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!
Minor typo:
“longer that the submitted paper”
[Correction facilitated… thanks… bl57~mod]
Mike says:
December 1, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Very interesting. I have no idea who is right. But, both papers conclude Antarctica is warming.
————————————————————
If you look at the error bars, you will find out that the improved trend is not significant.
And if you read the “primer” amd start with 1980 instead of 1957 – what appears to be more important in the context of AGW – the trends are negative (even Steigs), and significantly negative.
1980 to 2006 trend (AWS era)
Steig 3 PC -0.06 deg C./decade
New 7 PC -0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC weighted-0.20 deg C./decade
New 7 PC wgtd imputed cells -0.21 deg C./decade
May I echo the suggestions already made in this thread re use of the term ‘rebuts’ in the header? How about ‘disagrees with’?
In passing, I note that one of the co-authors of Steig et al (2009) is listed as ‘M.E.Mann’. While I’ve no reason to doubt that there is merit in the paper, the presence of this name among its authors does not inspire my confidence that its conclusions are to be taken without a heap of salt.
(n.b., I am not the same commenter as ‘HR’)
Since there seem to be some general adherence to using screaming red and hot yellow to show positive changes wouldn’t it then be prudent to include a notice about the actual reference temperature anomalies these colored temperatures are relative too.
Is it a wonder otherwise that media and propagandist just bend it however they please and let the readers imaginations do their job for them?
A lot of people actually seem to believe these days that Arctic and Antarctic temperatures as well as high altitude temperature are now on the positive scale ’cause they’ve seen images of that.
After all -43° +0.06° (in change) really do have a more positive effect on people’s minds.
Another shout out here to change “rebut” in the title – you’re giving alarmists an open goal to shoot at and allowing them to shift the debate onto the (irrelevant) title of the post rather than the (important) substance.
[Since those are Anthony’s words I am not willing to make the change. He, when he is available today, will make that decision. More shout-outs are not going to speed the process. They may, however, hit the trash…. bl57~mod]
So why has the Antarctic Peninsula warmed whilst Antarctica has cooled?
Simple as it may seem, the PCA seems prone to modelling and interpretational problems. I get the feeling that to use this method for critical statistical analysis requires insights that few, outside the group of specialists in field, master.
This is what happens when prestigious scientific journals like Science and Nature succumb to the pressure of the “grant stooges” of the IPCC and thier circle of freinds dedicated not to the advancement of science but the politics of funding. Mentioning AGW in the grant application is why grey squirells can be studied in GB, cat population in Canada and cockroaches in Australia. Lindzen was right; if you want money to research anything you merely have to link it to the AGW conjecture and your chances for gaining funds increases in concert with your ability to create predictions of calamity due to it.
Nice work!
Well the paper doesnt rebut Stiegs paper but it corrects it and makes it look amateurish. But it rebuts an important part of the global warming circular reasoning
and exposes important gaps in it as well how the “spin off” esclates from even smaller errors och miscalculations. There is an amplification factor involved when it comes to conclusions. I think this observation is very important.The “team” has taken any opportunity to draw extreme conclusions from thier work. So thats whats rebuted here. The new paper changes an important chapter of the “Global Warming Story.
Congratulations Ryan, Jeff, Nicholas and Steve. I can’t imagine how much work and perseverance it took to get a cover page of Nature corrected and the bastion of Team-climate-science set right in a major climate science journal. A great achievement really.
Fantastic news! Well done guys.
*****
Mac says:
December 2, 2010 at 4:19 am
So why has the Antarctic Peninsula warmed whilst Antarctica has cooled?
*****
It probably is heated by the circumpolar current. See …
http://www-paoc.mit.edu/paoc/papers/VerdyMarshallCzaja_sstACC.pdf
I remember when this paper came out…I was looking hard into the climate change controversy. I wasn’t sure who to believe. This paper came out, and I remember the immediate lashing it was taking on sites like this. I read the abstract and agreed it wasn’t much more than fancy guess work. Then I watched the Nightly News, and Brian Williams declared that a remarkable study has shown that Antarctica is warming too….yada yada. My jaw literally dropped. At that moment, I realized the sad state of how Global Warming is pushed by the media. Do you suppose if I watch Brian Williams tonight, he’ll mention this development?
Manfred says: December 1, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Hi Jeff,
if I remember the discussions, the most important point in my view with respect to AGW was a positive trend over the last 50 years, but a NEGATIVE trend over the last 40 years or so.
Right you are. IIRC, all the warming was between 1957-1969. For the last 40 years it has cooled. I hope this is highlighted in the paper.
If it is, that would “rebut” what the original paper claimed since the original paper glossed over this important fact.
Well done fantastic effort by all involved.The “Team” really needs to be aware of “Geeks” bearing gifts of this nature,how many more Trojan horse’s will they allow though before the gates are slammed shut… again to the sceptical argument??
R. de Haan says:
December 2, 2010 at 1:52 am
This is really great, thanks.
Just for the fun.
Disconnect between ice extent data and ice extent data.
Watch Joe Bastardi discuss the Arctic and Antarctic ice data and wonder if someone is cooking the books on the data. (video from last Monday)
http://www.accuweather.com/video/691895942001/monday-morning-sea-ice-global-temp-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj
Yes it’s rather embarrassing seeing someone put his foot in his mouth that badly. An unfortunate confusion on Bastardi’s part.
I really hope Josh is going to wave his pen over this one.
Maybe an allusion to Rorkes Drift
or perhaps Daniel in the lions den.
Quite an heroic achievment considering the huge odds against.
I wonder if that reviewer has ever had a climate science paper of his/her own given anything more than a rubber stamp.
I often wonder about cold systems (IE the cold spot in Antarctica). Since it is common to expect both warming and cooling in an always unbalanced system, I wonder what would happen if that cold spot rotated to the Peninsula? And has it been centered there before? Has anyone ever said, “Let’s take a trip to Antarctica over the ice bridge”.
What would be an excellent second paper would cover the atmospheric and oceanic conditions during this same time period. There is always a weather-related reason why one spot is warm while another spot is cold.
First, I would like to thank everyone for the comments, and Anthony for the repost!
Second, I would like to take some time to address some of the questions readers have raised:
a. Title of the post: I do not see any misrepresentation in Anthony’s use of the word “rebuts”. The paper is a rebuttal insofar as the specific methodology used by S09 is concerned. While I do feel that S09 made an honest – and quite clever – effort to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures, there are two unquestionable mathematical errors (S09 never properly calibrate the 1982 – 2006 portion of the principal components and allow the principal components to influence the estimation of ground station data). The former error has a material impact on the results. In addition, S09’s use of a heuristic thumbrule to determine the truncation parameters without investigating whether that thumbrule could be effectively applied in this case is another decision that should be rebutted in the peer-reviewed literature to prevent future misuse. The decision to predict the principal components without physical constraints provided by the satellite data was another suboptimal choice (though not an “error”). These points are specifically rebutted in the paper. In fact, these points are the whole reason the paper was written. The subsequent improved reconstruction exists only to show the magnitude of the effects of the errors and suboptimal choices. There is nothing inconsistent between “rebuttal” and “improvement”. “Repudiation”, on the other hand, implies that there was very little that S09 did properly, which would be a position I disagree with. There is much that S09 did correctly.
b. Retraction of S09: This, in my opinion, is entirely unnecessary. If every time an error or suboptimal choice was found in a previously published paper a retraction were performed, there would be little extant scientific literature for anyone to read. Gross mistakes that overturn the primary findings of a paper (or fabrications) are appropriate for retraction. However, I do not consider S09’s errors and choices “gross”, and, even if they were, one of the most important differences between S09 and previous gridded Antarctic reconstructions (e.g., Chapman & Walsh 2007 and Monaghan et al. 2008) is that S09 find statistically significant warming in West Antarctica. This finding is not affected by S09’s errors and choices. Our reconstruction finds statistically significant warming in West Antarctica as well, albeit with a smaller magnitude. In addition, S09 found that the continent as a whole had warmed, which is a characteristic also shared by our reconstruction though at a smaller magnitude.
Toto says:
December 2, 2010 at 1:29 am………..
Toto, thanks for posting that link to Eric Stiegs RC reply, – I usually avoid the place because of the rough justice and treatment of contrary views – but my, how they have ever so slightly cleaned up their act. but that dhogaza @1 June 2009 at 6:12 PM – is still the (self deleted!) embarrasment he is.!!
Congratulations Jeff and Ryan for trying to politely and properly engage for the sake of the advancement of science, your efforts are appreciated. Look forward to reading the published paper.
Ah hit the auto moderate bin for some reason and I deleted slimy!
toto says:
December 2, 2010 at 1:29 am
“Well, the original discussion of the analysis wasn’t. Look at this RC post (the comment thread is short, but awesome).”
—————-
Yes, I was also awed by how short it was. If Steig had posted his analysis at ClimateAudit, the thread would still be active. I was also awed by Ryan O’s and Jeff Id’s posts, which surprisingly, were allowed by Gavin and Steig. Not everyone gets the chance to respond over there.
Yes, it will be interesting to see what the response will be at RC after one of their bulldogs has apparently spent the past year trying to prevent the corrections to Steig’s paper from being published.
Ryan, Nic, Steve & Jeff
Your
skepticindependent paper is encouraging. Thanks and congratulations.Your transparency and openness is the real lesson that needs to be learned by those in support of the so called “RC Team”.
Next step is inclusion in AR5. : )
John
This post says it all! Same old same old “peer review” marathon but in the end, you guys prevailed! Bravissimo…