Turns out Bengston's paper was rejected because the 'error' was that he thought the observed temperatures should match the computer modeling. He reached out to those with a different viewpoint even though he believes in Global Warming. That is a no no in today's totally politically correct CAGW meme. Science requires skepticism. Consensus requires conformity.
Um, no. http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times It was rejected because it contained errors, falsely implied that climate measurements were inaccurate, proposed no explanation or correction for the putative errors, and basically broke no new ground. From the comments of one referee: The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al. The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies. The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies. What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences. - The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. It goes on from there. He submitted a poor paper, and was told quite clearly why it was rejected. He has not even ATTEMPTED to rebut those explanations, to my knowledge: instead he went straight to whining about "political reasons", based on taking a single comment out of context. He "reached out" to a group with zero scientific credibility. That's a political move, not a scientific one. Science also requires rigorousness of thought and an ability to accept evidence. Deniers lack both.
Here is the telling comment in the statement. Thus, the “error” (according to the publisher) seems to be nothing more than Bengtsson’s expectation that models be consistent with observations. Surely, even in climate science, this expectation cannot be seriously described as an “error”. Also, you are parroting the CAGW advocates bias about reaching out. It is not allowed in the CAGW meme even though Bengtsonn could have brought a different view to the organization. Tolerance will not be allowed! Anyone that reaches out to other scientists for their views are labeled deniers if they reach out to a scientist that does not toe the line on CAGW alarmism and that is far from science and pure populist political correctness.
Based on what? Models that haven't worked? And there is your conspiracy theory. Warmmongers like yourself believe so strongly in this conspiracy that you have stooped to committing identity fraud to steal Heartland's funding documents only to find out that there is no such connection. Its fake, a lie, a fraud. You sole the heartland funding documents only to find that no oil money is going towards climate efforts. And even with the documents in your hand you still lie and continue the conspiracy theory. No it only takes few well positioned and powerful people such as we saw with the intimidation and resignation of the Climate Research Letters editor. The people who caused that to happen were in no particular order Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, and Mike Hulme. 6 guys message sent. No massive conspiracy needed. Its plainly obvious that some of those 6 were involved in the intimidation of Dr. Bengtsson. Care to state why? No of course not you cant understand it. The "errors" that the review claimed was Dr. Bengtsson claim that models and observations should be consistent. That isnt an error at all but a simple truth. The review was crap and thinly veiled gate keeping and anyone with any scientific understanding knows that. You don't but that isn't a surprise. You don't understand a thing about science. And there you are propagating the climate of fear and intimidation. Reach out to skeptics and ruin your reputation. You prove my point as you unwittingly propagate the climate of fear and intimidation. Now a few scientists use fear and intimidation to get the rest in line. And they have plenty of willing foot soldiers like yourself to go out wit your jack boots and attack anyone who steps out of lined like Dr Bengtsson. Lets look at your own words, "ruined, "denier", "Flat Earth". You are a part of the culture of fear and intimidation and you dont even know it.
You think that raytri undertands that? Raytri is a foot soldier in the climate wars. He is not expected to understand what he reads. He is expected to go out and perpetuate the climate of fear and intimidation.
Yes we know you have invented what would be the greatest discovery in paleoclimatology since oxygen isotope dating. You have discovered how to get high resolution data out of low resolution proxies. Of course you are keeping this to yourself and don't wish to be absolutely famous for such a discovery. What you are doing is fraud. Dont waste our time with such grand pronouncements that you have somehow managed to do what others have tired for decades to do and failed only to declare it, not show it mind you, on some obscure political forum. Fraud lain and simple fraud PD.
No, the telling part is the takedown of the article on scientific grounds. No, that was not the criticism. The criticism was that the paper's work was neither new -- the ranges of measurements were known and public -- nor backed up in any meaningful way, and that it relied on comparing non-comparable measurements. Tolerance of bad science, nonscience and quackery are, indeed, not allowed. Incorrect. Even deniers get a peer-reviewed paper through now and again -- when they produce something able to withstand peer review, just like everybody else. Nobody's career is ruined for producing good science. People are ruined for producing bad science or embracing junk science.
non-comparable? Exactly how are the units measurement for average global temperature in a model and average global temperature in observation different? You cant win this Raytri. You dont have the expertise. I could no sooner lose a scientific debate with you than I could lose to a parrot.
Exactly you are parroting you don't know if the reviewer is correct of not. I asked you a simple question and you dont know the answer. "Exactly how are the units measurement for average global temperature in a model and average global temperature in observation different?" You said Support the assertion or leave the thread in defeat.
and how in the hell was they able to measure climate temperature that accurately down to the 10th of a degree tens of thousands years ago an accurate thermometer was only invented 300 years ago and how in the hell do they know how big the ice caps was 1800 years ago they haven't been able to measure the size of the ice caps till satellite pictures and how in the hell are they able to measure CO2 levels ten thousand years ago and don't say ice core samples because guess what CO2 is absorbed by H2O and guess what ice is made of. so how in the hell can you accurate measure a gas that is suspended in a medium that absorbs that gas and by the way that hockey stick graph you posted at the end created by Michael Mann has been debunked why is it you global arming alarmist abandon all common sense and logic because you find some graph on some global warming alarmist site you assume it is truth with out any question "look it is a graph there for it most be truth because we all know graphs are magically correct and never wrong"
Sorry don't MEAN to be rude but have you ever endeavoured to find out? I mean take the ice supposition - have you never looked and I mean really looked at an ice cube? It most often contains BUBBLES - guess what they are made of - it ain't microbe farts
and do you know what absorbs CO2 water does and ice is made of water so I will ask you Einstein how in the hell do you accurately measure a gas suspended in a medium over time that absorbs that gas and use it as a comparison Oh hell I guess you didn't know H2O absorbs CO2 it is strange how those global warming alarmist sites don't tell you those simple facts
#1, you might want to check your sense of grandeur at the door. This is an Internet forum; there are no actual climate scientists here. "Winning" a debate here does not mean global warming is a hoax. #2, I already provided the answer in this thread. It's pretty self-explanatory. From the reviewer's comments: The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. In case you have trouble understanding that, the reviewer is saying that the rejected paper tried to compare two incompatible datasets: the models, which cover the entire globe; and the observations listed in the paper, which have limited coverage. In other words, the models might have five data points: 1, 3, 6, 15, 20, which provides an average value of 9. The observations might only cover one of those data points, the one that measures "15". "Discrepancy!" the paper cries, when what's really happening is that one dataset is but a limited subset of the other. Which is why researchers combine and homogenize data from multiple datasets to try to cover as much of the globe and as long a timespan as possible. Each dataset is different and imperfect, but it is possible to homogenize them so they tell us something useful as a group. The problem with the paper was that it was shallow: it took a small set of observations, compared them to the models, and claimed that the simple fact of a divergence suggested there was something wrong with the models. But that was simply not true; the analysis was too simplistic to draw such a conclusion. The paper would have had to do a more rigorous analysis to arrive at that conclusion, and it didn't. So it was rejected.
You are parroting the reviewer assuming that the reviewer is correct. Here is a list of 40 papers that use comparisons between observed and modeled ECS & TCR. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2607940487177563435&as_sdt=800005&sciodt=0,15&hl=en Your reviewer is a hack.
Hmmmmm I KNOW water absorbs CO2 but it does not disappear - it can be released by the simple expedient of HEATING/exposure to vacuum and many other ways. But ice that is buried under layers and layers of other ice does NOT interact with the atmosphere - and that is why they have taken cores from different sites throughout the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core Research is your friend
Bengtsonn is not a denier and never has been. Your politicization of this is a huge problem for the science itself. This is common at this time and very distinguished professors like Bengtsonn are the ones that are feeling it.
He politicized it by claiming political victimhood, without evidence. And frankly, I did not call him a denier. I said he associated himself with deniers.
Global averages are important when natural variability (ENSO, Polar Vortex, etc.) moves heat around within the system, distorting local and regional trends. It's also the easiest way to determine how much of the Sun's energy is staying on Earth instead of being radiated back into space. Thanks for proving their point. Still think global warming is based only on climate models? Do you have any understanding of how the scientific method works?
The term 'denier' is a political term and has nothing to do with science. The basis of science is skepticism. What you and others are doing is to vilify the science itself by trying to shut those that have other hypothesis out of the political loop. Other well known scientists that have opened dialogs with the scientists that have not toed the line are also called deniers by the likes of the political CAGW meme.
That quote is the proof of politicization of science. It certainly isn't based on observations, which have run counter to the models and the alarmism communicated using them.
As opposed to misrepresenting why Bengtsson’s paper was rejected? Actually, climate models have proven remarkably accurate (within a few hundredths of a degree) at predicting decadal trends. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html
Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades. Here is the official prediction and the observation. The variance between prediction and observation over the 100 months from January 2005 to April 2013 is thus equivalent to 3.2 Cº/century. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/
Here is the first graphic from your link. Do you really think nearly +1 Cº per century is statistically insignificant? Someone should tell Lord Monckton that there is no Fig, 11.33a in the IPCC AR5 report. http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/reports-graphic/ch11-graphics/
