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!
Not that it matters but pluralization does not get an apostrophe anyway, except with variables.
Mark
Hi Anthony and Moderators,
Its looking as if Ryan (paper author) hasn’t checked back to the comment section since his last post… if possible, would you folks pass them my questions from post: Rational Debate says: December 3, 2010 at 6:22 pm and see if they’d be willing to reply? Thanks so much!
FWIW it’s neither. Kudos in is a noun like “respect”. You don’t have one or many. You don’t have a kudos or many kudos, you may have much kudos. It comes from the greek word that is transliterated as kudos , the s is part of the base word spelling nothing to do with english suffix indicating plural.
From my handy dictionary widget:
P. Solar is right, ‘kudos’ is neither singular nor plural; that appears to be what dbs was trying to communicate, only he said it backwards. The original problem was using an inappropriate apostrophe [kudo’s]. Maybe this will help.
Ok, if you guys are gonna be that way….. 😉
from websters (dictionary.com online), in present day usage there is singular kudo and plural kudos. Of course, they don’t hit the “many” vs. “much” issue, but gotta say that somehow ‘much kudos’ just doesn’t cut it somehow, correct or not. Note the etymology entry at the bottom, which is fun – refers to kudo as a barbarous back formation. Did a Dacian, Gaul, or Hunn with a massive sword come and lop off that “s?” 8>0
ku·dos
1 /ˈkudoʊz, -doʊs, -dɒs, ˈkyu-/ Show Spelled[koo-dohz, -dohs, -dos, kyoo-] Show IPA
–noun ( used with a singular verb )
honor; glory; acclaim: He received kudos from everyone on his performance.
Origin:
1825–35; irreg. transliteration of Gk kŷdos
—Usage note
In the 19th century, kudos 1 entered English as a singular noun, a transliteration of a Greek singular noun kŷdos meaning “praise or renown.” It was at first used largely in academic circles, but it gained wider currency in the 1920s in journalistic use, particularly in headlines: Playwright receives kudos. Kudos given to track record breakers. Kudos is often used, as in these examples, in contexts that do not clearly indicate whether it is singular or plural; and because it ends in -s, the marker of regular plurals in English, kudos has come to be widely regarded and used as a plural noun meaning “accolades” rather than as a singular mass noun meaning “honor or glory.”
The singular form kudo has been produced from kudos by back formation, the same process that gave us the singular pea from pease, originally both singular and plural, sherry from Xeres (an earlier spelling of the Spanish city Jerez), and cherry from the French singular noun cherise. This singular form has developed the meanings “honor” and “statement of praise, accolade.”
Both the singular form kudo and kudos as a plural are today most common in journalistic writing. Some usage guides warn against using them.
—clipped—
kudos
“fame, renown,” 1799, from Gk. kyddos “glory, fame, renown,” from kydos “glory, fame,” lit. “that which is heard of” (see caveat). A singular noun in Gk., but the final -s is usually mistaken as a plural suffix in Eng., leading to the barbarous back-formation kudo (first attested 1941).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
What a crock ! That is supposed to be a dictionary? So because an ignorant common misusage thinks every work with an S must be plural this now becomes official ? BS. What the hell that has to do with Xeres or cerise beats me.
NOTE: “French singular noun cherise” the dumb [/snip] who wrote this entry even got that wrong , the french word is cerise. So you can screw that online dictionary up and burn it. It’s probably been written as an off-shoot of Wikipedia: the online repository of human ignorance.
If that’s the case we can all stop wasting our time arguing science and climate. CO2 ” has come to be widely regarded” as pollution and the cause of catastrophic global warming. It must be true.
Ignorance rules!
[may or may not…. but…. vulgarity will be snipped, and was…. bl57~mod]
Well, gee, P. Solar, seeing as how you are so brilliant and all, as demonstrated in your post of December 7, 2010 at 2:14 am, one would think that it might occur to you that once a word, spelling, or phrase is in common usage for an extended period of time, now matter how it got there or how incorrect or what other language it came from, it actually does wind up included in dictionaries and becomes accepted correct usage. That’s how languages evolve over time, after all.
One would also think that it might have crossed your mind that the current French word and spelling for ‘cherry’ just might not be quite the same as it was many years ago… and might also note that the word ‘cherry’ is spelled with an ‘h,’ rather than being pronounced and spelled cerry. That it might also have occurred to you to try looking up the history of the word cherise before popping off with such a derogatory dismissal.
Then you’d think that it might have occurred to you to try looking up the etymology not only of kudos (where you will find other etymology sources also noting cherise), but also look up the etymology of the word cherry itself. You’ll find entries such as the following:
Cherry: Middle English cheri(e), from Old French cherise
and:
cherry
1236, from Anglo-Fr. cherise (taken as a pl.), from O.N.Fr. cherise, from V.L. *ceresia, from late Gk. kerasian “cherry,” from Gk. kerasos “cherry tree,” possibly from a language of Asia Minor. O.E. had ciris “cherry” from W.Gmc. form of the V.L. word, but it died out after the Norman invasion and was replaced by the French word. Meaning “maidenhead, virginity” is from 1889, U.S. slang, from supposed resemblance to the hymen, but perhaps also from the long-time use of cherries as a symbol of the fleeting quality of life’s pleasures. Cherry-pick, in a pejorative sense, first recorded 1972.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
As to what it has to do with pease, Xeres, and cherise (NOT cerise)? All you have to do is read what was already posted – pea, sherry, and cherry are all examples of back formations that occurred from those words based on the common usage and understanding of the language at that time, just as Kudo has been back formed from Kudos much more recently.
Last I knew, science was a tool we used specifically to avoid human bias and error – where languages are clearly flexible and constantly evolving. Hard to conflate the two, and yet you manage it. Me, I’ll stick with keeping them separate, thank you.
From RC today:
2010
Ryan O’Donnell: Our paper in the Journal of Climate shows a somewhat better way to look at the same data. Antarctica is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more too, and so the overall trends are smaller. Still, West Antarctica is definitely warming significantly, as Steig et al. found. That’s interesting.
Eric Steig: Nice paper Ryan. Thanks for sending along a pre-print.
Steve McIntyre: Hey, we got published in the Journal of Climate! Another paper showing that the “team” made up the data again! (Sotto voce): Ryan says it it is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more. Otherwise we get the same results, though the magnitude of the trends is smaller. But West Antarctica is still warming significantly. But I really don’t care. The peer review process is broken, which is why.. umm…our paper was published in the leading climate journal.
Liberal Media: That paper wasn’t published in Nature, so we’re not very interested.
Conservative Media: Antarctica is cooling. Global warming is a fraud.
Public: zzzZZZzzz
————-
P.S. For those actually interested, yes, I’ll have more to say about O’Donnell et al., but overall, I like it.–eric