This is an interesting tale and I'm grateful to Don Aitkin for publishing it. However I'm not sure why it indicates the failure of peer review.

Firstly, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that peer review is infallible. It is beyond human capability to devise an infallible system. The greatest problem with peer review is the opposite of what appears here. It's not that it keeps out the good stuff so much as that it lets through too much dross. A distressingly high proportion of scientific papers sink without a trace.

Secondly, peer reviewers at different journals have differing opinions. That's why we generally talk about the peer review SYSTEM, not peer review at individual journals.

In this case one of the five most prestigious general scientific journals in the English-speaking world published their highly controversial paper. PNAS isn't exactly the Timbuctou Journal of Science.

This doesn't sound like a failure of the peer review SYSTEM. It sounds like a success.

Precisely Steven, well said.

Unfortunately, your opening post will not be heard by those hearing the baited dog-whistle embedded within the article.

He says

"the world of peer review is governed by widespread assumptions about how things actually work, assumptions that aren't always correct. I've made this point before about climate change"

(linked to http://donaitkin.com/on-excellence-in-research/ )

In fact the only thing he says there about climate science is

"But my feeling is ..., so that we are now getting far too much ‘policy-based evidence-making’ especially in climate science.

In short, nothing about peer-review, and nothing about climate science that is supported by any particulars whatever.

Oddly, the other link in the same sentence of Don's article points to something else Don has written, at

http://donaitkin.com/two-cheers-for-peer-review/

which does have more to say about climate science. But it suffers from a complete absence of particulars which might lead one to believe that either (1) Don knows any climate science or (2) it's difficult to get good papers opposing the climate science orthodoxy published (he asserts this, but that's all).

The other posters made fair points but I think the point that Atkin is making is that this was a key paper pointing to a major, if not enormous problems with accepted models for drug testing, and there was a lot of trouble getting it accepted. Further, the problem was that the reviewers, who would have been prominent scientists, rejected the paper even though they could not find any error with it.

The conclusions were just too fantastic for them to accept. This remains a major problem for anyone who challenges the orthodoxy.

The paper should have gone in Nature.

I think the researchers pique at being rejected by Science and Nature is a bit much for a press release.

This story is not about the 'failure' of peer review, as they actually got published in a fairly prestigious journal and will get cited, but rather the perceived 'snobbery' of the most prestigious journals.

I don't think that Don realises how difficult it is to get things published in these journals. They don't care if you are 'right'. The fact that 13,000 papers (i.e. 13,000+ authors and research groups) are submitted to them each year that think that their research is good enough to publish, means that many of them are 'right', and the journal knows it. What they are looking for is significance, is it a 'breakthrough' that will change the field? This is much more difficult to convey in a paper that is only 1500 words long.

I know for a fact that these journals have published what were thought to be hugely significant findings that turned out to be, not quite incorrect, but artefacts caused by the analyses. However, the publication of them was not 'wrong', as it sparked much more research in that direction and more understanding of the field in general.

I would like to know if Don thinks that peer review fails more because it lets 'wrong' things be published, or fails because it doesn't publish things that are 'right'?

But I know one thing, he likely hasn't even attempted to publish in Science or Nature.

I knew I'd come across this before.

So I googled the two sites where I may have come across it - and:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/peer-review-failure-science-and-nature-journals-reject-papers-because-they-have-to-be-wrong/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/11/settled-science-updateof-mice-and-men/

Like Steven said, it's a system, and it seems the "skeptic" sites are indulging in a "cherry-pick"(again).

Back again, Jeremy?

Knowledge of climate science is irrelevant to being aware of the problems of publication and peer review. In case you genuinely want some details on the climate change situation, the following may assist.

Here is what Carter says about his peer reviewed paper published in Journal for Geophysical Research :

“In July 2009 we published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) in which we described the results of comparing global atmospheric temperature since 1958 with variations in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climatic framework. Our analysis supported earlier research that demonstrates a close link between these factors, and indicated that a large portion of the variability in global temperature is explained by ENSO variation, thus leaving little room for a substantial human influence on temperature”.

This excited the Climategate miscreants who were able to quickly publish an inadequate refutation of the paper, which stood as a reference for as long as they were able to stall Carter’s rejoinder.

It is amusing to read the Climategate email, in relation to their inadequate comment, which they thought would never see the light of day, exposing their unethical behaviour.:

““Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009

Robert Carter is an eminent and respected climate scientist, no doubt the reason that the fraud backers were keen to besmirch and obstruct publication of his science.

Dear "All":

Lets keep the Earth flat...its comfortable!

Dan...

Peer review has it's failings, but any author whose whinge is that they got rejected by Science and Nature, but accepted by PNAS has a planet-sized chip on their shoulder. If you submit articles to journals, you are going to get rejected sooner or later, and often for reasons that might not seem fair or reasonable. This is doubly true for top level journals like Nature, who are innundated with submissions, so can be incredibly picky about what they accept. Get over it and resubmit somewhere else - if your work has merit it will get published.

Of course "skeptics" abound with strategies which they roll out contingent on the task at hand (and I'm not targeting Don Aitkin here, merely noting that the skeptic movement appears to conform to a strategic modus operandi - which commonly has no scientific or evidence-based component)

Attacking "peer-review" is apparently the latest tactic.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/08/beware-the-bashers-of-peer-rev/

Curmudgeon, Monday, 18 February 2013 10:15:18 AM wrote:

>>The paper should have gone in Nature.>>

I suspect that with the benefit of hindsight the editors of Nature agree with you. But we all make mistakes.

The point about being published in a prestigious journal is that other scientists will take note. All the Nature Publication Group Journals, Science, PNAS and other more specialised journals such as Reviews of Modern Physics or Cell are megaphones. Others, such as the impressive sounding Journal of Pediatric Biochemistry, that seem to exist mainly to enable second rate academics to claim some publications, are barely audible whispers. It's hard to hear them above the noise. In fact a fair proportion of what appears on their pages is noise.

On the whole the more prestigious journals deserve their reputation. Most of the really interesting scientific papers first appear there. Open Clinical Chemistry Journal may have published some ground breaking research but I doubt it.

Getting a controversial paper into PNAS guarantees it will get a fair hearing. Maybe in this case the peer review system did not work as well as it should have, but it got there in the end. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, important scientific research was not suppressed.

If anything in this case Nature's and Science's rejections actually gave the paper more prominence than it would otherwise have had.

Now if anyone can think of a better system of ensuring a reasonable standard of quality in scientific journals than peer review let's hear it. That would be a much more interesting conversation than dark hints of evil scientists conspiring to suppress inconvenient research.

So what are the alternatives to the peer review SYSTEM?

It appears that sceptics are just as ridiculed in the medical research field as they are in the climate science field. Society is the poorer as a result.

Hi there DIVER DAN...

What a bullet like intellect you have there. Always dazzles us lesser souls, with the enormity of your scientific mastery. You're an asinine, narcissistic little fellow aren't you ? Never prepared to engage in sensible discussion. Yet with protracted antecedents for taunting and deriding others from afar, before making good your exit by scurring away for cover once more !

Yeah, I suppose publication in PNAS would would seem like ridicule for those of us that have published in Science, wouldn't it Raycom?

Yep, peer review has proved very good at protecting the not too bright from having to absorb & evaluate new facts, & ideas.

Keeps the incompetent in jobs as well. Hopefully so they can retire & draw their pension, before anyone finds out what charlatans so many are.

Stomach ulcers anyone?

The first step to cleaing up peer review is to get rid of the anonymity of the reviewers. A classic example of how anonymity can taint the process is the Steig episode when Eric Steig, author of a discredited paper on alleged Antarctic warming, was an anonymous reviewer of the O'Donnell paper which critiqued Steig's paper:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/13/steig-and-the-knuckleheaded-reviewers/

That simply should not have happened; if full transparency was the standard then even if Steig did review the paper his 'interest' would have beeen known.

Still, regardless of any level of openess, the system which allows Lewandowsky's egregious 'survey' paper to be published needs major revision.

Oh please, getting rid of anonymous review is the worst idea for 'cleaning up' the system. The situation you describe is an editorial problem, not an anonymous review problem. The reviewers are never anonymous from the editor and they should have known any conflicts of interest before sending a piece out to review.

Getting rid of anonymity is a recipe for disaster. Can you image what would happen if you severely reviewed someones work that happens to have your grant application in front of them for their review? Or perhaps gets it next year? Scientists aren't supposed to be spiteful humans, but reasoning logical automatons aren't they?

Yeah, there's heaps of stories about how people couldn't get their stuff published etc. Actually what they really mean is that they couldn't get their stuff published in their journal of choice. Too bad, so sad. Getting stuff published, even with peer review, is actually quite easy.

Getting stuff published in Nature...not so easy.

I think the point Don is making is that we need to be cautious. The fact that some point of view is presented in peer review journals is a weak test of its ability to withstand criticism. And if it is rejected, the reasons for its rejection may have little to do with the worth of the research.

But what alternatives do we have? Perhaps, instead of peer review some journals should have non-peer review i.e review by scientists who who do not have an established position to defend.

Bugsy says:

"Getting rid of anonymity is a recipe for disaster."

No, there are too many disasters now, especially in climate science; and the emails have told us why; the subject is ideologically and financially driven.

The choice is between secret spite and spite out there in the open.

Anyone who argues against transparency in the process of evolution of scientific knowledge is obviously a disciple of the 'science is settled' mantra.

And again, it all comes down to 'climate science' doesn't it cohenite. Nobody ever cares about genetics, or materials science or quantum physics. No, peer review in those fields is uncontroversial for all you 'true science' defenders.

You guys can make the case to the general population that peer-review can be ignored when it is inconvenient (as Don has previously), but you would be hard-pressed to convince most actual scientists that should be the case. As to loss of anonymous review, many would not agree to review others work because they do not want anything they about a fellow scientists work say to become the subject of a public slagging match. Which all guys really do isn't it?

Knowing who reviewed your unsuccessful grant application would be even worse.

No, I think the peer review system is fine for science in general for reasons that are obvious to people who actually work in the area. The abuses are generally sporadic and few, not systemic.

But deep down I suspect you just want to know who rejected you don't you? I still can't understand why you haven't tried another journal?

"And again, it all comes down to 'climate science' doesn't it cohenite.'

Of course it does; the state of peer review and scientific process in AGW is dreadful. Another recent example is the new paper by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/

They describe a hitherto ignored fundamental atmospheric process which goes to the heart of the manifest defects in AGW modelling; their experience with the peer review is typical of every 'heretical' paper over the last decade.

Yet instead of having an open mind about it you attempt to personalise it; I have never said peer review should be ignored but right now it has been subverted by such concepts as the consensus, authoritative declarations and personal smears of disbelievers by the likes of Lewandowsky.

This is not science and is at a level in AGW which is different in kind rather than degree with the problems of peer review in other areas of science which you name.

I don't have an agenda with AGW except a desire that the crucial area of scientific service offered by climate studies should be as objective and accurate as possible.

This has not happened up to now and this failure will continue until the AGW advocates discard the ridiculous idea that climate science is 'settled'.

LOL Cohenite,

Your posts are becoming bizarre.

Makarieva and Ghorshkov proposed their "biotic pump" in 2006. See my post on this forum on 20 January 2010 9:00:55 AM.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9946&page=0

The issue is by not as clear cut as you suggest. Nobody doubts that the mechanism Makarieva et al propose exists; but there is considerable doubt that the effect is as significant as they think.* I can imagine that this was a very difficult paper to review and that the editors of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics would have proceeded with caution. And perhaps they were overcautious.

But once again the paper was published and it was published in one of the leading specialist journals on the topic. This does not sound like a failure of peer review in climatology.

Note that if Makarieva et al are correct the implications are ALARMING.

People who want to read more about Makarieva et al's latest paper may find popular descriptions on the following "warmist" sites:

Environmental News Network: http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/45539

And Mongobay:

>>Given what's at stake, Sheil notes that part of the pushback on the theory may be due to "a fear that opening up such a debate about the core climate principles is a gift to global warming deniers.**" But if the biotic pump turns out to be true, it would not change the fact that the climate is changing and herculean efforts are needed to mitigate both the causes and the impacts, whether that focuses on greenhouses gas emissions, forests, or, as it happens, both, since forests ability to store carbon is just one of the many services they provide.>>

http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html#DTBdtUw6tsBVMYC2.99

This is the way science progresses. We learn more, debate, and constantly improve our understanding.

And maybe we can solve all our climate problems by planting trees. Now there's a cheerful thought.

Bugsy

Have you seen anything on this thread that suggests a systemic failure of peer review in climate or anything else?

I haven't.

*Full disclosure. I think Makarieva et al are right.

**I think that's you they have in mind Cohenite :)

You're a joke steven, a shill for AGW; Makarieva is an expert on condensation and the fact that condensation DECREASES pressure. ALL the AGW models are based on an assumption that condensation INCREASES pressure.

With such an assumption you get higher temperature, positive feedback and complete unreliability in predicting hurricanes and storms; all of which are features of AGW modelling.

Such an assumption was the basis of the idiotic Lascis et al paper 'proving' CO2 was the "control knob" of climate:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

And look at the time Lascis needed to get his abomination published; 2 months!

It took Makarieva et al 2 years and her paper is based on known basic science unlike the rest of AGW!

AGW peer review is a joke.

I don't think I can add much to the discussion, and I'll let the ad hominems pass to the keeper.

The point about publication in PNAS is that a member of that body can ask for his or her paper to be reviewed. That is a considerable advantage not shared by the ordinary researcher, and had not one of the lead authors been a member of PNAS they might still be looking for a journal that would publish them.

That peer review failed in this case doesn't mean that the peer review system is a failure. I can't think of a better system, and have said so in my own essays, but it does suffer from the ordinary human failings. Editors and editorial boards in particular need to think hard before they reject papers that challenge the orthodoxy, whatever the discipline or field. This is both more difficult and more necessary in fields like pre-clinical medicine and climate science, where the orthodoxies are strongly supported by corporations and/or governments.

Hi Don,

I agree with your latest post subject to two qualifications.

(1) We've discussed a few cases in which scientific papers that overturn the "accepted orthodoxy" had a difficult passage. I've known many papers that did not overturn any orthodoxies to suffer long delays. Is there any evidence of a systemic bias against "unorthodox" papers?

(2) I would expect papers that claim to overturn orthodoxies to be subjected to greater scrutiny than those that work within an accepted paradigm. To cite an extreme example, if I submitted a paper that claimed I had used fiendishly complicated equipment to prove that neutrinos could travel just slightly faster than light I would expect my efforts to undergo a very lengthy peer review process.

The majority of papers that claim to upset the "accepted orthodoxies" prove to be defective so it is reasonable to examine them more closely than less revolutionary submissions. It is hard to separate the gold from the dross.

As to the Makarieva paper, first I need to declare my own biases. It is my (amateur) opinion that Makarieva et al are right. I think that climatologists underestimate the extent to which large forests influence wind patterns.

But having said that I must add that it is by not as clear cut (pun intended) as some posters believe. I've exchanged emails with two climatologists on this issue. Neither of them disputes the existence of the biotic pump; but they claim that other forces would swamp it.

That being said I think a two year publication delay is excessive.

I think we agree that it is beyond human capability to devise an infallible system. We will always find cases in which we think a rejected paper should have been published.

But do you have any evidence that solidly based contrarian papers are being systematically suppressed?

Because that's what it's about.

Steven,

I didn't say that such papers are being 'systematically' suppressed or delayed.There is some evidence that papers that support the status quo and might be needed for one of the IPCC's reports being given a really speedy treatment. I agree that we don't know enough to say there is a systematic bias.

I've been at every level of the peer review system, and don't recall systematic biases other than (a) for the orthodoxy, and (b) for pet projects of a particular group (and against them, too, from their opponents). I've recommended against papers that were published and for papers that weren't.

In the longer run, which may be shorter than I think, we will move to a system of public and electronic peer-review, which is happening already. The stranglehold of the journal publishers may be lifted soon, too, if more countries insist on full publication of publicly funded research, and more researchers avoid publishing in journals that erect paywalls. All that will see a change in peer review, too.

I don't think this example is an example of 'failure' of the peer review. The picture you paint of PNAS only accepting it for review because someone on the author lost was an Academy member is false. That is not the only route that these authors could have taken, PNAS also considers direct submissions. These authors probably thought they would have an easier time of getting a hearing, and they would probably be right, if they used the contributor submission system, but that may not have been the case.

The majority of rejections from Science or Nature, are generally editorial decisions, but this does not constitute a failure of peer review. In fact Nature did a study on papers that get rejected and found that they usually got better with revision and many of them were accepted in journals of higher impact than the original submissions.

I agree with Steven and don't see any reason to suspect a 'failure' of the peer review system. What I see is a general whinge by climate skeptics that science that contradicts AGW is not getting published. This should not be the case. There are heaps of journals and as Don alludes to there is a massive rise in open access journals (which also have peer review), with the added advantage that people can comment on them. The impact factor of journals such as the PLoS journals is quite high, and they are quite well integrated into database search engines such as Google Scholar etc. To say that you can't get published is rot, anyone who says that just can't get published in their pet journal of choice. It's all about the immediate personal prestige of the researcher, not the actual significance of the paper. The true significance of the paper is usually determined much later, by citations and other impact measures.

Hi Don,

I agree that putting publicly funded research behind a paywall is a disgrace!

I also agree that there will be more "open" online peer review which will give interested amateurs a chance to participate. I'm not sure exactly how this will work. Separating the gold from the dross when it comes to amateur peer review will be challenging. However, in general, the more eyes there are on research the better.

Steve’s climatology buddies “claim that other forces would swamp it.”

Makarieva has answered this incorrect point that what she is talking about is a minor climatic determinant; she says:

“I think this is a very good example showing that many people do not understand what our work is about when trying to judge about the magnitude of its implications. Dr. Schmidt’s words about 0.6% of total pressure refer to the weight of vapor molecules in an atmospheric column. This is a store. The effect of condensation on pressure gradient that we are describing depends on flux — the rate of precipitation. The faster the vapor is removed from the atmosphere, the greater the resulting pressure gradient will be. Fluxes and stores should not be confused, as these are variables of different dimensions.

I would also like to encourage people, before spreading the word about 0.6% of total pressure as a negligible magnitude, to give a thought to the relevance of this magnitude in the atmospheric context. For example, Hadley cells (the major feature of Earth’s atmospheric circulation) are driven by a pressure difference that is of the order of 10 hPa, i.e. a meager 1% of total air pressure.”

And her work is not about a “biotic pump”; it is about the accounting for latent heat and pressure in the process of condensation. The energy conversion in evaporation/condensation DWARFS any other atmospheric process, see:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Gilbert-Thermodyn%20surf%20temp%20&%20water%20vapour.pdf

The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But never mind that evaporating/condensing water generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [see above link, equations 1 to 3] that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day.

I agree with steve’s unintentionally ;ironic comment:

“the more eyes there are on research the better.”

Someone should tell the climate scientists; their refusal to be open and transparent is the real disgrace.

It doesn't matter cohenite.

It's a modelling paper that has no data to support it.

The authors themselves freely admit that it's a hypothesis that still needs data.

Funny how data-free modelling is ok, if it's says something that may support your cause. Which remains to seen of course, but it would make seem to make the case that land use change is important, wouldn't it?

Bugsy,

PNAS is not your usual journal. According to Wikipedia, and I think it is correct on this one, 'Members may handle the peer review process for up to 4 of their own papers per year—this is an open review process because the member selects and communicates directly with the referees. These submissions and reviews, like all for PNAS, are evaluated for publication by the PNAS Editorial Board. Until July 1, 2010, members were allowed to communicate up to 2 papers from non-members to PNAS every year.'

I repeat, that one of the lead authors had access to that process, and it was that access that allowed the paper to be published.

Don, I think you would do better to actually read their submission policies.

http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/editorialpolicies.xhtml

Being a member of the Academy has its advantages, but it's not a requirement.

Bugsy,

I didn't say it was a requirement, but that it was the means whereby the authors could gain at least a decent hearing for their paper.

The link you provided says what Wikipedia says: 'An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member's area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research.'

With all due respect Don, what you are saying is purely conjecture. They took that route, because they could and it would probably increase their chances of getting published in that particular journal.

We will never know if it would been rejected if they submitted it by direct submission.

To imply that it would not have been published at all if not for the fact that one of the authors was a NAS member is a complete fantasy.

Their submission strategy was all about trying to get into the most prestigous journals. Their pique at being overlooked by Science and Nature and publically saying so was a bit churlish in my opinion. I suspect that they wanted to let everyone know that they at least submitted it to those journals, they thought themselves that good. "Oh yes, PNAS was our third choice doncha know?"

"It's a modelling paper that has no data to support it."

That's nuts.

Makarieva applies source and sink terms for water vapor in the mass continuity equation and uses atmosphere parameters, ie known physical quantities and processes, to explore the application of those equally known terms. She uses nothing except basic physical considerations. Something which was lacking in the models.

What the hell are you talking about?

Bugsy, is this the paper that you're "nuts" about?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf

Editor's comments are particularly cogent, finishing thus:

"... The handling editor (and the executive committee) concluded
to allow final publication of the manuscript in ACP, in order to
facilitate further development of the presented arguments, which
may lead to disproof or validation by the scientific community."

I would like to see more data and discussion, but not on OLO.

cohenite wrote:

>>She uses nothing except basic physical considerations. Something which was lacking in the models.>>

LOL. You really think scientists who construct climate models leave out "basic physical considerations?"

>>The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But never mind that evaporating/condensing water generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [see above link, equations 1 to 3] that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day.>>

LOL

Oh dear!

I haven't read the Lacis paper but you do realise that your statement as it stands is nonsense? Evaporation and condensation rearranges heat around the Earth. It has nothing to do with the Earth's radiation budget with space.

You seem to be forgetting some "basic physical considerations."

Bugsy, Qanda

This is hilarious :)

Good on you steve; you haven't read what I am talking about but you are sure you are right; you must be Bill Shorten.

Steve chortles:

"LOL. You really think scientists who construct climate models leave out "basic physical considerations?"

Read yourself:

http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/node16.html

As Jeff Condon notes:

"The model is a parametrized version of the physics which leaves out the key factor of pressure drop caused when water vapor condenses."

This comment by steve is abysmal:

"Evaporation and condensation rearranges heat around the Earth. It has nothing to do with the Earth's radiation budget with space."

The issue is the alleged consequences of AGW with the models attributing and predicting warmer temps, extreme weather events, positive feedback etc on the basis of leaving out Makarieva's observation of basic science regarding the way energy is involved in atmospheric processes.

The Earth's Energy Balance {ERB] is irrelevant to this; that is, the models says an increase in ERB has these consequences but Makarieva shows they are a product of 'natural' processes.

As for a +ve ERB that is garbage anyway as Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell and Knox and Douglass show:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

Go back to doodling Steve, or at least try to have an open mind before you open your trap.

I want to get back to the Makarieva, Ghorshkov and Sheil paper because it is important.

For what it's worth I think the authors are correct. I can find no fault with their reasoning and neither can two physicists I consulted. It must however be said that while the three of us are comfortable pushing equations around none of us are experts on atmospheric dynamics.

What if they are correct?

Firstly, it says nothing about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have confirmed this by speaking to one of the authors.

However the theory proposed in the paper – and it is still mainly theory – does say a lot about where and how the effects of global warming will be felt in various parts of the world. To the extent that current climate models ignore this effect they will make inaccurate forecasts about the where, how and TIMING of AGW induced climate changes.

Of more immediate importance is that if the authors are correct conservation and even expansion of existing forests becomes a matter of extreme urgency. We should only permit logging if the logging companies plant more acreage than they cut down.

Given the importance of this we should also be funding research to gather the hard data needed to support, or refute, the author's theories.

I think we should also be investigating genetically engineering trees to see whether we can develop strains able to exploit higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Some more short lived plants like poison ivy* are already adapting naturally but trees take a long time.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083003947.html

Is this point of view from Oct 2009 still relevant?

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/a-forest-as-biotic-pump201d-hypotesis-discredited-due-to-errors-in-basic-atmospheric-physics

Steve, you don't get it; the energy in the evaporation/condensation phase changes which Makarieva's paper discusses DWARF the energy contribution of AGW, IF such contribution exists.

AGW, IF it exists, is just noise in the background of this natural process.

And why do you keep harping about trees; Makarieva's paper has nothing to do with trees. If you want to look at a paper which discusses the water cycle and plants see Ferguson and Veizer:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008431/abstract

WmTrevor, 20 February 2013 10:18:58 AM asks:

>>Is this point of view from Oct 2009 still relevant?>>

(Referring to a 2009 paper A "Forests as biotic pump” hypothesis discredited due to errors in basic atmospheric physics")

That's the big question.

I don't know. I don't think anyone does for sure. I hope Makarieva, Gorshkhov,Sheil and others interested in this topic get the funding to flesh out their theories with more hard data.

I want to re-iterate that while forests may affect where, how and when the effects of AGW may be experienced in different parts of the globe it does not alter the final outcome. Every joule of energy removed from the surface due to evaporation is released back into the atmosphere when water vapour condenses and falls to earth as rain. There is no net cooling effect due to evaporation.

Above the atmosphere is vacuum. Therefore, with a few insignificant exceptions the only way the Earth can gain or lose energy is through electromagnetic radiation. That's basic physics and that's why it's the Earth's radiation budget that is the key to understanding global warming.

Here is a link to an image that illustrates the Earth radiation (aka energy) budget.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_big.gif

The figures are out of date but illustrate the principle. Look especially at the evaporation / latent heat part of the diagram. They balance out exactly.

Bugsy, 19 February 2013 2:15:59 PM writes:

>>What I see is a general whinge by climate skeptics that science that contradicts AGW is not getting published.>>

I'm not aware of any science that contradicts or falsifies AGW. There's a lot of argument about details. It may turn out that some of the forecasts are unduly pessimistic. It may even turn out that climatologists have underestimated the Earth's ability to adapt to higher CO2 levels.

But to a dispassionate scientifically literate observer the overall direction is hardly in doubt. It is underpinned by some quite fundamental physics.

Will it be as catastrophic as some forecasters say? I don’t know and at my age I shan't be around to find out.

Steven the thing you are forgetting in all this is that AGW is nothing to get excited about. It is not enough to even notice, without positive feedback.

Without that feedback it is no more important than my dog.

The feedback has never had any proof, just wishful thinking by the model designers.

This takes away any hope that positive feedback is possible.

Hilarious Steven?

Yep.

As far as the recently published Makarieva et al paper (on topic I would have thought) – it would have made perfect sense if Bugsy was referring to that, but you would not have known it from the lawyer’s response. Indeed, the lawyer’s comeback seemed to completely ignore the fact that Makarieva’s latest publication hasn’t had the time to be researched, tested and validated/disproved (hence the editor’s comments) - and yes, very theoretical.

This is the point I think Bugsy was trying to make (I may be wrong). However, when the lawyer chips back a few times with Kath&Kim ‘look at me look, at me’ responses – yes, that’s hilarious!

As I’ve said – I’m looking forward to further research and testing (and presentation of some/any data) stemming from the ‘delayed’ publication of Makarieva et al.

Regarding adaptation and mitigation? Easier said than done going by some of the naysayers here – not amusing.

Bugsy,

Neither of knows what passed through the author' minds when they tried to get publication, and everything about that is therefore conjecture. I simply reported what was in the NYT article. If it is fantasy, it is not mine.

Cheers,

Don

Steve says:

“I'm not aware of any science that contradicts or falsifies AGW”

To paraphrase Makarieva you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Qanda on the other hand has imbibed deeply from the well of hubris.

Plants are not discussed in Makarieva except in section 4.5 which deals with the “inherent spatial non-uniformity” of different regions, in this case the Amazon and nearby Atlantic ocean; this regional “non-uniformity” would occur between any 2 surfaces. To this extent other papers by Makarieva, which deal specifically with the biotic pump, are essentially about where the evaporation, condensation and precipitation occurs.

The key point about Makarieva is that the process of evaporation/condensation/precipitation is the primary energy factor in the atmosphere. This energy is so great that even if AGW were real and a product of an ERB, which isn’t happening, the extra energy in the ERB due to AGW would be by comparison so miniscule as to be dwarfed by the process Makarieva describes.

This is just a matter of numbers; if you believe in Makarieva then AGW in any meaningful way is defeated. The irony is, if Makarieva is correct, then AGW has been sustained by ignoring the principle she describes.

In short steve and his ilk are caught between a rock and hard place.

The dispute between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters is the latter’s contention that pressure does not drop with condensation; they say:

“Since condensation implies disappearance of water molecules from the vapor phase, there remain indeed less molecules which exert pressure. But on the other hand, condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion and a rise in pressure, which is neglected in the calculations of M&G.”

I don’t think that is right; condensation involves latent heat; rising evaporated gas uses the latent energy to rise; condensation uses whatever latent energy which is left to phase change the vapor to liquid which then precipitates; no heating is involved and no pressure rise occurs.

However that is a key point and I would like to hear any other opinions.

"I would like to hear any other opinions."

Now that is hilarious - have fun :)

Can't see the forest for the trees, eh cohenite?
That paper discusses forests several times, but not 'trees' or 'plants'.

The model may use data in their parameters, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no confirming supporting data, independent of the model. It remains a hypothesis, a hypothesis with a model that looks solid, but nothing yet validating it.

The irony I see, is that there's you talking excitedly about a new model that you don't understand, as if it's the next big thing that will validate your stance against what you see as unsupported models!

Hilarious, skeptical to the core, LOL.
I'll let co-author Douglas Sheil have his say on this topic:
"Technically this theory has no direct bearing on global warming physics. The mechanism is distinct and independent," says Sheil. "However, if the physical mechanisms operate as we propose, current models that have been developed to simulate global climate and predict changes are missing a major piece and are thus of uncertain value. The pump mechanism and land-cover change trends would need to be better reflected in any forecasts."

Compare and contrast with cohenite:"if you believe in Makarieva then AGW in any meaningful way is defeated."

Really?

Don,

The newspaper reported Dr Davis suggesting reviewers that he thought would be suitable and "who he thought would give the work a fair hearing". Yes, that part is true.

The fantasy that this story is somehow a 'failure of peer review', is all yours.

LOL Bugsy,

That's what makes it so hilarious. It is obvious from cohenite's posts that he is clueless about some pretty basic physical facts. And yet, as you say, there he is babbling "excitedly about a new model that [he doesn't] understand, as if it's the next big thing that will validate [his] stance..."

I mean you can't make this stuff up.

Oh well I think this thread has reached its use by date. See you on another thread.

It was good fun though. I'm in the middle of a boring task and this, especially cohenite, provided a welcome distraction.

Bugsy:

Sheil says their theory which is based on known, tried and tested physical processes, "has no direct bearing on global warming physics."

He also says about the models which are the basis of AGW; "current models that have been developed to simulate global climate and predict changes are missing a major piece and are thus of uncertain value."

Makarieva says: "We can now compare our theory with observations...[it] is in close agreement with the best observational estimates."

I've never come across so many smart guys who are dopes.

Come on cohenite, you're a lawyer, I'm sure you have.

cohenite writes "...that is a key point and I would like to hear any other opinions".

I agree, so here's another opinion. The following in particular:

"The dispute between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters is the latter’s contention that pressure does not drop with condensation; they say:
"Since condensation implies disappearance of water molecules from the vapor phase, there remain indeed less molecules which exert pressure. But on the other hand, condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion and a rise in pressure, which is neglected in the calculations of M&G."

I assume that this quote from Stigter and Meesters, as it appears written, has been taken in context. If I'm reading it correctly, and assuming there's no more to their statement which may explain more in depth and may change the context, then these guys are completely off the money. This is alarming because it's basic school textbook stuff on meteorology.

Let's look at it:

1. "But on the other hand, condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion..." Correct.

2. "...and a rise in pressure..." Yes BUT, only in a closed system such as in the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

The atmosphere is NOT a closed system - it's an open system. It is free to expand and contract as much as it likes and does so with great observable and measurable regularity. The statement, with respect to atmosphere should read like this:

Condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion, expansion of the air parcel, decreased density and a decrease in pressure.

That's how convective clouds work. The air inside the cloud is hotter, hence less dense, hence has less pressure than the air at the same altitude immediately outside the cloud where condensation is not taking place. This causes the simple mechanics of atmospheric convection. So-called hot air rises.

Stigter and Meesters seem to have got it wrong. So who peer reviews the peer reviewers?

Folks like us I guess, but it seems the boffins don't like it much.

Cheers all.

Thanks for your input VoxUnius; this is the critique of Kees Stigter and Antoon Meesters:

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/a-forest-as-biotic-pump201d-hypotesis-discredited-due-to-errors-in-basic-atmospheric-physics

Here is Makarieva's response:

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/the-biotic-pump-physics-is-maturing-to-a-novel-theory-of-atmospheric-circulation-everybody2019s-invited

And a further reply by Antoon Meesters:

http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/needs-for-agrometeorological-solutions-to-farming-problems/reply-to-m-gs-reaction

The Meesters reply concedes the point that precipitation will decrease pressure but still distinguishes the effect between dry and moist air. he says:

"As vapor condensates in ascending air, latent heat is released which mitigates the temperature drop, so that the wet parcels become in general warmer than dry parcels at the same height. The heat causes the wet parcels first to have a pressure surplus (this is what we mean) and then to expand, pushing away the dry air at the same height."

This, to my understanding, is merely a description of enthalpy and misunderstands the point of Makarieva's thesis, but again I would welcome input.

When peer review fails, sign up to a workshop on Online Opinion. Yep, hilarious.