2011-06-21 09:54:11Lindzen and Choi have revised their paper on sensitivity
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Just got this email:

Meanwhile, I find that Lindzen and Choi have revised their paper on sensitivity and published in a reputable journal. His conclusion is that sensitivity is overestimated. I believe his investigation is limited to the tropics, where the feedbacks are mainly clouds.

So the reference in your excellent piece here (and I believe another reference elsewhere) needs updating.

2011-06-21 10:18:52
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is not a reputable journal and it has a very low impact factor, lower than E&E, IIRC.

Moreover, they have faield to address the ocncerns identified in their previous paper and in their submission to PNAS.

Epic fail for Lindzen.

2011-06-21 11:50:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.102.37
Yeah, actually an AGU journal rejected the paper first. Then Lindzen submitted the PNAS, trying to slip it through with a "pal review". But PNAS gave the paper a serious review, and the referees absolutely demolished it. So then finally he submitted it to this extremely obscure journal. As Alby says, he didn't address any of the criticisms of the original LC09 paper. Definitely epic fail. Eli has a good discussion of the events.
2011-06-28 10:58:35Is it worth updating the rebuttal to reflect on this new paper?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Perhaps a blog post and some or all of it be added to the rebuttal.

2011-06-28 13:47:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.93

Yeah, would probably be worth some discussion.  grypo discussed it a bit in his draft post