Air Vent Makes a Splash
Posted by Jeff Id on May 29, 2009
Ryan’s latest got some attention around the internet world. Thanks in large part to Climate Audit, Watts Up With That and The Blackboard. Here are some of the bigger incoming links.
guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonb…
examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-…
debatt.aftenposten.no/item.php?GroupI…
valdeperrillos.com/materiaoscura/anta…
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-…
rankexploits.com/musings/2009/antarct…
I have to say thanks to everyone, it’s good to see hard work like this be recognized.
Ryan O said
Well, I want to add a thanks to Jeff for letting me post and both Jeffs for doing most of the grunt work as far as developing the original reconstruction code goes . . . Steve and Anthony for carrying the posts . . . and a special thanks to Lucia who a few months ago invited me to make posts on the Blackboard about it. Without that expression of interest, my own interest in this may have dwindled.
curious said
Just put a few dollars in the jar at Lucia’s. Best wishes for a successful publication :)
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said
well it looks good from here!
wattsupwiththat said
Ryan again I wish to say that you absolutely MUST send a rebuttal to Nature. The work is to important to not do so and paper will take months.
Anthony
Jonathan Drake said
Excellent work guys. Keep at it!
Page48 said
Wonderful!!!
lucia said
RyanO–
I think it’s very useful for people to comb over important papers. In principle, this would get done by others in the field. In practice, that takes a long time unless someone else happens to already be specifically working on nearly the same issue.
RomanM said
Nice job and well deserved recognition, Ryan!
You’ve been doing the job that should have been done by the authors of the paper(s) – indicating how the reconstructions react to the various changes in the processing parameters. However, then you have to justify on what basis the particular choices were made (but you would have to properly understand the methodology, and of course, this would admit to the fact that the statistical analysis is not cut-and-dried and could actually give spurious results and you don’t admit to that in climate science …).
Way to go!
Layman Lurker said
For those who have not yet seen the latest at RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/on-overfitting/langswitch_lang/bu