Friday, May 02, 2008

Comment on Schwartz: final version

It's been finally accepted, after a rather Byzantine review process, but not such a long delay as seemed possible at one time. There were no real substantive changes to the original version, but we took out the reference to monthly data as Schwartz hadn't actually made any claims about it. The pdf is now up on my home page. I've no idea how long it will take to appear in print.

Was it worth it? Well, on the plus side I get a Mann and Schmidt numbers of 1 (and jules gets a 2!), but I doubt there were any scientists who have been on the edge of their seats for the last 6 months wondering if the whole theory of climate change was about to come tumbling down :-)

3 comments:

John Fleck said...

So if I have a Connolley number of 1 now, do you know what Annan number that gives me? What I'm really looking for here is my own Mann number (nothing personal James, but you're just a means to an end here).

James Annan said...

Oh, it won't be through me. Some of William's eminent atmospheric scientist co-authors might provide a link.

But anyway, a Connolley number of 1 must be more important than any Mann number could ever be. I'm jealous. And now he's retired there is little chance of me getting one :-)

Kooiti MASUDA said...

Excuse me for an off-topic comment on an archived comment.

(I have just come up to this page yesterday trying to rebut Kiminori Itoh and Tadashi Watanabe's book. One of basis of Itoh's argument is Schwartz's. On the other hand, Watanabe hypes as if global warming is just as a myth, and, though I know that it was already considered by scientists in 1970s, I feel that the Peterson-Connolley-Fleck paper may be useful for Japanese readers to know the fact.)

John, you have got a Mann number of 3 via Thomas Peterson and Phil Jones. See the "publications" - "publications by author" page at www.cru.uea.ac.uk . (Me too, via Takehiko Mikami and Phil Jones, so my Fleck number and Connolley number are 4.)