examination of all the authors affiliated with Greenpiece etc. It’s a complete farce now.
Mosher’s math sucks.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Maybe this made a skeptic out of Richard Mueller again.
The last paper McIntyre did that shook the foundations of the Team (Santer 08), it took 18 months to get it published and at least one or more journal rejections. Considering Santer 08 undoubtedly went through unscathed the first time and was a horrible (stopped data in 1999) example of scientific research, does anyone really think AW will get his published in a reasonable period?
OTOH, with all the publicity of how the peer review process has become a lackey for AGW, maybe the journals will be more careful as so many will be watching given the wide open approach AW has done using his weblog as a catalyst.
The thing about Mosher is sometime after 2009 he turned to the dark side. Sure he was always a lukewarmer, but generally an all around decent guy. Today however he could guest post for Tamino and nobody would know the difference. I’ve lost all respect for him.
And angry about it.
Maybe one reason Anthony is doing it this way is to put the peer reviewed journals and magazine over a log. Like you said the peer review process is being put more into the public eye. A long delay could end up working against the reputation of the peer reviewed publications. They may have to put it through quicker than other “skeptic” papers have been put through just to deflate some of the criticisms they’ve gotten over long delays.
If you look back at some of his older posts they seem to be from a different person.
Mosh sort of lost me when I read a comment of his over at the Blackboard. June was a warm month according to AMSU data (temps appear to have cooled down considerably since then), and he declared that all this nonsense about ‘global cooling’ could finally be put to rest. Now, whether we are still in a warm cycle or moving into a cool cycle is not something I know the answer to. But I did find it curious that Mosh could look at one month of data and draw such a long bow from it. Wasn’t he being guilty of the sort of thing he was criticising others of doing?
Looks like my hunch was right. AW’s interest in Steve’s USHCN code was a good clue. Next is the TOBS adjustment. The general nature of this adjustment is not proper. You can be more specific to times and locations than what Karl has done. Weather patterns in any given year in any given month of the year really make this one difficult to apply as they can be quite variable and could result in big over or under estimates. This adjustment is a quest to equalize to the midnight to midnight daily mean.
Excuse me, I meant monthly mean. Just so everyone knows, are daily records are from raw data regardless of reading time. It’s the monthly means they are tampering with.
I don’t think that getting Anthony’s paper published will be an issue. The big questions are where and when. After making the rounds of the Warmist rags, Jennifer Marohasy got the paper that she co-authered on the application of AI to seasonal rainfall forecasting in Queensland published in a Chinese journal. Thanks to Political Correctness in the Western world, that may be the wave of the future.
The real live apoplectic global warmers (the Real McCoy) despise Mosher anyway. They won’t even cite Mosher on this.
Mosher is not on the dark side. One just gets that impression because he has bad manners.