Sunday, August 29, 2010

Judy and the INTERTUBES

Over at Stoat (UPDATE: Wm is still not impressed) Judith Curry is learning about the INTERTUBES, given enough eyes, everything is checked. Wm. Connolley, who in a previous life was a modeler with the British Antarctic Survey, put up a detailed criticism of Liu and Curry's recent paper, Accelerated Warming of the Southern Ocean and Its Impacts on the Hydrological Cycle and Sea Ice, which seeks to explain the increasing sea ice extent in the Antarctic winter in the face of a warming Southern Ocean

Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall
but, eventually as it must, Liu and Curry conclude that
The increasing heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice
The latter has the denialosphere up in arms. That, as they say, is their business.

Hank Roberts has been. . . . annoyed by Liu and Currys' not mentioning (the great mentioner, at least in Web of Science, being the currency of science. Engineers and physicians take cash) Manabe, Spellman and Stouffer, published in 1992 as well as Zwally, Comiso and Parkinson from a decade later on which appear to have. . . .anticipated the Liu and Curry paper (see comments at Stoat and elsewhere). IHRHO the claims of"newness" in the Ga. Tech press release accompanying Liu and Curry, were. . . (Eli is trying to be nice and searching for the appropriate words) a bit over the top

Curry eventually replies to Wm's criticisms in detail, including
3) the hypothesis that you put forward is not novel.

We cite the Zhang 2007 paper that describes a different mechanism that is not inconsistent with ours, but does not include the atmospheric hydrological cycle. I probably read the Manabe et al. paper back in the 1990’s, but didn’t recall it as we were writing this paper. Did any of you (other than Grumbine) actually read the Manabe paper? There is one statement in the Manabe paper that is relevant: “ the reduction in surface salinity resulting from the increase of freshwater supply at the oceanic surface is mainly responsible for the weaker convective activity in the G integration.” This statement is made in a paragraph discussing the deep ocean convection in the Southern Ocean. Manabe doesn’t discuss the increasing sea ice extent in this context. Grumbine connected the dots in the Manabe et al. paper and came up with generally the same idea we did (we came up with the idea via a different route), and describes it in a half sentence. So, our hypothesis is not put forward per se in the Manabe et al. paper. I occasionally check in at Grumbine’s site, didn’t spot his post on the Antarctic sea ice. Note, the Zhang paper did not cite the Manabe paper either; it just doesn't say much about the Antarctic sea ice.
She also mentions that
Hank, see answer to question #3 re the Manabe paper. Why was a press release issued on this? Georgia Tech (along with nearly every other university) encourages researchers to publicize any results that they think are of broad interest. Pretty much anything that gets published in a journal with a press embargo policy (e.g. Science, Nature, PNAS) is in this category.
and Hank points to the obvious

No, that wasn't my question. I understand press releases are routine.

I asked why the language of the press release suggests the idea is new, because it was familiar to me as a casual reader, e.g. Zwalley et al. 2002 mention:
"... [Manabe et al., 1992], gives the counter-intuitive result that the sea ice cover would actually increase with global climate warming ..."

Curry, mounts high horse, and replies
Hank, the paper was reviewed by 3 reviewers at Science and 3 reviewers at PNAS. None of the reviewers mentioned that this was unoriginal (or said we should cite Manabe or Zwalley). Your previous post mentioned the Manabe et al. 1992 paper. I read the paper, see message 43 point 3. They mention increasing snowfall in the context of oceanic deep convection but not in the context of sea ice. As far as I can tell, this is the first time a Zwalley paper has been mentioned in the context of our paper.
Zwally, et al. (btw, everyone has been inserting an extra e) has been heavily cited and not to put a fine point on it, but one of those cites is to a 2004 paper by a J. Liu and J. A Curry and Douglas G. Martinson Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability

Now some, not Eli he hastens to add, might have expected anyone who cites an article to have at least read the abstract, which reads in part
The observed increase in Antarctic sea ice cover is counter to the observed decreases in the Arctic. It is also qualitatively consistent with the counter-intuitive prediction of a global atmospheric-ocean model of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean.
Others, might soldier on and read the first page, which includes this nugget:
[Manabe et al., 1992], gives the counterintuitive result that the sea ice cover would actually increase with global climate warming. The physical processes in the model that cause the predicted sea ice increase are increased precipitation with a warmer atmosphere in polar regions, more snowfall on sea ice, lower salinity in the near-surface ocean layers, more stable mixed layer and reduced heat flux to the surface, and consequently, more sea ice.
At this point the auditors go nuts. Must be a tribal thing.

18 comments:

TimChase said...

You note how Curry had responded to Hank, "They mention increasing snowfall in the context of oceanic deep convection but not in the context of sea ice. As far as I can tell, this is the first time a Zwalley paper has been mentioned in the context of our paper."

Then you point out that Zwalley actually had mentioned growing sea ice -- even in the abstract. Clearly this means that Hank was out to trick her. After all, any time that someone criticizes her and she defends herself by denying the validity of their criticism that demonstrates she doesn't know what she is talking about its a trick, right?

dhogaza said...

It's a trick to demonstrate her decline ...

judith said...

Ah, the who said what when assessment. Have fun.

EliRabett said...

Actually, it's the who read and said the opposite audit. You're it.

EliRabett said...

And yes, it's Zwally not Zwalley. Pay attention you in the back.

dhogaza said...

But, Judith, you're all in favor of citizen auditing and blog scientists smearing people in your field.

David B. Benson said...

What dhogaza just wrote.

Sauce for the goose is...

TimChase said...

Eli said, "And yes, it's Zwally not Zwalley. Pay attention you in the back."

Sorry, Eli. I just copied and pasted in quotes what you had apparently copied and pasted in a blockquote. As such the original misspelling would appear to be hers.

TimChase said...

It looked wrong to me, and I probably should have checked.

EliRabett said...

Don't worry Tim, but it is an excellent example of the copy and paste telephone effect. However, since Jay Zwally is a pretty well known polar ice type you would think the polar ice folk would know how to spell his name. FWIW

dhogaza said...

"Sauce for the goose is..."

To go a bit further, sauce cooked in part by the gander, who now complains when some of it splashes upon her...

Anonymous said...

Scaredy Mouse says: Mkay, what's up with climate science? Did the Science and PNAS reviewers not read the cites? Were they unfamiliar with the literature? Don't these journals use appropriate reviewers? Or did the reviewers and editor find enough novel information in Liu and Curry to warrant publication? If so, these guys and gals are cream puffs when reviewing stuff submitted by a big name IMO.

Or is there an implicit understanding that authors self-police? Or is it all fair in love, war, big business and submissions to Science and PNAS?

I ask Eli's humble opinion.

TimChase said...

Scaredy Mouse wrote, "Scaredy Mouse says: Mkay, what's up with climate science? Did the Science and PNAS reviewers not read the cites? Were they unfamiliar with the literature? Don't these journals use appropriate reviewers? Or did the reviewers and editor find enough novel information in Liu and Curry to warrant publication? If so, these guys and gals are cream puffs when reviewing stuff submitted by a big name IMO."

Judith misspells "Zwally" as "Zwalley" twice over at Stoats. This much was indicated above in the context of the quotes -- Eli quoting her from over at Stoats then my copying the quote. (In fairness to Curry, however, Hank misspells it twice and correctly spells it three times. Then again, Hank didn't heavily reference a paper by Zwally in a peer reviewed paper back in 2004.)

Furthermore, the Curry paper where Zwally 2002 was mentioned wasn't the most recent paper. In fact this was precisely Hank's complaint (at least with respect to the press release) when he wrote,

"I asked why the language of the press release suggests the idea is new, because it was familiar to me as a casual reader, e.g. Zwalley et al. 2002 mention:

"'... [Manabe et al., 1992], gives the counter-intuitive result that the sea ice cover would actually increase with global climate warming ...'"

... but it would seem to apply to Curry's 2010, not just the press release for it -- as Zwally isn't mentioned even once. And this was one of Eli's points.
*
Judith Curry and coauthors referenced the Zwally paper in a paper published 2004, and as Eli mentions the paper was heavily referenced -- and it was in Zwally 2002 that increased snow and fresh water reducing mixing were mentioned as causal factors in increased sea ice.

In fact, Eli stated above, "Zwally, et al. (btw, everyone has been inserting an extra e) has been heavily cited and not to put a fine point on it, but one of those cites is to a 2004 paper by a J. Liu and J. A Curry and Douglas G. Martinson Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability."

So in both of her peer reviewed articles the name "Zwally" wasn't misspelled -- in the 2004 Curry paper where she and coauthors referred to him a fair amount or in the 2010 where she and coauthors didn't refer to him at all. Therefore the reviewers weren't asleep on the job as far as that goes. They were however asleep when it came to letting such an unoriginal paper get through.

Then again the reviewers may not have written a paper than heavily cited Zwally's 2002 paper and then written a piece that gives the same explanation a few years later -- and treated the idea as something entirely novel. Judith Curry has.
*
Scaredy Mouse wrote, "Or is there an implicit understanding that authors self-police? Or is it all fair in love, war, big business and submissions to Science and PNAS?

"I ask Eli's humble opinion."

See above.

glacierchange said...

Hank and Eli nice work.
This is odd the main authors on Antarctic sea ice through the years have been Zwally, Parkinson, Comiso and Cavalieri. It is not like you would not have to reread their work as you prepared the paper. I am not at work but I recall reviewing an earlier paper by this group that had some merit in this area possibly the one below or an Annals of Glaciology paper.

Cavalieri, D. J., P. Gloersen, C. L. Parkinson, J. C. Comiso, and H. J.
Zwally, Observed hemispheric asymmetry in global sea ice changes,
Science, 278, 1104–1106, 1997

Belette said...

Hello Wabbit, I wrote a bit more: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/round_in_circles_with_accelera.php

Horatio Algeranon said...

Horatio probably read that E=mc^2 somewhere, but did not recall it when he was writing his latest ground-breaking paper, which reveals this (and much more -- eg, that gravity warps space-time... and that Blond is actually Madonna's natural hair color)

Lazar said...

more sloppiness

TimChase said...

Lazar -- Nicely done!