tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2097513769355067648..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: As Easy as Rocket ScienceEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84244568923052268052011-06-17T09:21:14.766-04:002011-06-17T09:21:14.766-04:00James has some comments on open reviewJames has some <a href="http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2011/06/another-comment-and-reply.html" rel="nofollow">comments on open review</a>EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83023115849635700622011-06-17T09:05:41.171-04:002011-06-17T09:05:41.171-04:00Double blind has been proposed and indeed is used ...Double blind has been proposed and indeed is used in some fields/journals although over a lot of years and reviews Eli has never had the pleasure. The usual response is that it is up to the editors to pick good reviewers and that often it is easy to figure out what lab something came from. It's really not an issue for most. <br /><br />Of all of the proposals, the Eurojournal open reviews appear to Eli to be the best idea going.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68493077141657761262011-06-17T06:46:31.874-04:002011-06-17T06:46:31.874-04:00For those who don't already know, Pat Michaels...For those who don't already know, Pat Michaels has for some years been Chip Knappenberger's employer.<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33833081774410850212011-06-17T04:11:20.343-04:002011-06-17T04:11:20.343-04:00Eli, can you and the lagomorphs please tackle this...<i>Eli, can you and the lagomorphs please tackle this BS.</i><br /><br />Double blind reviewing. I must have reviewed a couple of hundred papers by now in the fields of Biochemistry/Biophysics/Mol Biol. I've participated in exactly one example of "double blind" peer review. Of around 80 papers published myself exactly zero were reviewed by "double blind" peer review.<br /><br />Of course poor old Dr. Michaels (and all of the other hand-wringing peer review concern trolls) <i>are</i> at a disadvantage compared to pukka scientists. They lack some of the attributes that make science, and scientific publishing (by and large), work, namely a burning desire to find stuff out about the natural world, and the personal standards of integrity to write good papers and (by and large) review papers properly an honestly.<br /><br />So maybe we can understand their angst a little, but we shouldn't feel too sorry for them, much as we have only a little sympathy for the little boy who is unhappy because his mother won't let him pull the wings of that beautiful butterfly...chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368677638818373162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87856793698834077022011-06-17T02:17:04.437-04:002011-06-17T02:17:04.437-04:00Bloody hell,
http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmicha...<i>Bloody hell,<br /><br />http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/<br /><br />Eli, can you and the lagomorphs please tackle this BS. </i><br /><br />Everything about this is ridiculous, but consider the source.<br /><br />"Double blindness" may be common in some fields, but it is certainly not universal, and as far as I am aware not applied widely in the Earth sciences. There are a couple problems with all the complaining done about this whole PNAS episode:<br /><br />1) The denialosphere is running wild with this notion of "The Team," as well as thinking that "climate" is in some way done differently than many other disciplines like astrophyiscs or geology. Creating this artificial distinction allows their rheotoric of claiming unfairness to get by more than it should. In individual cases bad reviews will come up, either in letting bad papers slip by or on the flipside, very bias reviewers not letting scientifically sound papers get through (this is the trouble we had with Halpern et al. in our G&T rebuttal to IJMPB, before we took it up with higher-ups). There are of course thousands of papers on climate science, and with countless people required to review work (some of this task may be carried over to graduate students for experience). The Michaels article makes it sound like a high church of 10 review priests that sit there and review papers all day, only accepting those who agree with pre-conceived notions, but this is of course absurd. Besides, what does a person gain from letting a paper by that they are not even authoring which turns out to be bad? <br /><br />2) If the denialists had their way, all reviewers would either be biased or unqualified by definition. We don't live in a world with expert robot reviewers. Scientists of all fields are human, and being experts, naturally have their own thoughts on the subject-matter of their expertise.chris colosehttp://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20671704393053668692011-06-17T01:11:38.383-04:002011-06-17T01:11:38.383-04:00Bloody hell,
http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmicha...Bloody hell,<br /><br />http://blogs.forbes.com/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/<br /><br />Eli, can you and the lagomorphs please tackle this BS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63074585084608275962011-06-16T21:14:04.743-04:002011-06-16T21:14:04.743-04:00Spencer has set a few useful stakes in the sand --...Spencer has set a few useful stakes in the sand -- stating facts about the physical world that can't be denied. When he draws a crowd averse to one of those and ready to copypaste the topic to death -- back away slowly, edge of Internet quicksand.<br />http://www.google.com/search?q=spencer+climate+"Yes+Virginia"Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11305302709636344012011-06-16T20:35:08.129-04:002011-06-16T20:35:08.129-04:00Actually Steve, as one who started his wanderings ...Actually Steve, as one who started his wanderings in the climate blogsphere completely in disbelief of CO2 having any effect, Dr. Spencers' blog was one of the main reasons why now I try to read everything with an open but critical mind.DeNihilistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90474905021614611702011-06-16T12:04:39.576-04:002011-06-16T12:04:39.576-04:00I don't understand how Eli is compormising the...I don't understand how Eli is compormising the process. Lindzen said who his invited reviewers are, and invited discussion of the process, and since the "Contribution" process is not blinded in respect to the author, this isn't really the same process as for most papers. That said, I think the reviews do not exist because the request for those reviewers was denied. I hypothesize that the reviewers were probably cherry picked and likely already indicated a positive disposition to the paper. This is speculation and it is moot at this point.Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8498514914375365722011-06-16T07:23:22.754-04:002011-06-16T07:23:22.754-04:00Eric said: Eli: I'm very disturbed by your cal...Eric said: <i>Eli: I'm very disturbed by your call to see the reviews. Lindzen has every right to keep the reviews confidential if he chooses to.</i><br /><br />Well yes, Eric it's unseemly and self-serving to dump confidential reviewers reports and editors letters to accompany these dreary acts of whining about unfair review. But Dr. Lindzen has decided to do so, so we're kinda stuck with it (unless we resolutely avert our eyes).<br /><br />Having seen the (very thorough and rather fair it seems to me) reviews of Lindzen and Choi 2011, and heard the associated bleating, it would be interesting on the grounds of getting a properly rounded view of this little farce, to see the reviews that Drs. Happer and Chou wrote, if they did in fact write reviews. Since much of the complaining seems to be about the PNAS review process (particularly in relation to Track III "Contributed" manuscripts), it would certainly help us to assess whether Dr. Lindzen was trying to take advantage of the system.<br /><br />It's Dr. Lindzen that has turned the confidential review process into a spectator sport. One can hardly then complain if the spectators feel they'd like a more complete view. There's nothing worse than settling down in ones's seat and finding that a stanchion is obstructing the view of the pitch...chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368677638818373162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60999279306267941422011-06-16T02:55:57.803-04:002011-06-16T02:55:57.803-04:00The problem, TP, is that this is in the larger con...The problem, TP, is that this is in the larger context of trying to create myths. The net effect of his blogospheric writings is to confuse.<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72879688030474919042011-06-16T02:26:23.855-04:002011-06-16T02:26:23.855-04:00Eli, note how Spencer uses quotation marks around ...Eli, note how Spencer uses quotation marks around "feedback" in the paragraph you quote. He is talking about how the *word* is used which is made clearer by how he says "it's just semantics". If he really thought, or wanted to imply, that climate scientists had done a serious error and not included the Planck radiation properly, do you think he would have called it semantics? Even someone who doesn't understand exactly what Spencer says should realize that he doesn't consider the issue serious.<br /><br />Steve Bloom, I have to disagree with you when it comes to giving credit. Posts like these deserve credit no matter what the authors may write elsewhere. It's far too common with people who refuse to try to correct people on their own side no matter what they say.On his blog, Spencer for example described how he went as far as to make some simple experiments to prove to some of his readers that there exist backradiation and a greenhouse effect. Scientifically this has, of course, not been in doubt for over a century, but nevertheless this is a myth that is spread among the contrarians, and Spencer is in a better position than most to dispel it.Thomas Palmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12135033271970754087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78503706386626664442011-06-16T02:24:01.484-04:002011-06-16T02:24:01.484-04:00Eric, of course Lindzen remains free to exercise h...Eric, of course Lindzen remains free to exercise his right to keep them confidential. Eli is just asking. The point is that Lindzen, in the course of making public a bunch of other material that wouldn't normally have seen the light of day (is it at all clear that he got permission?), implied an extraordinary claim about the quality of those reviews (if they exist). That being so, let's see the extrordinary evidence.<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74857511373688301652011-06-16T01:51:26.988-04:002011-06-16T01:51:26.988-04:00Re the role of the Planck feedback, IANAS but it s...Re the role of the Planck feedback, IANAS but it seems to me that the unconfusing way to explain it is to start with the black body situation, where it's solar forcing and Planck feedback with nothing else. Then even the dull will be able to grasp Raypierre's valuble description of the non-solar positive feedbacks as making the Planck feedback less negative. <br /><br />Re Spencer, his terminology slipped all over the place in the last paragraph but is correct if he's given the benefit of the doubt on the definitions. Don't criticize him for misunderstanding it, as the evidence for that seems not to be there. Do criticize him for yet another example of the sloppiness that, combined with some basic misunderstandings of the science, has resulted in what has to be the worst track record in the field.<br /><br />Spencer deserves no credit whatsoever, TP.<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51987441788498944862011-06-16T01:37:53.958-04:002011-06-16T01:37:53.958-04:00Eli: I'm very disturbed by your call to see th...Eli: I'm very disturbed by your call to see the reviews. Lindzen has every right to keep the reviews confidential if he chooses to. And indeed, he has a responsibility to do so unless he has express permission from the reviewers and the journal to do anything else. Lindzen is of course being an ass in claiming 'unfair review', but that's actually somewhat beside the point. <br /><br />Sigh.. .whatever happened to respecting the confidentiality of the process, let alone the idea of taking a negative review as an opportunity to learn something, and submit a revised and improved manuscript?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07024400862641057083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39042514572929125692011-06-15T23:16:51.693-04:002011-06-15T23:16:51.693-04:00Actually, as stated above- I think Happer may not ...Actually, as stated above- I think Happer may not have reviewed. The new PNAS rules are that all reviews are handled through the main office, so you wouldn't necessarily have them in hand when you initiate the "Contribution" process.Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53495362160364867672011-06-15T21:43:52.198-04:002011-06-15T21:43:52.198-04:00Chris, Eli is sure that you and Ray get such kind ...Chris, Eli is sure that you and Ray get such kind consideration when you make a statement that is only correct with an extremely charitable interpretation, and no, Eli is not so sure about what Roy Spencer said. <br /><br /><br />You are making the mistake that everyone is playing science. Spencer and Lindzen and Singer and the like are into Calvinball and if you play science and they play Calvinball, you lose.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9071501024461856532011-06-15T20:37:28.186-04:002011-06-15T20:37:28.186-04:00Eli-- I'm sure Roy Spencer meant that when we ...Eli-- I'm sure Roy Spencer meant that when we talk about "feedbacks" we think of the Planck response as a reference system rather than a feedback, and thus don't include it when we say things like "positive feedbacks are dominating the climate system." Of course, as raypierre mentioned, everyone knows it is the reference system. Really, there's more productive things to talk about.Chris Colosehttp://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21285480090909237442011-06-15T20:09:43.202-04:002011-06-15T20:09:43.202-04:00Thomas, you are welcome to the first and the last ...Thomas, you are welcome to the first and the last paragraph, but the middle of the sandwich <a href="http://www.newyorkerstore.com/1920s/its-broccoli-dear-i-say-its-spinach-and-i-say-the-hell-with-it/invt/116975/" rel="nofollow">Eli says is spinach</a><br /><br />"But the MAIN climate stabilizing effect is NOT included in climate “feedback”: the increase in IR cooling to space as temperature rises (the Stefan-Boltzman(n) effect). It’s just semantics, and leads to much confusion."EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26949665559099157192011-06-15T18:08:57.473-04:002011-06-15T18:08:57.473-04:00Thomas-- I think Roy was trying to clarify for som...Thomas-- I think Roy was trying to clarify for some other confused readers on that thread, and I'm just trying to reiterate the point here since a few readers here seemed confused. Not trying to jab at him too hard.chris colosehttp://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10802299776856596922011-06-15T16:47:20.931-04:002011-06-15T16:47:20.931-04:00Chris, did you read the rest of the thread? I had ...Chris, did you read the rest of the thread? I had no problem understanding what Spencer meant given the earlier comments. It may be somewhat sloppily written, but it is a blog comment not a scientific paper, so I think he can be excused. I suspect that because Spencer has said some stupid things at other times some try to interpret this statement as unfavorably as possible.Thomas Palmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12135033271970754087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63794819154874419282011-06-15T15:51:47.801-04:002011-06-15T15:51:47.801-04:00It's not just the technical literature that in...It's not just the technical literature that includes the Planck feedback to get a net negative (stabilizing) feedback; that is underlying all discussions of climate sensitivity. In the denominator of the expression for climate sensitivity, which is generally written as something<br />like beta0*(1-f), where f is a feedback factor (with sign convention that positive f means increasing climate sensitivity), that beta0 IS the Planck feedback. The reason that essentially all discussions center on cloud, ice and water vapor feedbacks is that the value of the Planck feedback is very well known, and there's really not that much to discuss. By now, the value of water vapor feedback is quite well known as well, but there's more to discuss there, since the reasons water vapor behaves as it does are fairly intricate. So Roy is addressing a point about which no doubt some people may be confused, but I don't see any widespread confusion myself in either the technical literature or in generally informed discussion on the subject.<br /><br />--raypierreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30539850998932438742011-06-15T15:31:56.566-04:002011-06-15T15:31:56.566-04:00Thomas,
You're right that I was ambiguous. B...Thomas,<br /><br />You're right that I was ambiguous. By "net positive" (in the first paragraph) I should specify that I am excluding the Planck response, and thinking of the sum effect of things like water vapor, clouds, albedo, lapse rate, etc. This is what "positive feedback" means in the context of climatology. In other words, these things can all act in concert to amplify the "baseline" 0.25 K/(W/m2) response by a factor of two or three without any need to call it an unstable scenario. I used the word "net" because I was thinking that individual feedbacks acting alone (such as the lapse rate response in a moist adiabatic atmosphere) can act as a negative feedback. In that sense, the Planck radiator "feedback" is not a feedback at all, but a baseline by which we evaluate whether positive or negative "feedbacks" dominate. As raypierre explained though, all this means is that they reduce the efficiency at which increased emission actually brings you to a new equilibrium.<br /><br />And yes, concerning my usage of the phrase when I talked about instability, I included the Planck response in this meaning. Sorry. This is all well understood by the feedback community, and is more a matter of semantics. The casual reader reading Roy Spencer's comment would get the impression that scientists were completely neglecting a big stabilizing feature in the climate system, which is absurd.<br /><br /><br /><br />In the final paragraph, I am including the Planck response.Chris Colosehttp://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13336048535353954212011-06-15T15:18:17.675-04:002011-06-15T15:18:17.675-04:00Chris Colose, in your short explanation you manage...Chris Colose, in your short explanation you manage to use two different definitions of "net feedback". First you state that net positive feedback corresponds to a sensitivity larger than 0.25 K/(W/m2), but in the last paragraph you state that net positive feedback leads to instability. It's exactly this ambiguity in definitions that Spencer was trying to explain.<br /><br />Roy Spencer may have some strange ideas regarding feedback, but he does understand the basic facts as discussed here, and should be lauded for being one of the "skeptics" who on a regular basis responds to the more crazy people on that side by trying to explain the basics, such as that there really is a greenhouse effect etc.Thomas Palmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12135033271970754087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66853543470133005032011-06-15T14:57:17.110-04:002011-06-15T14:57:17.110-04:00Can you please define what equilibrium means in th...<i><br />Can you please define what equilibrium means in the climate system? Since there was over 7,000ppm of co2 in the atmosphere at one time and the earth converted most of it into carbonate rock, my understanding of your argument is that the earth cannot do this again, even on a smaller scale. Furthermore, it is impossible to claim that man's influence is stronger on the climate than natural mechanisms. After all, the climate has risen to far higher temperatures naturally. Your telling us there is global warming even though the earth is below its GAT, so that doesn't make much sense. What could be simpler?</i><br /><br />Very little of this makes any logical sense. For one thing, Earth can still balance its outgoing radiation with the absorbed solar radiation (i.e., "equilibrium") with 7,000 ppm CO2. It just has to do it at a higher surface temperature for the same solar radiation & albedo. See Figure 2 in my SkS piece on the planetary greenhouse effect.<br />http://skepticalscience.com/Planetary_Greenhouse.html<br /><br />Secondly, there's no reason CO2 needs to stay locked up in rocks forever, and no reason humanity can't release ancient carbon in the form of fossil fuels and compete with natural processes that have operated in the past. In fact, weathering processes are trying to bring CO2 to near zero over geologic time, and outgassing from the interior balancing this process is what keeps our planet in a relatively habitable range.Chris Colosehttp://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colosenoreply@blogger.com