Comments on: Climategatekeeping: Schmidt 2009

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:43:58 +0000

Bill Illis reported yesterday:

I noticed that gavin commented today that he is reviewing a comment/paper by Ross McKitrick.

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2586#comment-151025

Not sure if this is sufficiently on topic: R. McKitrick wrote a response to Schmidt(2009), available online, but apparently not published yet. Is there a response available, or upcoming?

[Response: Actually he co-wrote a new paper which was in effect a comment on Schmidt (2009) but which was not submitted as such. This isn't so uncommon and can be appropriate if there is enough new material in the submission. I was asked to review it (as I assume other people were) and my review was submitted. I do not know what the current status is. - gavin]

Comment by Norbert — 23 December 2009 @ 3:15 PM

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:32:22 +0000

Ross has written me to say that while the review process for his and Nicolas Nierenberg’s paper is taking longer than expected, he believes the delay is not with the IJC editor but with the referees. Also, in order to avoid creating any problems for them during the refereeing process, I am going to close this thread to any further discussion of the M&N submission.

By: KevinM

KevinM — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:57:12 +0000

We’re still at the top of the wrong thread here, but: when you read that entry, do you see any bias?

By: bender

bender — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:53:51 +0000

The split between Mann&Jones vs Cook&BriffaOsborn is clarified in the emails of Sep 3 2003. Watch Bradley slowly shift from one camp to the other. At first Bradley makes Cook ill. Years later, it’s Mann making Bradley ill. Now Mann & Jones make us all ill. (And now “going-to-town-on-Michaels” Santer is trying to get us all to drink the poison that made all those other guys ill.)

By: Micky C

Micky C — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:43:34 +0000

The oomment to S09 by McKitrick and Nierenberg is sufficiently clear to make the excellent point about testing the model and residuals for autocorrelation. This seems to be another elephant in the room about the types of analysis that crops up in a lot of papers about surface trends and spatial trends i.e. there seems to be insufficient effort to improve the dependent model and reduce residual autocorrelation to the point were the model has minimum autocorrelation. This is what bothered me about the whole Santer et al (2008) troposphere paper. It is almost like some authors want more autocorrelation to increase confidence intervals (errors essentially). I was always taught the key to science is to minimise errors to a reasonable degree where possible and to accept them were not.

By: t&kbrunner

t&kbrunner — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:42:41 +0000

Here’s the link: http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/review_schmidt.doc. It is quite easy to find once I was told where to look.

Perhaps the comments are minor (I can’t judge), but there are more than a few and they cover multiple pages of the Schmidt paper. What is it that makes this review less rigorous than another? Perhaps Jones simply didn’t find anything more serious to critique. The implication is that he let some errors through due to his association with Schmidt, but where is the evidence of that? You obviously disagree with Schmidt’s conclusions, but he disagrees with McKitrick’s so there you are.

By: bender

bender — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:33:11 +0000

food fight

By: Norbert

Norbert — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:29:34 +0000

It may seem to you that way, since there were some lengthy responses to my messages, but if I go through above thread, my own messages are not that numerous and usually not very long. Bender himself has been more active in this thread than me.

By: mikep

mikep — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:24:56 +0000

For the Schmidt review see

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/

It’s quite easy to find under Schmidt.

By: bender

bender — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:04:58 +0000

“You mention it was submitted April 15, 2009, but I don’t see where that information comes from”
.
IIRC McKitrick posted a related note here some weeks ago, when he linked to the ms.