In a blow to the Real Climate “hockey team” one team member’s paper, Steig et al Nature, Jan 22, 2009 (seen at left) has been shown lacking. Once appropriate statistical procedures were applied, the real data spoke clearly, and it was done in a peer reviewed paper by skeptics. Jeff Condon of the Air Vent writes via email that he and co-authors, Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, and Steve McIntyre have succeeded in getting a paper accepted into the prestigious Journal of Climate and asked me to re-post the notice here.
The review process was difficult, with one reviewer getting difficult on submitted comments [and subsequent rebuttal comments from authors ] that became longer than the submitted paper, 88 pages, 10 times the length of the paper they submitted! I commend them for their patience in wading through such formidable bloviation. Anyone want to bet that reviewer was a “team” member?
As WUWT covered in the past, these authors have demonstrated clearly that the warming is mostly in the Antarctic Peninsula. Steig et al’s Mannian PCA math methods had smeared that warming over most of the entire continent, creating a false impression.
WUWT visitors may want to read this primer which explains how this happens. But most importantly, have a look at the side by side comparison maps below. Congratulations to Jeff, Ryan, Nick, and Steve! – Anthony
Jeff writes:
After ten months of reviews and rewrites we have successfully published an improved version of Steig et al. 2009. While we cannot publish the paper here, we can discuss the detail. Personally I’ve never seen so much work put into a single paper as Ryan did and it’s wonderful to see it come to a successful conclusion. This is the initial post on the subject, in the coming weeks there will be more to follow.
Guest post by lead author Ryan O’Donnel.
——–
DOING IT OURSELVES. . . a tongue-in-cheek reference to the RC post here:
Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction
(Accepted 11/30/10, Journal of Climate)
Ryan O’Donnell Nicholas Lewis Steve McIntyre Jeff Condon
| Abstract
A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include: (a) improper calibration of satellite data; (b) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (c) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. We propose two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35oC decade-1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. We also find differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the Peninsula.
Copyright © 2010 American Meteorological Association (early online release to be available on or around Dec. 7th) |
Temperature trend Deg C/Decade Click to enlarge.
Some of you remember that we intended to submit the analysis of the Steig Antarctic reconstruction for publication. That was quite some time ago . . . and then you heard nothing. We did, indeed, submit a paper to Journal of Climate in February. The review process unfortunately took longer than expected, primarily due to one reviewer in particular. The total number of pages dedicated by that reviewer alone – and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper. Another contributor to the length of time from submission to acceptance was a hardware upgrade to the AMS servers that went horribly wrong, heaping a load of extra work on the Journal of Climate editorial staff.
With that being said, I am quite satisfied that the review process was fair and equitable, although I do believe excessive deference was paid to this one particular reviewer at the beginning of the process. While the other two reviews were positive (and contained many good suggestions for improvement of the manuscript), the other review was quite negative. As the situation progressed, however, the editor at Journal of Climate – Dr. Anthony Broccoli – added a fourth reviewer to obtain another opinion, which was also positive. My feeling is that Dr. Broccoli did a commendable job of sorting through a series of lengthy reviews and replies in order to ensure that the decision made was the correct one.
The results in the paper are generally similar to the in-process analysis that was posted at CA and here prior to the submission. Overall, we find that the Steig reconstruction overestimated the continental trends and underestimated the Peninsula – though our analysis found that the trend in West Antarctica was, indeed, statistically significant. I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.
In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound. A few of the choices made during implementation were incorrect; a few were suboptimal. Importantly, if those are corrected, some of the results change. Also importantly, some do not. Hopefully some of the cautions outlined in our paper are incorporated into other, future work. Time will tell!
Lastly, I’ll give a shout out to other folks whose comments helped shape the paper by their comments and analysis. In particular, Roman, Hu, and Carrick . . . thanks!
nature?……ok
Congratulations! The sun is rising!
But do you know why the Antarctice Peninsula is warming?
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/10/a-wind-in-antarctica/
What does this do to the overall antarctic trend?
1957?
Wanna bet that is the coldest year in Antarctica in the 20th century.
I guess I hadn’t really known of the existence of Stieg 2009 but I had come across the idea that antarctic warming was focussed on the penninsula. In fact I’ve always assumed this was the mainstream position. Has Stieg et al 2009 ever had any impact in antarctic research?
This is a fine example of how the scientific method is supposed to be applied. The process in general works. Sometimes it just takes an extraordinary mount of effort though. I will examine your paper carefully and completely. Work like this deserves nothing less.
We assume this paper’s new-and-improved techniques will be consistently implemented with integrity by AGW catastrophists heretofore unaccustomed to heeding any conclusions but their own. Or will cold-is-warm, flat-is-round, up-is-down themes continue to clog Warmist arteries it always has?
Well done, now I just need a JOC link.
REPLY: That won’t come until Dec 7th. – Anthony
My feeling is that Dr. Broccoli did a commendable job of sorting through a series of lengthy reviews and replies in order to ensure that the decision made was the correct one.
Watch your backside Dr. Broccoli. The team is sharpening their knives.
Very interesting. I have no idea who is right. But, both papers conclude Antarctica is warming.
Congratulations guys! I followed this closely at the Air Vent while you were doing the analysis, it was a totally impressive collaborative work back then, and a blast to watch. I have no idea how you managed to condense it to under 10 pages, but I look forward to reading it when its published. I was blown away by your amazing analysis. Steig’s was quite an impressive piece of work too if you ask me. I’m glad you were able to refine and improve it. Very nicely done!
Re the third reviewer, in any of the correspondence, were there any statements like…
“I’ll keep it out somehow.”? Love to be able to see some back n forth emails.
Many kudo’s to all involved!
Anthony, summat trivial here, but what appears to be an inconsistency. In your write up it sounds as if the ‘sticky’ peer reviewer submitted 88 pages, where in the author comments following the abstract (did I miss where it said who actually wrote that bit?), it looks as if there were 88 pages total including both the peer reviewer comments AND the author replies….
Question for all… anyone know why that larger cooling area might be occurring? I mean, are there topographical features that would account for it, or ?? My first thought had been perhaps that area was generally significantly higher altitude… So I did a quick google for Antarctica topo, without much success – or does Antarctica really have no significant altitude differences across virtually the entire interior as the topo’s I found seemed to show?
Also, can these same methods be applied to the Arctic to obtain any better results than those currently used?
Needless to say it will be quite interesting to see just how much mainstream media the paper receives compared to all the coverage we’ve seen of how ‘Antarctica is warming faster than we thought….’
REPLY: yes, that was just clarified by Ryan O over at the air vent in comments, I’ll make an adjustment to the text to correct this mistake. – Anthony
I am assuming, or at least hoping that a Letter to the Editor of Nature is now either in progress or contemplated.
I wonder if a front cover has ever been retracted before ??
It’s nice to be diplomatic and all that, but my own personal view after reading Steig et al., when it first came out was that it was another example of the scientific fraud permeating the climate science industry.
….. and I have seven papers in Nature. Real ones.
Well done gentlemen! I can’t wait for the meat and potatoes. We can only hope as more and more skeptical papers get publish the acceptance of skeptical opinions will become more and more prevalent in the climate science community. Given the hoops you had to jump through, it must be very gratifying.
This is a signal event. The wall has been breached. Whereas papers like this could be suppressed before, the post-climategate environment is more open. The debate has, at last, been joined and the believers and the skeptics are moving onto a more level playing field.
I really feel sorry for the folks who had grown accustomed to having everything go their way. This will not be an easy adjustment for them. The responses to this paper may not be civil.
First up – congratulations and thanks.
Mike says:
“Very interesting. I have no idea who is right. But, both papers conclude Antarctica is warming.”
I think that the information content of the new paper that could be applied to understanding the underlying causal factors looks very different to the Steig et al Paper. I think it is safe to say given the review process that COLMc paper is right.
Peer review rarely includes more than three appraisals… a fourth reviewer (in addition to the associate editor) is really exceptional.
Mike says:
December 1, 2010 at 8:29 pm
As I recall – been a while since I read it – S09 never actually concluded “Antarctica is warming,” rather, it warmed 50-60 years ago, but hasn’t done much since. It seems if you start the “trend” in the late 60s or so it’s pretty flat…
Mark
I followed the original investigation of the Steig paper at ClimateAudit and it was an exciting process. Steig didn’t provide critical information to aid in the analysis of his paper, so it took time for people like Ryan, Jeff, Jeff, Roman Hu and Steve (apologies to those I’ve omitted) to figure out how Steig et al had reach their conclusions. I remember well the day that they “broke the code,” so to speak.
Congratulations, Ryan et al. Much can be accomplished when good, talented people work together in pursuit of scientific truth.
The fraud about what has been happening in the Southern Hemisphere has been perpetrated for far too long. The record colds, some of which seem to predate Western style measurement , have been purposely ignored. Yet there is a fair chance that it is the water volume in the Southern Hemisphere that ‘controls’ the average temperatures, major temperature balancing, etc. around the globe. Rather than the largely regional effect of Arctic ice, etc.. This is a good start.
In his post quoted above, Jeff Condon writes “I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.”
The headline of this article “…rebuts Steig et al” is surely an example of what he hopes will not happen, and will set a trend. Can it be changed?
88 pages of review dialog? I’d love to see it. Do all the reviewers get to see the others’ reviews? They, and especially the fourth, would be on notice to review things carefully.
Oh well, congratulations to the authors for seeing it through. I like the increased warming on the peninsula, it seems to fit what “everyone” has been saying!
Looks like a little hiding of the decline going on at the South Pole.
On April 27, 2006 we have this temperature anomaly graphic
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
And 18 months later we have this revised one “based on a
pencil whippedrevised analysis that included better inter-calibration among all the satellite records that are part of the time series”:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239
No shame. No shame at all.
There is no warming going on in the antarctic interior. It is cooling. The antarctic interior is ostensibly the best place on the planet to observe the isolated effect of CO2. It is isolated from intrusions of warm air by a barrier called the antarctic vortex, it’s the driest place (by far) on the planet with less than 2mm average annual precipitation.
One can easily examine the Vostok surface temperature record from 1958 to 2009 and see there has been no warming.
The only speculation I could find about how this is possible is a story about change in the ozone hole that increased the strength of the vortex and with the strength of the barrier to warmer air moving in from nearer the coast.