Judging from Dr. Trenberth’s recent comments at Harvard, I’ll wager his conclusions on the perceived linkage will be substantially different that of you and your co-authors.

And thus, far more in line with the results the Board of Reviewing Editors is looking for.

But perhaps he does present novel concepts worthy of publication and I am simply too jaded this evening. Regardless, I look forward to comparing Dr. Trenberth’s conclusions with yours.

The Good Explanation – Apologies

Welcome to the weblog … as I sat down to write a disgruntled letter to Donald Kennedy tonight, I went through my old email and discovered that it was Nature, not Science that rejected our hurricane paper without review.

My apologies for the error and for creating short-lived false hopes conspiracy theorists. We call it like we see it here, especially when we are in error (surely won’t be the last time). Meantime, do read the various papers on hurricanes and climate change, a comparison will be informative.

OTOH, it was pretty clear in a policy context that your paper was a warning shot to Trenberth, and I guess that his was too for Landsea, just a question of who got there first with the most where. Given the timing, call it a draw.

Yes Prof. Pielke, there are egos here, and I am just as shocked as you.

Still I have no horse in this race, but a bag of popcorn I would gladly share. We have on the one side, someone who knows about as much about hurricanes as anyone, and on the other someone who knows about as much about climate variability as anyone. I fully expect something interesting to come out of this as it often does on the sharp and uncomfortable edge. Which is good, though occasionally messy.

D