Loehle has not been able to get this paper published in a peer-reviewed journal of repute for a simple reason - there is no “there there”, as they say.

Loehle arbitrarily picks a period of 54 months, between two specific dates, to get a small negative value (of the upper ocean, the deep ocean is not measured.) The arbitrariness of the dates alone ought to raise questions in your mind: why pick that particular month in 2003 for a start, and that particular month in 2008 as and end date? And why 54 months, when most changes in the oceans themselves are often thought of in much longer terms (such as PDO) or are highly variable (e.g., ENSO)? If he wants to use a 54 month moving average for ocean data then so be it, but at least calculate (and graph) that for the entire history of measuring the ocean surface temperature!

Loehl is using Argos data (at least according to his Heartland presentation), but none of the scientists involved in Argos are part of Loehle’s work, and given the statements on the Argos (and associated entities’) website I really doubt they would want to be.

Now as for the publication, Energy and Environment …. it should not be confused with a peer reviewed journal that is accepted in scientific bodies. It is not part of any publication system of any professional scientific body. What it is, though, is the private enterprise of a well known AGW denier, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, and if you look at the pages of Energy and Environment’s website you can find all sorts of AGW-skeptical publications (and a couple of books); the magazine is normally concerned with engineering and social issues. It does not look objectively at climate science and is explicitly hostile towards the subject of AGW.

Loehle has been spending his time trying to come up will all sorts of “cycles” by looking at select climate data. None of it is worthwhile. It reminds me of people who study the equity markets and plot all sorts of data looking for mysterious cycles… without understanding the basics. IMO, Loehle might as well be doing astrology, with all his data fitting to cycles.

In summary, the link given is either fake science, or bad science. Which is exactly why it never gets the attention of the real scientists.

So, the link given is well worthy of a down-ding.