|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 17:07:51 GMT
icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdfIcecap.us cherrypicks from the words of one the reviewers: "But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature"But icecap.us choses to leave out this part from the same reviewer: The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.Strange that.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 17:11:31 GMT
For the background see: tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/Although it’s not stated outright, the paper clearly implies that the strong correlation accounts for so much of the tropospheric temperature variation that little is left to attribute to greenhouse gases. One of the authors, Bob Carter, does say so outright in a press release related to the paper:
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”
We already knew that there’s strong correlation between SOI (or other el Nino measures like MEI) and temperature, whether surface or tropospheric temperature, whether global or tropical. But the real reason they note such strong correlation is that their analysis method removes all temperature variation which is due to trend — which of course makes it impossible for their analysis to indicate anything whatever about the trend.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 28, 2010 19:31:18 GMT
For the background see: tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/Although it’s not stated outright, the paper clearly implies that the strong correlation accounts for so much of the tropospheric temperature variation that little is left to attribute to greenhouse gases. One of the authors, Bob Carter, does say so outright in a press release related to the paper:
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”
We already knew that there’s strong correlation between SOI (or other el Nino measures like MEI) and temperature, whether surface or tropospheric temperature, whether global or tropical. But the real reason they note such strong correlation is that their analysis method removes all temperature variation which is due to trend — which of course makes it impossible for their analysis to indicate anything whatever about the trend.Due to trend from what SoCold? Are you using models again? Remember, those are slab models. Tamino leaves a lot to be desired. Like William, I have posted numerous times on Real Climate, and each post has not seen public view. I understand that Real Climate hates to let someone post links to papers etc, look at the geological record, etc as they are a shrill for AGW. However, the science is very overwhelming that the slight bump in temps of the past 150 years is certainly nothing out of the ordinary in the Holocene Period. AS to cause? That deff remains to be established. It is very hard to seperate the natural variation out of the co2 variation as the natural variation fits to a "T" what has been happening.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2010 19:47:55 GMT
socold, This is a link to the paper that the AWG cabel believes must be censored. socold, the authors of this paper are stating that they were not offerred an opportunity for rebuttal. If we measure your arguments by naming calling and adjectives you win. Name calling and censorship is not however part of the scientific method. Comment: Logically if Svensmark is correct as GCR is the highest in 50 years we may experience some global cooling. I am curious what back pedaling will follow. ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/InfluenceSoOscillation.pdf
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 19:53:39 GMT
What Mclean may have done is over conclude, but Tamino did nothing to support his claims either. In either case, there is no reason why the authors should not have been given an opportunity to state their case or modify the conclusion. socold probably thinks this is the first time peer review bias has entered the arena of climate "science". It is now past 18 months since McIntyre submitted his comments on Santer 08 concerning how they stopped their analysis at 1999 and that extending it out to 2008 completely discredited their paper. Where was Tamino on that? AWOL. Now that is pal approved propaganda masquerading as science. Here's another one sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/SURFACE TEMPERATURES: In 2007 I published a paper with Pat Michaels showing evidence that CRU global surface temperature data used by the IPCC are likely contaminated due to socioeconomic development and variations in data quality. In 2008 Gavin Schmidt published a paper in the International Journal of Climatology claiming our results, as well as those of de Laat and Maurellis who independently found the same things we did, were spurious. My rebuttal, coauthored with Nicolas Nierenberg, was submitted to the IJOC in April 2009.
McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2009). Correlations between Surface Temperature Trends and Socioeconomic Activity: Toward a Causal Interpretation.
We found out in February that it has been rejected. Interestingly, it turns out that the IJOC had sent Schmidt's paper, which focuses on defending Phil Jones' CRU data against its various critics, to be reviewed by none other than Phil Jones of the CRU. As you can imagine the review was rather enthusiastic and uncritical. The IJOC didn't ask deLaat or me to supply a review, nor did they invite us to contribute a response. And they have rejected the response we did submit, on the basis of some loopy referee reports to which Nico and I were not given a chance to reply (though we did anyway). Nice way they run a journal over at IJOC. The paper is being upgraded and submitted elsewhere. Recall the IJOC was a target for re-education by Jones et al in the emails To say ENSO does not have long lasting effects is ignorant. It took eight years for the East Indian and Western Pacific oceans to cool back to pre-El Nino levels. We can be confident by the end of 2011 warmologists will reassure their patrons it is only weather and that any day the Big Warm (CAGW) is coming. I have the Met O climate model predictions bookmarked.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2010 20:01:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 28, 2010 20:01:46 GMT
icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdfIcecap.us cherrypicks from the words of one the reviewers: "But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature"But icecap.us choses to leave out this part from the same reviewer: The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.Strange that. How did you get copies of the entire review? Only the reviewer, the journal and the authors have that information and it wasn't released by the authors.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 20:25:22 GMT
socold, This is a link to the paper that the AWG cabel believes must be censored. It should have been censored. Sadly it was published. As one of the reviewers said: "The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature."I doubt it. They were offered an opportunity for rebuttal, the problem was their rebuttal wasn't good enough. From reading it over it looks like they just rehash the same arguments and don't address the critical points leveled at them. That might work on the internet, but it isn't going to work in peer reviewed literature which has standards. It didn't help a bit that they span their results to imply that the temperature-SOI correlation meant that the longterm temperature trend could be explained naturally. That was a logically indefensible claim.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 20:35:37 GMT
What Mclean may have done is over conclude, but Tamino did nothing to support his claims either. In either case, there is no reason why the authors should not have been given an opportunity to state their case or modify the conclusion. As the criticism says: "The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations" The worst of this is not the suggestions in the paper, but what was said outside the peer reviewed literature. Bob Carter claimed: "close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions"Which doesn't really add confidence to his credibility does it. Why did he make such a school-boy error? And of course it got paraded around the blogs. Verrry carefully worded so that correlation in variability would lead people to think it meant it was the cause of the longterm trend. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/surge-in-global-temperatures-since-1977-can-be-attributed-to-a-1976-climate-shift-in-the-pacific-ocean/
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2010 20:38:28 GMT
Socold, A general anonymous comment that the writer does not like the paper is not a scientific comment. Do you have anything scientific? As I noted Tamino who runs the "Open Mind Blog" is Grant Foster which you did not disclose. Is this another junk paper? The planetary response to a change in feedback is obviously negative rather than positive. ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 21:05:47 GMT
oh william, trying to change the subject?
Why do you figure that makes any difference?
And can you explain why McLean paper got so much traction on skeptic blogs with the idea that recent warming was caused by the SOI-temperature correlation? Why promote something so obviously wrong if they are all being honest and "scientific"? Do you have an answer for that one?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 28, 2010 21:28:55 GMT
oh william, trying to change the subject? Why do you figure that makes any difference? And can you explain why McLean paper got so much traction on skeptic blogs with the idea that recent warming was caused by the SOI-temperature correlation? Why promote something so obviously wrong if they are all being honest and "scientific"? Do you have an answer for that one? Why don't you answer my question?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 22:29:54 GMT
lets just say it was obtained illegally
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 23:33:04 GMT
lets just say it was obtained illegally Sure it was...... The whiner about the "illegally obtained emails" that were illegally withheld now has no problem with reviewer comments from a peer review process that somehow magically get leaked.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 23:45:04 GMT
oh william, trying to change the subject? Why do you figure that makes any difference? And can you explain why McLean paper got so much traction on skeptic blogs with the idea that recent warming was caused by the SOI-temperature correlation? Why promote something so obviously wrong if they are all being honest and "scientific"? Do you have an answer for that one? Explain how Lockwood and Frohlich got so much traction when it was so obviously wrong. Or Mann Or a slew of other "peer reviewed" pro AGW articles belonging to File 13?
|
|