By Mike Jonas
The Paper
What seems like a very long time ago, I downloaded surface temperature data for the Southern Oceans to see if I could find, and learn anything useful from, the patterns of the AAO (AntArctic Oscillation). I fairly quickly got diverted from that exercise when I noticed a remarkable temperature pattern in the data which showed that the IPCC and the climate modelers had got the entire Southern Ocean stunningly and diametrically wrong.
Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.
So I wrote a paper, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal – Sage Publications’ Journal of Ocean and Climate: Science, Technology and Impacts. Now I freely admit that I thought the chances of the paper being published were low – not because it wasn’t good enough (I was confident that it was) but because it demonstrated a failure of the IPCC and the climate models. What I didn’t expect was that (a) the process would take nearly a year, (b) the journal would handle it so dishonestly, and (c) the editor would end up stating explicitly that he wouldn’t publish a paper that was critical of the climate models, after having promised the exact opposite. There’s more on that below – see The Review Process.
At the end of the process, with the paper having finally been rejected, I wanted to at least get the paper’s content into the public domain so that the work couldn’t be hijacked, and Jo Nova very kindly put it up on her excellent blog. See: Far Southern Ocean cools. Kiss Goodbye to polar amplification around Antarctica. In that article, there were also links to the covering letter sent to the journal with the original submission, explaining why the paper was less complicated than perhaps they were used to, and to the Supplementary Information that accompanied the paper.
The temperature pattern that I found was shown in this graph:
(The paper’s Figure 2): Linear trends in sea surface temperature around the Antarctic, by Latitude. (The four lists are described in the paper). High latitudes (further south) are on the left, low latitudes (further north) on the right. The up-tick towards latitude -72 is explained in the paper.
The IPCC report said “Feedbacks associated with changes in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles” and gave several supporting references. But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling. In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet! [Note where zero trend is on the Y axis].
OK, so the climate models are not expected to be accurate in every detail. But how wrong can they be before they are shown to be invalid? The paper argued that getting a complete ocean diametrically wrong over a period of more than 30 years is enough to show that the climate models are invalid:
- The climate models predict “amplified warming” in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica from sea ice and snow “feedback”.
- This amplified warming is expected to occur over a large area, and there is “high confidence” in it. (IPCC Report: “In summary, there is robust evidence over multiple generations of models and high confidence in these large-scale warming patterns.”).
- Satellite sea surface temperatures show the exact opposite. The strongest cooling occurred at the latitudes where most warming was expected.
- The cooling occurred over a period of 36 years. The modelers claimed that 14 years was enough for the feedback to manifest itself.
- The modelers had excuses – “deep ocean mixing, strong ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet” – but these aren’t unknowns, they are features that the models are supposed to model! As the paper pointed out: “If that explanation is correct, then they have identified some important large-scale climate processes that are not reasonably represented in the models. Without such processes, it is questionable whether the models are fit for purpose.”.
- The IPCC acknowledged that model projections did not match observations, but claimed that “[weather] station records are short and sparse” and that the models were more reliable than the data. The paper pointed out that comprehensive satellite coverage has destroyed that argument.
- The models must have failed to apply the laws of physics correctly in the Southern Oceans. The laws of physics are the same everywhere on the planet. The models’ results for all regions, and hence globally, must therefore be unreliable.
As I said in the paper:
The fact that the IPCC recognizes that it has a problem does not mean that the problem can be ignored. It means that they really do have a problem.
The Review Process
What was truly bizarre about the review of this particular paper is that the editor was complimentary about the paper (“this valuable analytical work”) and acknowledged that it was correct (“you are right as current models have many serious problems because of their poor resolution and their crude parameterizations of key processes”), but then refused publication saying quite openly that papers critical of the climate models were not needed because the models “need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt”!
Western governments have spent billions (trillions?) of dollars on climate boondoggles, thanks to the likes of the IPCC, and when have you ever seen them use a pinch of salt? And why on Earth would you take seriously a model with poor resolution and crude parameterizations?
The review process began normally (well I assume it was normal) apart from some delays with technical problems in the journal’s website. Two reviews were sent to me by the editor. They identified places where better explanations or more detail were needed, and I submitted a revised paper.
The reviewers of the revised paper found not one single fault with any of the paper’s data or logic, but they still recommended rejection. The sequence of events was as follows:
- There were delays early in the process, which led me to ask the editor whether he was reluctant to publish the paper because it showed that the IPCC and the climate models were in error.
- The editor assured me that the delay was not driven by political considerations. The editor then promised me that I would have right of reply to reviews.
- The editor sent two reviews by “Reviewer #1” and “Reviewer #2” to me. I responded politely and comprehensively to every point in the reviews and submitted a revised paper with more detail as requested.
- A month later, I was advised that Reviewers #1 and #2 had withdrawn saying they didn’t have time to review the revised paper.
- Another 3 weeks later, I was advised that 12 more reviewers had been approached to review the paper, and had all declined.
- Another 5 weeks later, the editor rejected the paper.
In the rejection email, Reviewer #2 (one of the reviewers who had withdrawn because they didn’t have time) re-appeared with a weak fact-free repetition of part of their original review, even though it had already been comprehensively dealt with. The most reasonable explanation seems to me that the editor contacted the two reviewers asking them to maintain their rejection recommendation, so that he (the editor) could justifiably reject the paper. The fact that one reviewer did not do so is perhaps encouraging.
But the editor had also found a third reviewer to write a rejection, and I was not given the promised right of reply. The review was of pathetically low quality (see the dialogue referred to below), but it gave the editor the excuse he needed to reject the paper. Maybe he didn’t honor his promise to give me the right of reply, because of the risk that the third reviewer could be “seen off” like Reviewer #1? I doubt I’ll ever know.
I complained to the journal that the editor had reneged on his promise to give me right of reply to reviews. They just sent my complaint to the editor, who didn’t reply in person but left it to a lesser editor to throw up a brick wall. After that, if anything it just got worse. The full dialogue with the journal is available here.
The thing that amused me most about the whole affair was the commentary which the editor included in his rejection letter, and which was stunning in its implications:
Models might produce excess/unrealistic climatic warming in the Southern Ocean because of an inadequate representation of the surface albedo (the albedos of sea ice and marine snow are very variable and difficult to model) or because of problems with many other aspects of the ocean and sea ice physics (e.g., lateral and vertical mixing, upwelling) or the atmospheric dynamics (winds, precipitation). These problems are all very well known.
He’s got everything covered – the surface, the ocean, the atmosphere. The problem is in one of those!!!
If ever you needed evidence that they simply have no idea at all about how the climate works, well, there it is.
If only it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny.
This is so like what Lindzen had to go through with PNAS for the CERES/ERBE paper, and he was a senior NAS member. Eventually he gave up and put it in another journal.
Pal review is killing science which, as someone who wanted to be a scientist from an early age (and who had the privilege of becoming one), I am sad about.
Mike,
It just sounds like a case of sour grapes. You submitted a paper and 2 referees recommend that it be rejected
which in normal circumstances would be enough to get a paper rejected from any journal. Instead the editor gave you a chance to revise your manuscript and respond to the referees. You did that and then a third referee and the associate editor all recommended rejection. The editor in chief has bend over backwards in order to try and help you get your manuscript published while you appear to have refused to go along with any of their suggestions and then you act like you are the injured party.
You also appear to have only told one side of the story. Nowhere do you show the referees’ reports so there is no way
anyone can judge whether or not they are valid and whether or not you adequately responded to them. Certainly from the
emails that you disclose it would appear that you could easily get the manuscript published if you stuck to the data analysis
of temperatures rather than digressing to unproven assumptions about climate models. Furthermore the editor would appear
to be correct in stating that the disagreement between models and observations of the southern ocean is well known
(see The Southern Ocean in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5, by A. J. S. Meijers for example) and so would
not be sufficiently novel to warrant publication.
Everyone gets manuscripts rejected. That is just a normal fact of life as a scientist. Most people just get on with it and get on
with their work rather than complaining to the world about a conspiracy to prevent them from publishing.
Well put.
Sounds like the “new” knowledge from the paper was not novel and already well known.
A well known fact in science is, “All models are wrong, though some are useful.”
This is just an example of that, and the journal is apparently not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Izaak – I continually asked myself the same question, and if the events had been as you suggest then I would not have presented this article. I would have operated on the basis that it is better to be proved wrong than to continue being wrong.
But if you follow the sequence of events, you can see that it dosn’t tally with your narrative. I was given explicit assurances on which the editor later reneged (and if you follow the dialogue then it is clear that thse assurances really were given.
Incidentally, the notion that it is better to be proved wrong than to continue being wrong also applies to climate models. Where is the salt when you need it?
Mike,
As far as I can tell and correct me if I am wrong the sequence is
1) You submit the manuscript
2) The editor talks to over over Skype to discuss how you can
improve the manuscript’s chances of it being accepted.
3) Two referees’ reports come back which recommend rejection.
4) The editor over-rules the two referees and offers you a chance to resubmit.
5) You resubmit the manuscript. The editor then sends it out for further review.
6) A third referee recommends rejection as does an associate editor.
7) The editor makes a final decision which is rejection and sends you the most apologetic rejection letter I have ever read. The editor also suggests that there is publishable material there which he would publish if you revised your manuscript suitably.
If this timeline is wrong I apologise and if you could put them in the right order I would
appreciate it.
What you seem to be objecting to is step 6. You seem to think that the promise to get a chance to respond to reviewers extends to re-reviews of the manuscript. Most people would think the fact that you unlike the majority of authors got the chance to submit a revised manuscript even though it was rejected would mean that the editor honoured their promise.
It should be noted that step 2 is almost unprecedented. I have never heard of an editor taking the time to talk to an author to discuss how to modify a manuscript to improve its chances of being accepted. Step 4 is also extremely unlikely. Most authors never get the chance to revise a rejected manuscript since this is explicitly ruled out by the journals rules. Finally the rejection letter you got is far more encouraging than any other I have seen.
Finally again unless I am mistaken you have not made the reviewers comments public. So we have no way of knowing whether or not their criticism are valid.
Izzak Walton:
You wouldn’t happen to be one of the reviewers who rejected Mike Jonas’ paper, would you?
Stop apologizing for these corrupt bastards.
Louis,
I have not seen the reviewers comments and have no way of knowing if they are valid or not. But if an editor gets three reviews recommending rejection then they have little choice except to reject the paper. Here the editor appears to have bend over backwards to get the manuscript accepted but Mike appears not to have budged at all. So I don’t see that anyone can blame the editor.
Izaak has it right. It’s hard to judge this post without the reviews. Authors can make those available at their discretion. Let’s see them.
Also, as someone who has published over 100 peer-reviewed papers, as well as served as associate editor of multiple journals, I can also second Izaak’s points about the review process. The editor went through extreme efforts to assist you, but can’t overrule 3 ‘reject’ recommendations. I’ve been here before with a manuscript (that later got published). Don’t blame the editor.
You may not want to hear it, but the paper had little chance of ever getting published with the adversarial tone you took. E.g. “The paper argued that getting a complete ocean diametrically wrong over a period of more than 30 years is enough to show that the climate models are invalid”. You just don’t say that kind of thing in a scientific paper – whether it’s correct or not. There will be pushback. Look at the tone of O’Donnell, Lewis, McIntyre and Condon in refuting Steig et al. That had a hard time getting in print, but made it. Had they taken a more adversarial tone, it almost certainly wouldn’t have gotten there. For blogs like this, one can use that kind of language, but if you want to play in the (biased, corrupt, groupthink) peer-reviewed science world, you have to deal with the human factors at play.
So Mike Jonas, are you going to show us the reviews so that we can judge for ourselves?
That’s what any real skeptic would demand before passing judgement right?
Not that this comment will make it past the moderators. but it is fair and accurate.
This is a very illuminating and depressing report on the state of the science in climate science. I’ll join the others in being gobsmacked that not only would the publisher be so dishonest, but would be so up front about being dishonest.
At the end of the film “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence,” Senator Jimmy Stewart has returned to a small Western town for the funeral of John Wayne’s character. Of course, the local newspaperman is interested in knowing why a famous Senator would come all the way from Washington for the funeral of a local, so Stewart regales the reporter with the tale of the REAL events that transpired in the town so long ago, and led to the Senate for him.
When he finishes, the newspaperman tears up the story and says “When the facts get in the way of the legend, print the legend.” I think we could replace “legend” with “model” in this case.
I dislike going OT in a thread, but I’m making a plea for help, and we don’t have an open thread going right now, so I’ll do this as succinctly as I can. The chart below is really bothering me:
That is a chart of NOAA’s GHCN-M data for US stations only. I started with the monthly unadjusted summary report. I filtered on station IDs that started with US, and then selected for stations that had at least 345 of the 360 records that would make up a 30-year baseline. Of those stations, I took only stations that could provide a full 12 months for the baseline.
That left me 1805 with stations. I joined that table with the larger table that had all of the data (I do my work with an Oracle database, so my terminology might sound a bit off if one is used to using R), using the station ID and month of the year to match up the baseline data with the monthly data.
Long story short, I ended up with that chart. I’ve gone over the data three times, using two different approaches, and spot-checking values to make sure I’m getting the data I think I should be getting from my queries. Still, that chart. I feel there’s got to be something wrong with my methodology.
I have a WordPress blog where we could discuss this, if anyone’s interested. I don’t want to fill this thread with a side conversation, and it’s not really big enough for a story on its own. The URL is
https://jaschrumpf.wordpress.com/2019/03/28/talking-about-temperatures/
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on smartly.
what exactly are you trying to do?
I’m trying to calculate a very basic anomaly for the US only. My logic is if you average each station for each month of the year over the 30-year period, you get a baseline, a zero mark to which all the other monthly averages can be compared.
I get my 30-year monthly averages for the stations I’ve identified as having good, complete data, and then I start going through the file from NOAA and subtracting the baseline from each monthly average. If I have the monthly average for station ID XXX for JAN-1945, I subtract from that the baseline average for station ID XXX and JAN to get the anomaly.
When that process is done, I averaged all the stations’ JAN, FEB, MAR, etc., anomalies for each month — I chose JAN-1900 to MAR-2019 — and then plotted the result with Excel, which is the chart posted.
As far as I can tell, my math is good. The chart does capture the extremely cold March of 1936, and the very warm March of 2012, so it’s not completely off.
I just didn’t expect such a flat trend line. I sense that something is wrong with my logic, though it seems… logical.
There’s nothing at all wrong with your logic. The reason the trend is negligibly small is because you didn’t apply any special hot sauce, a.k.a as “adjustments” for a whole panoply of factors more imagined than real.
James Schrumpf
Which reference period did you choose for building your anomalies? That is not quite clear here.
The mean of all US stations for the last century is always very flat, whichever series you take as data set. But… you manifestly get an estimate of 0.001 °C / decade, that’s desperately low indeed.
Here is some info for US (CONUS+AK) made out of the NOAA GHCN daily data set, using a simple ‘layman’ method: station-based anomalies, 2.5 ° gridding, grid-based backdoor for stations lacking sufficient data during the reference period (here: 1981-2010).
Linear estimates for the TMIN / TAVG / TMAX series, in °C / decade:
– 1900-2018: 0.07 / 0.05 / 0.02 ( ± 0.01)
– 1979-2018: 0.25 / 0.20 / 0.14 ( ± 0.03)
– 2000-2018: 0.46 / 0.32 / 0.23 ( ± 0.08)
No chart yet: Google Drive actually is not able to upload it.
I’m wondering at the size of your anomalies (below -6 °C).
Give us those linear averages for the period 1915 to 1945.
Dave Fair
Linear estimates for the TMIN / TAVG / TMAX series, in °C / decade:
– 1915-1945: 0.33 / 0.31 / 0.24 ( ± 0.04)
You ask always for the same stuff. Probably some little fixation about ‘It was warmer at that time than it is today’.
The descending sort of the monthly TAVG anomalies for 1900-2018:
2016 2 2.27
2015 12 2.25
2016 3 2.24
2000 2 2.00
2014 12 1.82
2017 2 1.81
1939 12 1.75
1938 10 1.65
1940 12 1.60
2016 11 1.59
2016 10 1.57
1921 3 1.54
2015 10 1.51
2018 2 1.50
2016 1 1.50
2000 3 1.47
2016 4 1.45
2015 11 1.45
1947 10 1.44
1934 10 1.40
But… if you now build the yearly averages out of the monthly absolute TMAX temperatures, you obtain as usual what you are looking for, namely 1934 at the top of the sorted list.
This sort of yearly maxima perfectly hides what you possibly don’t like to see, namely that the highest anomalies are found during recent winter months.
So what!
Bindidon, thank you for the “Linear estimates for the TMIN / TAVG / TMAX series, in °C / decade:
– 1915-1945: 0.33 / 0.31 / 0.24 ( ± 0.04)” Those values reflect a strong warming trend during that period.
To respond to your gratuitous “So what!”: Those past temperature trends are not reflected in the hindcasts of UN IPCC climate models. There is something fundamentally wrong with models that cannot replicate the known past. Additionally, such models are not sufficient justification to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems.
I already knew that winter minimum temperatures have warmed slightly. [I do not, as you assert, believe it was warmer in the 1930’s. Unlike you, I am not ideologically driven to use bogus arguments to support a political position.] It is blindingly obvious, however, that anthropogenic ‘greenhouse’ gasses have not been proven to be the primary driver of the minor warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.
If you want Socialism to replace Capitalism, come right out and say so. Don’t, like many others, use climate scare stories as a backdoor approach.
Dave Fair
“Unlike you, I am not ideologically driven to use bogus arguments to support a political position.”
If you are able to show me where I did, then show!
I have nothing in mind with any kind of AGW exaggeration.
Those who pretend I do simply lack fair arguments. I do not feel any need to discuss with them.
Here is the chart showing the US corner out of GHCN daily:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uPJms1GHBlFm-Ko_7o1TB0ZheHYGarbD/view
There’s no reason to accept such results as definitive. Scientifically reliable estimates of long-term, regional-scale temperature variations cannot be obtained from UHI-corrupted, land-use-influenced records of various durations obtained by non-uniform instrumentation at variable locations in geographically non-contiguous areas. Until index-makers learn how to avoid all systematically biased data and to employ a fixed set of thoroughly vetted station records throughout the entire period of estimation, their results will remain scientifically inconsistent.
When I lived in Alaska, I was interested in its temperatures. Now, living in the Lower 48, I think it better to omit Alaska from CONUS temperatures. It is temperatures where you live that matter. Think Gavin Schmidt’s apologia.
1sky1
“Scientifically reliable estimates of long-term, regional-scale temperature variations cannot be obtained from UHI-corrupted, land-use-influenced records of various durations obtained by non-uniform instrumentation at variable locations in geographically non-contiguous areas.”
If you were able to give a scientific proof of what you pretend, then I would understand your comment.
But I just need to read this typical claim about “UHI-corrupted, land-use-influenced “, and I immediately understand that people endlessly repeating it can’t be aware of how anomaly-based temperature data processing really works.
Did YOU ever compare, for all GHCN V3 stations in the world, a plot constructed out of rural stations with one constructed out of suburban and urban stations?
I guess you didn’t. And above all I anticipate your reaction:
“All your rural stations are potentially UHI-corrupted and land-use-influenced as are all the others.”
When I have some idle time I will write some nice software for a fair comparison of USCRN with USHCN, GHCN V3, GHCN V4 and GHCN daily.
You will wonder.
I wonder if Alaska unduly influences the T-min trend?
Dave fair
“When I lived in Alaska, I was interested in its temperatures. Now, living in the Lower 48, I think it better to omit Alaska from CONUS temperatures.”
You will always find some detail helping you in discrediting the work of others and discarding their results.
You have no idea of how tiny AK’s influence is on CONUS.
Exactly as you recently had no idea of how great CONUS’ influence is on the Globe, if you don’t know how to proceed correctly.
Why don’t you show me how ‘tiny’ is Alaska’s impact on CONUS, Bindidon? Especially on T-min?
I really don’t care how tiny CONUS’s impact is on the Globe. It’s the temperatures one is used to that is important, at least according to Gavin.
Shades of Climategate! Now I’m ‘just trying to find something wrong with the data’? Why in the world would I question activists’ claims? They surely only care for the wellbeing of Earth’s inhabitants.
Your anticipation is even worse than your guesswork. Because I have a daytime job, my available time–and interest–in long blog discussions is highly limited. I offer only succinct, professional summaries, not amateurish polemics.
For vetted records geographically representative the contiguous USA see: http://s1188.photobucket.com/user/skygram/media/Publication1.jpg.html?o=0.
Dave Fair
Here is your tremendous difference for GHCN daily TMIN, between USA48 and USA49
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pc9nZ2CR-LZ8siwP8O800qA_q-ofTj4b/view
In comparison with other differences all around the Globe, this is even less than tiny.
The only notable estimate difference is for 2000-now: 0.34 °C / decade for CONUS instead of 0.46 AK included.
That gives us a feeling about warming in the Arctic regions, just like when comparing Germany with e.g. Norway.
Leave in peace, Mr Fair.
1sky1
“For vetted records…”
As if ‘vetted’ was the point here! Oh Noes.
The only relevant point, 1sky1, is for me: what do your ‘vetted’ numbers exactly represent, and how were they computed?
This is a (non-vetted) worldwide comparison, within the ‘GHCN V3 unadjusted’ data set, of about 1800 rural sites with the nonrural rest (about 5400):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nqBimMq4kHRmZtUekhLHDNh7K4V9fY8X/view
To be honest: I have seen enough ‘vetted’ but in fact completely useless comparisons of rural and urban sites, especially those showing differences between absolute temperatures.
It is inimaginable that some people still persist in doing again and again such mistakes.
Any schoolboy with a PC and some script programming skill can calculate indiscriminately the various averages of GHCN-selected and adjusted data and then pretend that they represents actual climate variations. It requires scientific maturity to recognize that the vast majority of station records world-wide come from population centers that are not representative of the surrounding countryside, let alone the globe. Your peremptory dismissal of the need for rigorous vetting to find unadjusted records reasonably fit for the purpose manifestly betrays your level.
BTW, since the comparison I show is clearly labeled as between “deviations” [from the century-long mean], insinuating that my results may be “showing differences between absolute temperatures” is a sign of desperate illiteracy. I have no time for that.
Thanks for the plots.
Can you provide the USCRN for 48 for comparison.
Thanks
Looking at a single chart with a little curiosity readily shows less sea ice means greater cooling:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2019.png
The heat loss from a sea ice surface at 245K has only 65% of the radiating power of water at 273K for the same emissivity. However the emissivity of open water is usually slightly higher than sea ice so the radiating power of the water surface is even higher than the case with same emissivity.
Loss of sea ice causes higher rate of energy loss so is a negative feedback. The ice insulates the water below to retain heat. Less sea ice means reduction in area insulated so more heat loss and increased cooling.
This linked chart compares the heat loss at south latitudes following the 2016 El Nino with data for the same month in 2014:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgl5pzqqW6mk6LRrA
The curves are separated by 3 to 5W/sq.m or 1.5 to 2 degrees in latitude. The record loss of Antarctic sea ice in the summer ending by March 2017 resulted in significantly greater heat loss from the Southern Ocean than a non El Nino year.
Looks to me like the main effect of the changes which have taken place around Antarctica over the last 4 years is that the rapid loss of sea ice that occurred after the huge peak in sea ice extent has led to a cooling pattern moving closer to mid latitude waters and air temps. Part of this appears to be driven by changes in surface winds in the southern region. Which is why I said this the other day “Antarctica was slightly warmer as well, but that is also regional circumstances, and there are other consequences to what is currently happening there which look like the long term effect of those changes will lead into cooling in the SH.” … https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/solar-slump-continues-noaa-we-are-currently-approaching-a-maunder-type-minimum-in-solar-activity/#comment-2676259
I think we should remember that UAH V 6 shows no warming in the SP region since DEC 1978.
And the BAS study of Turner et al found that warming stop in the Antarctic peninsula about 20 years ago.
These findings also stuff up the theory of enhanced AGW warming at the poles. Just saying.
“And the BAS study of Turner et al found that warming stop in the Antarctic peninsula about 20 years ago.”
Would that be this “Turner et al” ?
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1130
“The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a major warming over the last 50 years, with temperatures at Faraday/Vernadsky station having increased at a rate of 0.56 °C decade−1 over the year and 1.09 °C decade−1 during the winter; both figures are statistically significant at less than the 5% level.”
Wrong study, this is 2016 Turner et al.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/a-recent-pause-in-antarctic-peninsula-warming/
Rule one of climate ‘science ‘ if the models and reality differ in value , it is always reality which is in error’
But a journal that exist to promote climate doom, of which are there a number, is hardly the place to get anything published that suggest that claims of climate doom are misplaced.
Of they will then claim they must be ‘right’ because nothing is published which refutes their claims .
Classic ‘heads you lose , tails I win’ approach which marks out the real value of climate ‘science’
Mike Jonas:
“Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.”
I don’t think you are correct in that opinion (that others have not found the temperature pattern)…..
https://www.popsci.com/ancient-waters-are-keeping-southern-ocean-cool
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2731
“The Southern Ocean has shown little warming over recent decades, in stark contrast to the rapid warming observed in the Arctic. Along the northern flank of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, however, the upper ocean has warmed substantially. Here we present analyses of oceanographic observations and general circulation model simulations showing that these patterns”
The cooling of the southern ocean can be explained by an increase in the Antarctic circumpolar current, due the warming to the north squeezing against the resistance to warming provided by the vast, frigid and high interior of the Antarctic continent.
This has resulted in stronger westerly winds, which push Antarctic waters northwards away from the continent (Coriolis). This also causing an expansion in Antarctic sea-ice.
In the main text was stated: “In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet! ”
Indeed the observed pattern shows cooling in the southern parts of the southern ocean:
In contrast the CMIP5 mean ( models) show not cooling BUT NOT southward amplified warming!
Also the CMIP5 mean shows muted warming as more soutward the ocean area is located.
IMO the mainpoint (“expected amplified warming by the used models”) is somewhat unclear.
Mike,
If what you’re saying about the review process is true, that is a bogus peer review and a fake journal. The editor should never tell the reviewers to reject a paper or select a reviewer who will reject it. I peer review for a reputable physics journal partnered with a top university in UK. The editor does not know what my recommendation will be and does not tell me to accept or reject a paper. And the review process doesn’t take nearly a year. I recently peer reviewed a paper on general relativity and dark energy. It took me 16 days to review the paper and write my recommendation. The other two reviewers finished their reviews ahead of me.
Mike,
Is it possible to name the editor, and the reviewers?
Follow his link to the back-and-forth. The reviewers aren’t named (likely he doesn’t know) but the remaining suspects are.
The pattern of temperature changes is the star attraction here, with hindsight it might have been better to focus on that interesting piece of phenomenology, with only a passing reference to climate models, and maybe a model-free analysis of how such a pattern could arise, in terms of changes in global circulation.
I agree with Izaak Walton’s comments. The paper was given a generous review process. A third reviewer after two have rejected the paper is extremely unusual. A paper gets a third reviewer when the first two disagree, and only if the editor wants. Papers rejected after a single reviewer rejection are common.
Nobody likes a paper being rejected, and most people blame an unfair review. But then most people use the opportunity to improve the paper and resubmit it to a different journal. This author prefers to complain on the internet to a sympathetic audience instead.
A couple of months ago I had an e-mail conversation with a very well known highly respected scientist in the paleoclimate field. He had sent his latest paper to Nature where the editor rejected it without review for not having enough wow. It was then sent to another journal where after five months the editor hadn’t found a reviewer. The system is tough and unfair because it relies on unpaid reviewers and it is completely saturated because of the increase in the number of scientists globally and the requirement that they publish or perish. If you are a big-shot scientists you have ways to fast-track your articles. Many scientists receive lots of requests to work for free reviewing a paper. If the paper doesn’t interest them they reject the offer. Why should they accept it?
The system is in need of fixing. Some journals are trying new ways. Climate of the Past Discussions conducts an open review process, posting the submitted article, reviews, and responses, allowing other people to participate in the review process.
The review system does need fixing. I have only ever acted as a third reviewer. Always when the two first reviewers have not seen eye to eye about the merits of the revised paper. I am aware that the Editor turned to me because she knew that my opinion would tally with that of the first reviewer, whose opinion she shared.
She was a great editor because whenever a paper or article was likely to be controversial she always chose a reviewer from each side of the debate. But then she made sure that the third reviewer subscribed her, usually unpopular line.
Editors now appear to follow the line adopted by the BBC, theirs is not to educate but to indoctrinate.
To see who’s in charge, find out who can’t be criticized.
The climate consensus has corrupted many aspects of life in order to maintain power.
The climate consensus has completely failed free and open democratic society.
Mike Jonas:
“But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling.”
Not accurate … going by this Nature study….
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10409#f1
Shows (d) that large ocean areas within 65S were projected to have zero temp change (white areas are no change vs per degree of GW).
Notable is the area of greatest observed cooling (deepest blue patch), which the model mean picked out as having zero trend.
Zero change is not the “exact opposite”.
Frank:
“In contrast the CMIP5 mean ( models) show not cooling BUT NOT southward amplified warming!”
The above shows you are correct.
Anthony, I produced the linked figures within 5 minutes with a little help of the KNMI Climate Explorer. They show IMO that there is much “hot air” as the backround of this post. The peers could have been right in rejecting some claims regarding the “exact opposite” in the proposed article.
“These problems are all very well known.”
Yes, but the fact that the models are not useful for much of anything is less well known. Another commenter made this point that has stuck with me — that scientists are with climate models where Leonardo DaVinci was with aeroplanes. That is the point that has to be hammered. The reliability of the models does not justify the radical actions which are being proposed.
hyp·o·crit·i·cal
ˌbehaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
Mike Jonas ==> It is no mystery to me why the paper was unpublishable. The work you did is very good work and the actual findings are solid.
But this conclusion, included in the Abstract,
“From this, it necessarily follows that the climate models are invalid and their Antarctic projections in particular are now untenable. It also necessarily follows that the climate models’ global projections are unreliable.”
is not supported, in my opinion, by your work or your findings.
If you had stayed with your actual findings alone and not tried to invalidate the entirety of world climate models, I think you could have made a good strong point with a good strong paper.
The observations in the paper are interesting.
The conclusions regarding models should be replaced with a plot of the multi model mean against observations. Show the data and let the reader form their own conclusion. This is more powerful than you providing the answer.
The world is not not fair. As a result one must work with the tools provided. When faced with a devious opponent, you need be twice as devious to succeed.
For example. How do you deal with a dishonest boss? Complaints rarely work, as they can be easily manipulated to point at you.
If instead you praise your dishonest boss, you can use this praise to draw attention to the dishonesty. Let others be the accuser. Place results before ego.
praise to draw attention to the dishonesty
=≠=======
1: “the climate models’ global projections are unreliable.”
=========
2: “Further analysis of the observed variance from the multi-model mean could prove vital in improving the accuracy of future climate models.”
=≠========
Option 1 was rejected. Something like option 2 would likely be accepted and would give you justification to seek funding for further analysis.
“the models were more reliable than the data.” Says it all about the state of the man-made global warming scam.
‘The map is not the territory.” Unless you are an under the influence of Big Climate.
– Njeri Nduta April 11, 2019 at 6:46 am
– avier April 11, 2019 at 3:15 am
Excellent comments.
I don’t understand why a person who, on the one hand, wants to get a possibly valid and interesting paper published, on the other hand makes the publication impossible just because he can’t avoid unnecessary and above all destructive political statements.
It is the endlessly repeated Don Quixote story.
To add one more aspect: The very small warming of the Southern Ocean in the circumpular current around Antarctica due to the deep mixed layer is well known … since 1991(!!), deduced also from model runs. In this classic paper https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1992)0052.0.CO%3B2 (Manabe et al 1991) it’s dicussed (section 6).
IMO the rejection of the “paper” is justified because the author didn’t mention well known issues from the basic literature.
frankclimate
Thanks for the hint but I was aware of that.
I simply did not want to add more bricks against Jonas.
If that would make sense for me to do it, I would perform a latitude estimate of HadISST1 or of JMA’s 1° SST data…
frankclimate: Thanks for posting the link to Manabe (1991) and the images of observed change and modeled change, 1980-2018. Very useful.
If Mike has focused on the difference between hindcast and observed change, he might have gotten somewhere. Manabe says that the deep mixed layer will slow warming in the Southern Ocean, but the data says that says that a significant fraction of the ocean near Antarctica cool at 0.1 degC/decade. A deeper mixed layer can’t explain cooling. I suspect the surprising expansion/non-retreat of sea ice around Antarctica could be responsible for the unexpected cooling.
Antarctica is fascinating because, on the average, the atmosphere is isothermal with altitude. A GHG requires an atmosphere whose temperature drops with altitude where the vast majority of absorption and emission occurs.
“Models might produce excess/unrealistic climatic warming in the Southern Ocean because of an inadequate representation of the surface albedo (the albedos of sea ice and marine snow are very variable and difficult to model)”
Because the models do not include how the Sun drives the polar see-saw, with northern warming and southern cooling with weaker solar forcing, i.e since the mid 1990’s. AMO and Arctic warming is normal during a centennial solar minimum.
Mike Jonas’ experiences don’t surprise me at all. After getting hate email back in 2010 by demonstrating that NOAA data manifestly did not support IPCC conclusions, and that Hurricanes/Typhoons were neither getting stronger nor more frequent, I’ve become inured to the death of the scientific method as a means of measuring a research output:-
https://www.scribd.com/document/26905897/Hurricanes-are-not-getting-stronger
I continued this work for several years 2010-2014 with the same result but the NOAA data is now inaccessible so I can no longer check the misinformation emanating from the IPCC, (if anybody has any ideas if the data is still openly available, I am happy to keep on analysing it.)
However, don’t for a moment think that the review process is broken in just climate science. In fact the whole creaky structure of peer review is broken terminally. All you need to do in any discipline is publish something which isn’t mainstream and the result will be rejection, generally on laughable grounds as Mike Jonas found. Its even worse if you try to cross disciplines – you just tread on more toes. The scientific method doesn’t enter into it. The whole process has become a sort of cabal with opaque procedures, protection of vested interest, complete disinterest in attempting to verify what you have done and the use of pure opinion as if it meant anything. This is then followed by robust rejection of any form of appeal. by the editorial staff should you be so bold. My co-author and I finished up complaining:-
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/scientific-peer-review-ineffective-and-unworthy-institution
My thanks to Mike Jonas for publishing his experiences. I wish it was a rare case but I’ve published a lot during my career and I’ve never seen it worse. Blogs such as this, the web and journals such as arXiv are essential to keep the lights burning. Keep up the good work.