John Christy and I submitted a comment on the Hansen et al. 2005 paper entitled “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (subscription required). Unfortunately, Science chose to reject it based on the response from Jim Hansen and the two reviews. While we agree on the value of using ocean heat storage changes to diagnosis the radiative imbalance of the climate system, as was published in 2003 (Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335; ), our concern regarding their Science paper remains.
The rejection of the comment raises the issue of balanced dissemination of alternate perspectives on science issues. In contrast to an original article, comments on papers should normally be published, so that the community can discuss and debate the issue. Otherwise, two reviewers and the Editor of the journal (in this case Science) decide on whether the community will have the opportunity to view another perspective. In this case, Science rejected to present our Comment.
During my tenure as Co-Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Review and Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, we would not reject comments on papers that are contributed by scientists working in a related research area. Whether or not you agree with the issues we raised in our comment, it should have appeared in the journal where the original paper was published.
View the rejected comment (PDF)
View Hansen’s response (PDF)
View the Science reviewers’ responses (PDF)
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. 