ERL has now published the comments of the second referee for Bengtsson's rejected paper. After pointing out that the authors used the wrong equation, calculating the smaller transient climate sensitivity when they meant equilibrium climate sensitivity and used the wrong, well inappropriate, units for the climate sensitivity, K/(W/m2) instead of K for same, the second referee piles on, concluding
The study would be much more valuable if it attempted to also begin to address the four questions posed in the conclusions. I suspect the answers are really quite mundane, although the tone of the discussion implies otherwise.And, oh yes, the ERL chief editor, Dan Kammen, is mad as hell. Graham Readfearn interviewed him, eliciting
He said the recent news coverage appeared to be an attempt to publish research “via the media” after it had been rejected through the academic peer review process.
He pointed out that even though Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected by ERL, “they are free to submit the paper elsewhere”.We at Rabett Run, await the review of the third referee