2011-08-30 20:23:22Peer reviewed response to Essenhigh (2009)
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

 

I have been working on responding to the reviewers comments on my (conditionally accepted) refutation of Essenhigh's paper on the residence time of atmospheric CO2, but I could do with a bit of help with one comment, namely

"I would also like to see a little more discussion of the ways in which the one-box model differs from the real temporal dynamics of the real carbon cycle. The point here is that the ocean behaves a bit more like a 1-D (vertical) slab with a range of time scales, so that the timescales for CO2 uptake tend to lengthen with time after a CO2 release. Therefore, the 1-box model here would tend to overestimate net CO2 uptake on longer time scales."

I'd also be very grateful for comments on my responses to the reviewers other comments.  The current version of the paper can be downloaded here and my responses to the reviewers comments here.

If I have missed anyone off the list in the acknowledgements section, please remind me, your contribution *is* appreciated!

best regards

Gavin

2011-08-31 09:08:33
MartinS

mstolpe@student.ethz...
93.200.104.192

p.28: "IPPC" should be "IPCC"

2011-08-31 11:31:18
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.183.160.169

Your reply to the reviewers starts "I would like to that thank the anonymous reviewers"

 

Nice job. Where will it be published?

2011-09-01 06:42:01
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.224.131

Thanks for the proof read, much appreciated.  The paper will appear in "Energy and Fuels", which is a journal of the American Chemistry Society, and I gather a fairly decent journal.  Essenhigh's paper demonstrates that peer review can't prevent bad papers getting published, even in good journals!

Salby next!

2011-09-01 06:59:57
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.220

Reviewer 1 is indeed correct that the one box model tends to overestimate CO2 uptake on long time scales. You may quote footnote (a) in table 2.14 in the AR4 which gives the results of the Bern carbon cycle model.

I'm not sure why the reviewer asks for a comparison with more complicated models, but you could make him happy with just a short paragraph :)

2011-09-14 02:06:59
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

just sent of the revised manuscript, should be in early view fairly soon!

2011-09-14 06:44:40
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.143

Great, Dikran, congrats.

2011-09-26 16:34:05
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

The paper is now accepted, just need to wait for the proofs and it will be available on-line.  I will ask if it can be madeopen access (given it refutes an incorrect paper that received a lot of attention in the general public rather than by other academics).  The answer will probably be "non, but if you don't ask...

2011-09-26 19:22:00Congrats, great news!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
What do you think of having a plan to coincide the paper release with something on SkS? The idea is for your paper to have maximum impact when it comes out.
2011-09-26 19:27:12
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.242.150

Well done brutha!

2011-09-26 23:01:37
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

cheers Rob.

John. how about a fairly brief blog post pointing out the basics, with a more detailed post as the advanced rebuttal for residence time?  Term has just started this week so things are a bit busy at the moment, but I'll see what I can do!

2011-10-08 01:11:02Just recieved the galley proofs of the paper
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

and they look good!  A DOI has also been assigned to the paper, which means that it effectively is now published

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u

at the moment it is still the draft manuscript, might be worth downloading a copy it may be open access until the final version is posted (I did ask f it could be made open acess, but without success).


I'll write a brief blog article about the paper, but I'll have to leave the detail for the advanced rebuttal of the residence time argument.  Typical that it would appear during the busiest part of term for teaching!

Many thanks to all those who contributed!

2011-10-08 20:28:46Advanced rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
What are the copyright issues re publishing an advanced rebuttal on SkS - do you have to change it substantially to avoid stepping on the journal's toes?

Are you going to blog about this under "Dikran" or your real name? :-)

2012-02-02 03:36:25
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Hi all, I have just got round to writing a brief blog post on my published rebuttal of Robert Essenhigh's paper

http://www.skepticalscience.com/essenhigh_rebuttal.html

I've kept it short, a brief explanation of why we can be sure that Essenhigh is wrong, followed by an announcement of the paper.  All comments gratefully recieved (unless they are to do with activities involving our simian cousins).

Hopefully I can write a detailed technical post later

Thanks for all your help everybody!

2012-02-02 03:46:55
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Somewhere in there it would be good to link the 'CO2 rise is natural' rebuttal, maybe even in the first sentence.

typo below your figure: ocuurs => occurs

another below your paper announcement: rebfutation => refutation. 

There's also an extra break between Riccardo and Reitano.

You should also add a reference to your paper in the above-linked rebuttal.  Congratulations on the publication!

2012-02-02 05:41:34
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.84.168

typo:

- artguments (2nd paragraph under figure 1)

Only issue is that your post leads with the myth, rather than creating the 'truth sandwich.'

I do consider it rather cool that we can now refer to peer-reviewed literature by another SkS'er!

2012-02-02 23:43:10
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.218.144

The equations would read more naturally with the use of subscripts: C' = Ea + En - Un

Could the graph legend be more descriptive? e.g.

 -- Total change in CO2 (C')

 -- Anthropogenic emissions (Ea)

 -- Net natural flux (En - Un = C' - Ea)

I think this para needs work:

We have accurate, reliable data for the growth of atmospheric CO2 and for anthropogenic emissions (Cawley, 2011), which are displayed below, along with an estimate of the net natural carbon flux En - Un.  This clearly shows that natural uptake has exceeded natural emissions every year for the last fifty years at least, and hence has been opposing, rather than causing the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

"Along with an estimate of the net neutral carbon flux" is ambiguous, it could be a clause of 'We have accurate' rather than 'which are displayed below. At least remove the comma, or better:

We have accurate, reliable data for the growth of atmospheric CO2 and for anthropogenic emissions (Cawley, 2011). Both of these are displayed below, along with an estimate of the net natural carbon flux En - Un.

The next step may be too big a jump, so maybe the whole thing should read:

We have accurate, reliable data for the growth of atmospheric CO2 (CITATION NEEDED) and for anthropogenic emissions (Cawley, 2011). Both of these are displayed below, along with an estimate of the net natural carbon flux En - Un. The fact that the net natural flux is negative clearly shows that natural uptake has exceeded natural emissions every year for the last fifty years at least, and hence has been opposing, rather than causing the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.

The thanks to Essenhigh makes it sound as if he helped with the paper debunking him. I'd leave it out (unless he did!)

2012-02-03 02:20:39
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Thanks for the comments so far, much appreciated, I will work on it next week.

Prof. Essenhigh was willing to discuss the issues and commented on a couple of drafts of the manuscript, so he did help in the sense that I was aware of the counter-counter arguments.  It is the right thing to do to thank him, while I didn't convince him he was wrong, he did respond as a gentleman (in stark contrast to many of those who use his paper to support their position).  The acknowledgement is in the paper; had I managed to convince him I would have asked if he wanted to be a co-author.

2012-02-03 05:38:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
82.113.119.179

Sounds like a professional.

2012-02-03 09:50:11
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.243

professional, indeed.

2012-02-03 19:58:45
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

Does he still think that the rise is natural, even though human emissions exceed the atmospheric increase?

2012-02-03 22:11:43
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

yes, sadly I think so. The closest I got was when I pointed out that the mass balance argument shows that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, he replied that "one of us is clearly wrong" (or words to that effect).

2012-02-04 01:06:30
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.218.149

Thumb!

2012-02-04 01:51:19
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Fucking hell Dikran, that's crazy.

Do you know why he thinks that? Does he think that your mass balance figures are wrong? Unless he does, I can't believe anyone would be so intellectually blind :S

2012-02-04 04:21:06
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

@MarkR yes, sadly I think Essenhigh is sincere in his views, and too invested to be able to see the evidence clearly.  It is all too easy to do ("go emeritus"), there but for the grace of God go I...

Sadly being genuinely emeritus in one field tends to make people over-confident when they move into new territory (c.f. Dyson), sadly some don't learn that they still need to start again at the basics, regardless of where they have come from. 

2012-02-04 04:50:16
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.208.61

"one of us is clearly wrong"

Man that is too funny!!

2012-02-04 06:39:32
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

So Dikran, in basic maths:

 

Essenhigh believes that in the function:

A + B = C

If A > C, then B > 0?

(A = human CO2 flux, B =  natural CO2 flux, C = atmospheric change in CO2)

 

 

Does he even admit that he has to break maths to do that? I really don't understand how someone who's apparently a scientist could be so incredibly stupid. I must be missing something about his argument?

2012-02-05 04:42:12
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
188.152.84.253

Mark

people may not see that you don't need to know each term of a sum if you know the difference much more accurately. In a very extreme synthesis, the trick used by Dikran is this.

2012-02-06 18:42:28
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.214.66.44

Cool Dikran. Nice to see something being published. Needs to be added to the TCP database.

One typo in the post 'ocuurs'

But your at UEA! How do you survive with the devils mark upon you all the time? Come on give us the goss. Where are the Satanic Rituals held?

2012-02-06 20:53:48
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.208.125

@Glen I think CRU's preference for frequentist rather than Bayesian statistics is as close as they get to that sort of thing! ;o)

 

 

2012-02-09 08:44:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Give us a heads-up when you're ready to publish this, Dikran.