An interesting note on a change in how peer review may work. I noticed this recently mentioned in a newspaper article, where a researcher said he submitted his paper to Science, but it got passed on and published in a more specialized Science-Something journal.
“… with my last two submissions …. the journals practice cascading peer review and would forward my rejected article — along with the reviews — to the next appropriate journal in line. I would not have to write another cover letter, change my reference style, or go through the resubmission process and wait in line for an editorial assistant to handle my submission. My dossier would go straight to the editor.
Which leads me to ask the editors and publishers who practice rejection referral whether they are seeing more submissions to their top journals from authors like me?
If the practice of cascading peer-review becomes standard within the industry, the function of editorial and peer-review becomes less about gate keeping and more about finding an appropriate home for a manuscript. In this world, rejection rates, as an indication of selectivity and brand identity, start to lose their meaning. Similarly, an author’s choice of where to publish becomes less about choosing a journal and more about cultivating a relationship with a publisher.
This puts larger publishers in a distinct advantage, especially those who manage a portfolio of titles within a discipline….”
_________
I noticed there’s been a proliferation of little journal families showing up lately.
Russia’s official press agency RIA Novosti is citing a report from the American National Academy of Sciences about how global warming [глобальное потепление] will make allergies worse.
Let’s all spam Cuccinelli. He cites RIA Novosti as an authoritative source on science, and now the line has changed!
You can follow their discussion by using the google translation tool and searching глобальное потепление.
There is also an interview with the top meteorologist Roman Vilfand. He says that due to global warming the cold Arctic air is stalled out over European Russia and Siberia because of anticyclones like last summer with the heat. Usually they get the air from the Atlantic.
Vilfand is the head of of an agency called Roshydromet. It’s sort of like NOAA. The article claims, “Oddly enough, the abnormal cold is related to global warming.”
He says this pattern will be repeated. Last summer destroyed their crops.
Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: February 24, 2011
“… An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.
The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.
[bogus balance paragraph here]
In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”
Nor did the report fault Jane Lubchenco, NOAA’s top official, for testifying to Congress that the correspondence did not undermine climate science….”
“… a continuous CO2 record over the past 20 Myrs. Results show a gradual decline from 450 ppmv around 15 Myrs ago to 280 ppmv for pre-industrial conditions, coinciding with a gradual cooling of the Northern Hemisphere land temperatures by approximately 12 K, whereas there is no long-term sea-level variation caused by ice-volume changes between 13 to 3 Myrs ago. We find no evidence for a change in climate sensitivity other than the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2.
The reconstructed CO2 record shows that the Northern Hemisphere glaciation starts once the average CO2 concentration drops below 265ppmv after a period of strong decrease in CO2. Finally it might be noted that we observe only a small long-term change (23 ppmv) for CO2 during the mid-Pleistocene transition ….”
(Note, would someone get a jump on the automatic keystroke bot brigade by explaining “the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2” as used there? I’ll bet the robots will find that phrase and claim it proves something.)
Ah, that’s been caught.
In the first interactive comment posted on that paper, and the commenter writes:
“Minor comments
p. 438, lines 16-17: “We find no evidence for a change in climate sensitivity other than the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2.” Climate sensitivity accommodates for the saturation effect (i.e., it is cast in log space), so the second half of the sentence is misleading and should be cut. The first half should be revised too, given that the authors conclude that climate sensitivity was higher than the present-day during their paleo-interval (!)”
John E. Pearsonsays
re: 555 scientists cleared
Surely if they weren’t guilty of {\it something} they wouldn’t have needed clearing. (My feeble attempts at humor occasionally need explanation. This is one.)
Thanks for the tip. I took a look at that post. I am not that sophisticated at this Internet stuff. Does this mean that Pete Ridley is trying to trick people by blaming someone else for his posts?
john byattsays
It is indeed a mystery snapple, I thought that Mike WtD handled it very well.
it could go ferret, oops i mean feral ,
You got it .
Had a go at Re captcha for the cause . hetHe Uoon=o , n=o was below
john byattsays
Its getting stranger snapple, at “the climate sceptics”
the real pete is claiming in defence that the nasty post was in Australia time zone and his own posts are in UK zone,
small problem, the nasty post was never put up, must be psychic?
“Pete Ridley” seems like a very confused person. He was raving indignantly that I deleted one of his comments on my site, but he also quoted my response to what he said. It’s very weird. I have no idea what he’s talking about.
I don’t think I have deleted any comments by “Pete Ridley” because his comments show what morons denialists are. Probably “Pete Ridley” commented on a different post and lost it. Or maybe he put it on a different blog and got all mixed up.
Now “Pete Ridley” demands that I answer science questions he poses.
This is so ridiculous. First the denialists call the scientists liars who are supposedly “hiding the decline” in temperature. Now the denialists admit it is warming a little bit but that the warming and the CO2 will be beneficial for the plants.
So how were the scientists “hiding the decline” in temperature if it is getting warmer? Denialists sound like Goldilocks tasting the bears’ porridge.
For example, parents who warn their young kids too emphatically that crossing the street is dangerous, that a truck may come along and squish them, may find that their children now cross the street with their eyes closed – thus avoiding having to see that terrifying truck. (Note that fear appeals are often very useful. They backfire when they’re unbearable.)
It appears the only way is to take each group separately , impossible, so we need to work out which group is in the majority and target them with the message that would help them best ?
Has anyone else noticed that the WDC for paleoclimatology seems to be down?
Lorius´s carsays
Hi everyone,
can anyone elucidate to me what as caused the erly 20th Century warming? I gather that the solar forcing originally reconstructed by Lean or Solanki has been more than cut n half by Wang and others – what is the ikely insolation impact (in Watts/m2) from 1900-1945 or so?
Ray Ladburysays
LC, in addition to increased insolation, this was also a period of exceptionally low volacanic activity, and increased greenhouse gasses probably played some role as well. Tamino has looked at this on his blog using his two-box model, although I don’t know if can find the analysis there or would need to consult the guide to the old posts on skepticalscience.com
In the revised Lean reconstruction (the latest I’ve got, anyway), the change in average TSI (total solar insolation) from 1900 to 1950 is about 0.5 W/m^2. That translates to a change in climate forcing (accounting for geometry and albedo) of only 0.09 W/m^2. At a sensitivity of 0.75 K/(W/m^2) that would induce warming of only 0.07 deg.C.
Most people don’t appreciate the significant impact of the early 20th-century lull in volcanic activity. It can have a long-term effect due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. For an exploratory analysis, see this and this.
Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors
1. Nadine Unger
2. Tami C. Bond
3. James S. Wang
4. Dorothy M. Koch
5. Surabi Menon
6. Drew T. Shindell and
7. Susanne Bauer
Lorius´s Carsays
To all the nice people who provided the good answers I got: Thank you all very very much indeed! Just a few follow-up questions: Tamino, do you have a link to the latest Lean reconstruction you mention? And is there any difference between the solar forcing of this Lean reconstruction and that of Wang et al. (2005)?
An interesting note on a change in how peer review may work. I noticed this recently mentioned in a newspaper article, where a researcher said he submitted his paper to Science, but it got passed on and published in a more specialized Science-Something journal.
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/02/24/price-of-rejection/
“… with my last two submissions …. the journals practice cascading peer review and would forward my rejected article — along with the reviews — to the next appropriate journal in line. I would not have to write another cover letter, change my reference style, or go through the resubmission process and wait in line for an editorial assistant to handle my submission. My dossier would go straight to the editor.
Which leads me to ask the editors and publishers who practice rejection referral whether they are seeing more submissions to their top journals from authors like me?
If the practice of cascading peer-review becomes standard within the industry, the function of editorial and peer-review becomes less about gate keeping and more about finding an appropriate home for a manuscript. In this world, rejection rates, as an indication of selectivity and brand identity, start to lose their meaning. Similarly, an author’s choice of where to publish becomes less about choosing a journal and more about cultivating a relationship with a publisher.
This puts larger publishers in a distinct advantage, especially those who manage a portfolio of titles within a discipline….”
_________
I noticed there’s been a proliferation of little journal families showing up lately.
Russia’s official press agency RIA Novosti is citing a report from the American National Academy of Sciences about how global warming [глобальное потепление] will make allergies worse.
http://eco.rian.ru/danger/20110222/337289461.html
Let’s all spam Cuccinelli. He cites RIA Novosti as an authoritative source on science, and now the line has changed!
You can follow their discussion by using the google translation tool and searching глобальное потепление.
There is also an interview with the top meteorologist Roman Vilfand. He says that due to global warming the cold Arctic air is stalled out over European Russia and Siberia because of anticyclones like last summer with the heat. Usually they get the air from the Atlantic.
Vilfand is the head of of an agency called Roshydromet. It’s sort of like NOAA. The article claims, “Oddly enough, the abnormal cold is related to global warming.”
He says this pattern will be repeated. Last summer destroyed their crops.
http://murmansk.kp.ru/online/news/835803/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=1&hp
(Hat tip to: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/25/6129357-morning-maddow-february-25 )
Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: February 24, 2011
“… An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.
The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.
[bogus balance paragraph here]
In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”
Nor did the report fault Jane Lubchenco, NOAA’s top official, for testifying to Congress that the correspondence did not undermine climate science….”
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/437/2011/cpd-7-437-2011.pdf
Clim. Past Discuss., 7, 437–461, 2011
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/437/2011/
doi:10.5194/cpd-7-437-2011
© Author(s) 2011. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Climate of the Past Discussions
This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Climate of the Past (CP).
Please refer to the corresponding final paper in CP if available.
Continuous and self-consistent CO2 and climate records over the past 20 Myrs
“… a continuous CO2 record over the past 20 Myrs. Results show a gradual decline from 450 ppmv around 15 Myrs ago to 280 ppmv for pre-industrial conditions, coinciding with a gradual cooling of the Northern Hemisphere land temperatures by approximately 12 K, whereas there is no long-term sea-level variation caused by ice-volume changes between 13 to 3 Myrs ago. We find no evidence for a change in climate sensitivity other than the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2.
The reconstructed CO2 record shows that the Northern Hemisphere glaciation starts once the average CO2 concentration drops below 265ppmv after a period of strong decrease in CO2. Finally it might be noted that we observe only a small long-term change (23 ppmv) for CO2 during the mid-Pleistocene transition ….”
(Note, would someone get a jump on the automatic keystroke bot brigade by explaining “the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2” as used there? I’ll bet the robots will find that phrase and claim it proves something.)
Ah, that’s been caught.
In the first interactive comment posted on that paper, and the commenter writes:
“Minor comments
p. 438, lines 16-17: “We find no evidence for a change in climate sensitivity other than the expected decrease following from saturation of the absorption bands for CO2.” Climate sensitivity accommodates for the saturation effect (i.e., it is cast in log space), so the second half of the sentence is misleading and should be cut. The first half should be revised too, given that the authors conclude that climate sensitivity was higher than the present-day during their paleo-interval (!)”
re: 555 scientists cleared
Surely if they weren’t guilty of {\it something} they wouldn’t have needed clearing. (My feeble attempts at humor occasionally need explanation. This is one.)
# 512 snapple,
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
Two articles , may help
Thanks for the tip. I took a look at that post. I am not that sophisticated at this Internet stuff. Does this mean that Pete Ridley is trying to trick people by blaming someone else for his posts?
It is indeed a mystery snapple, I thought that Mike WtD handled it very well.
it could go ferret, oops i mean feral ,
You got it .
Had a go at Re captcha for the cause . hetHe Uoon=o , n=o was below
Its getting stranger snapple, at “the climate sceptics”
the real pete is claiming in defence that the nasty post was in Australia time zone and his own posts are in UK zone,
small problem, the nasty post was never put up, must be psychic?
“Pete Ridley” seems like a very confused person. He was raving indignantly that I deleted one of his comments on my site, but he also quoted my response to what he said. It’s very weird. I have no idea what he’s talking about.
I don’t think I have deleted any comments by “Pete Ridley” because his comments show what morons denialists are. Probably “Pete Ridley” commented on a different post and lost it. Or maybe he put it on a different blog and got all mixed up.
Now “Pete Ridley” demands that I answer science questions he poses.
This is so ridiculous. First the denialists call the scientists liars who are supposedly “hiding the decline” in temperature. Now the denialists admit it is warming a little bit but that the warming and the CO2 will be beneficial for the plants.
So how were the scientists “hiding the decline” in temperature if it is getting warmer? Denialists sound like Goldilocks tasting the bears’ porridge.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/4709115/Three-die-off-Antarctica
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4708428/Emergency-airlift-at-McMurdo-in-strife
Unusual extreme weather
Ross ice shelf setting sail
Just another couple of ticks in the boxes eh.
.
apathy versus denial
It ain’t their fault?
http://www.psandman.com/col/climate.htm
What to do?
For example, parents who warn their young kids too emphatically that crossing the street is dangerous, that a truck may come along and squish them, may find that their children now cross the street with their eyes closed – thus avoiding having to see that terrifying truck. (Note that fear appeals are often very useful. They backfire when they’re unbearable.)
It appears the only way is to take each group separately , impossible, so we need to work out which group is in the majority and target them with the message that would help them best ?
Has anyone else noticed that the WDC for paleoclimatology seems to be down?
Hi everyone,
can anyone elucidate to me what as caused the erly 20th Century warming? I gather that the solar forcing originally reconstructed by Lean or Solanki has been more than cut n half by Wang and others – what is the ikely insolation impact (in Watts/m2) from 1900-1945 or so?
LC, in addition to increased insolation, this was also a period of exceptionally low volacanic activity, and increased greenhouse gasses probably played some role as well. Tamino has looked at this on his blog using his two-box model, although I don’t know if can find the analysis there or would need to consult the guide to the old posts on skepticalscience.com
Lorius´s car @565 — Lack of volcano eruptions + excess CO2. See the vocanic lull thread on
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Open_Mind_Archive_Index.html
Re: #565 (Lorius’s car)
In the revised Lean reconstruction (the latest I’ve got, anyway), the change in average TSI (total solar insolation) from 1900 to 1950 is about 0.5 W/m^2. That translates to a change in climate forcing (accounting for geometry and albedo) of only 0.09 W/m^2. At a sensitivity of 0.75 K/(W/m^2) that would induce warming of only 0.07 deg.C.
Most people don’t appreciate the significant impact of the early 20th-century lull in volcanic activity. It can have a long-term effect due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. For an exploratory analysis, see this and this.
Any comments on this?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/0906548107.abstract
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/road-transportation.html
Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors
1. Nadine Unger
2. Tami C. Bond
3. James S. Wang
4. Dorothy M. Koch
5. Surabi Menon
6. Drew T. Shindell and
7. Susanne Bauer
To all the nice people who provided the good answers I got: Thank you all very very much indeed! Just a few follow-up questions: Tamino, do you have a link to the latest Lean reconstruction you mention? And is there any difference between the solar forcing of this Lean reconstruction and that of Wang et al. (2005)?
Lean (2011)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=solar+irradiance+author%3AJ+author%3ALean&as_subj=phy&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=0
Lean and Wang
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%2Blean+%2Bwang+solar+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0