Warpspeed – Steig Confirms O’Donnel Result
Posted by Jeff Id on December 9, 2010
UPDATE: It looks like Steve McIntyre has posted the results from the SI on line here. Perhaps it was just a replot with an improved scale.
Real Climate is comprised of the best of the best, after this there can be no question. Steig, who just recently left a request for a copy of the paper:
Back when Ryan O had written comments at RC, I said something like “I encourage you to submit this work for publication.” I’d glad to see that this work has gone through the peer review process, and I look forward to reading it.
I appreciate also Ryan’s comment that “I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement” and his emphasizing that their results (evidently) back up our most important point – -the significant warming West Antarctica.
This is indeed the way things ought to work — and evidently do. Too bad Steve McI seems bent on spinning it otherwise. His claim that this new work ‘refutes’ mine is a prime example of why I cannot take him seriously.
Ryan, if you don’t mind sending me a preprint, and a link to your reconstructed data, I’d appreciate it.
I will presumably have more to say after I get a chance to read the paper, but it’ll be a month or more as I’m simply too busy with current projects.
has now replicated our results completely!!!! What’s even more amazing is that it was done before official publication!! It took us months! Man these guys are good.
And our paper’s plot:
Note that the actual satellite grid coordinates are different, the trends are plotted from -0.4 to 0.4 C/Decade, the continental boundary is missing, the individual pixels are plotted in a different shape and the temperature scale is plotted differently. Look at the topmost pixels of each plot!! I believe this may be due to Ryan’s more sophisticated masking algorithm but am unsure at this moment.
I am pleased that Dr. Broccoli was able to see this matter and publish despite repeated recommendations for our work to enter the trash bucket.
In addition to this, my over-polite comment at RC today was clipped. Apparently, I am unqualified to discuss the paper I coauthored. What I wrote was the fact that our result is in contradiction to Steig et al, and the point that continental trends were halved in relation. I also mentioned that it was a nice learning experience and that S09 wouldn’t have passed this review because they were hard on retained PC’s. Nic however, got right through. This is what the boys had to say in response to a trend 1/2 of the S09 paper.
“In response to MapleLeaf’s question in #6, the reason why WUWT showed an image that appears to have less warming than the one shown here seems to be that the scale has been altered on the RealClimate image, covering the range -0.4 to +0.4 rather than a range of -0.6 to +0.6 degrees C as used in the original and reproduced at WUWT. With the colour range used being much the same in both images, that obviously makes the warming trend appear greater in the image shown here. I can confirm that the continental 1957-2006 trend per our reconstruction, at 0.06 degrees C per decade, was only half the 0.12 level shown by the Steig et al. 2009 reconstruction.”
[Response: Yes. I never said otherwise. The point very simply is that Antarctica is not cooling, no matter how much some people try to make it so. Oh, and West Antarctic is still warming, even if you try to call parts of West Antarctica "the Peninsula".-eric]
Nobody at this blog ever claimed cooling over that period to my knowledge but we can now claim no continent wide statistically significant warming either. As it should be.
|Region||RLS C/Dec||E-W C/Dec||S09 C/Dec|
|Continent||0.06 ± 0.08||0.04 ± 0.06||0.12 ± 0.09|
|East Antarctica||0.03 ± 0.09||0.02 ± 0.07||0.10 ± 0.10|
|West Antarctica||0.10 ± 0.09||0.06 ± 0.07||0.20 ± 0.09|
|Peninsula||0.35 ± 0.11||0.32 ± 0.09||0.13 ± 0.05|
The boys can call it the same thing, they can say it’s only a minor difference, but correct methods cut global warming in half in the Antarctic continent while placing a minor amount of increased warming where it should be – the peninsula! We also managed to place the West Antarctic back into a minor warming region of either barely significant or not significant warming. Whatever! Considering that this is the ice from which the seas must flood, you would think the press would be interested!
This comment deserves a little more air time. Maple leaf was asking why the trends were higher than the evil WUWT blog.
[The figure here shows O'Donnell's et al.s reconstruction for the same time period as our Nature cover image. These are annual mean estimates. I cannot speak to WTF WUWT has done.--eric]
Several people noticed the differences. The WUWT plot in question was the same graphic as ours: