tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post6633509009633153449..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Comments welcome?James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-11965829617727818572009-01-18T10:01:00.000+00:002009-01-18T10:01:00.000+00:00How many journals run comments and responses or ar...How many journals run comments and responses or articles from other journals? Any chance you know specific titles in the mineralogy literature?C W Mageehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706100504739548720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-48808676920471595462009-01-17T07:55:00.000+00:002009-01-17T07:55:00.000+00:00Ah yes, I remember seeing that commentary in EOS. ...Ah yes, I remember seeing that commentary in EOS. I wonder if that was originally rejected from JC too. Of course the accepted practice is that these things should be dealt with in the same forum where the original was published, so that the same readership gets to see the debate (and so the journal has the responsibility for cleaning up after itself).<BR/><BR/>As for Matt Huber, I'm not aware of the particular work in question, but certainly the general area. Going that far back in time, the proxy data are increasingly unreliable and poorly understood. For example, there are fundamental issues like the latitudinal temperature gradient which suggests (to me at least) some unmodelled influences on the proxy data which may affect the interpretation. In other words, I agree that this sort of analysis does seem to point towards highish sensitivity, but it seems a rather weak data point.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-51072692353297968942009-01-16T01:23:00.000+00:002009-01-16T01:23:00.000+00:00The Eos editors seem to have a liking for this sor...The Eos editors seem to have a liking for this sort of thing, although maybe they'd be more hesitant when another AGU pub is involved. I'm recalling in particular a few years ago when they devoted the entire front page to slam-dunking Christy's bogus California central valley irrigation paper (published in JoC IIRC). <BR/><BR/>I just happened to see this <A HREF="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10551751" REL="nofollow">article</A> quoting Matt Huber on an issue of interest to you, James. <A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5887/353?ijkey=bNWcfsXxPGBI.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci" REL="nofollow">This</A> seems to be his most recent relevant pub on the subject, although it doesn't discuss the implications for current sensitivity. Your views?Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-61011188368342043762009-01-06T22:50:00.000+00:002009-01-06T22:50:00.000+00:00Ah well, of course Ganopolski *is* famous :-(Ah well, of course Ganopolski *is* famous :-(William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com