Comment on “Low time resolution analysis of polar ice cores cannot detect impulsive nitrate events” by D.F. Smart et al.

Smart et al. (2014) suggested that the detection of nitrate spikes in polar ice cores from solar energetic particle (SEP) events could be achieved if an analytical system with sufficiently high resolution was used. Here we show that the spikes they associate with SEP events are not reliably recorded in cores from the same location, even when the resolution is clearly adequate. We explain the processes that limit the effective resolution of ice cores. Liquid conductivity data suggest that the observed spikes are associated with sodium or another nonacidic cation, making it likely that they result from deposition of sea salt or similar aerosol that has scavenged nitrate, rather than from a primary input of nitrate in the troposphere. We consider that there is no evidence at present to support the identification of any spikes in nitrate as representing SEP events. Although such events undoubtedly create nitrate in the atmosphere, we see no plausible route to using nitrate spikes to document the statistics of such events.

The sleeper effect: Artifact or phenomenon—A brief comment on Bell et al. (2013)

OBJECTIVE: Bell, Marcus, and Goodlad (2013) recently conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled additive trials and found that adding an additional component to an existing treatment vis-à-vis the existing treatment produced larger effect sizes on targeted outcomes at 6-months follow-up than at termination, an effect they labeled as a sleeper effect. One of the limitations with Bell et al.'s detection of the sleeper effect was that they did not conduct a statistical test of the size of the effect at follow-up versus termination. METHOD: To statistically test if the differences of effect sizes between the additive conditions and the control conditions at follow-up differed from those at termination, we used a restricted maximum-likelihood random-effect model with known variances to conduct a multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis (k = 30). RESULTS: Although the small effects at termination detected by Bell et al. were replicated (ds = 0.17-0.23), none of the analyses of growth from termination to follow-up produced statistically significant effects (ds < 0.08; p > .20), and when asymmetry was considered using trim-and-fill procedure or the studies after 2000 were analyzed, magnitude of the sleeper effect was negligible (d = 0.00). CONCLUSION: There is no empirical evidence to support the sleeper effect.