But it still tastes sour. Perhaps it needs more time to mature? Rushing half-fermented stuff out is not good. What's in, what's out? Well, who can possibly be bothered to read and compare them line by line? Certainly not me. Certainly not any of the commentators at Eli's. Prove me wrong if you like: new and old. If I'd actually bothered to review this I'd be p*ss*d off with the journal.
For example, compare:
|we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or
10 200 years
|We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years|
So, it's the same made-up stuff, but they replace "posit" with "hypothesise", even if they can't spell it properly. Wonderful.
If the ocean continues to accumulate heat and increase melting of marine-terminating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland, a point will be reached at which it is impossible to avoid large scale ice sheet disintegration with sea level rise of at least several meters
Yup; but that's dull and uncontroversial (actually I thought we'd reached that point already with Greenland). But the important point is over what timescale all these things will happen. It is all very well to worry about multi-millenial climate change - and indeed, I think someone ought to - but predicting the future is hard, and predicting the far future is harder; so (to re-make an argument I've made before) whilst looking only to 2100 is in some ways a bit short sighted, from a societal point of view I doubt you can do better.
The paper is still far too long. They've danced the order round but failed to split it up into several papers of sane length that could actually be read. Why would you prefer to write a stupidly long paper that can't be read? Not a difficult question. If the hosing experiments have been reworked or made more plausible, I've missed it; they still look passe.
Meh, I can't be bothered to re-read it. Can anyone else? Don't be shy.
* Le Stern Nouveau est arrive!
* Productivity of North American grasslands is increased under future climate scenarios despite rising aridity Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate2942
Let's not be surly about sur lie
Better a few sour grapes than an excess of cherry picking.
Are we sure its the true Hansen Nouveau? Not yet up at ACP which will be the version on record and also include all the review / decision metadata. Beware fake offerings?
[Hard to know. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2015-432/ says "A revision of this discussion paper was accepted for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP)." http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml says "Hansen, J., M. Sato. P. Hearty, R. Ruedy, et al., 2015: Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2 C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous. Published in Atmos. Chem. & Phys. Discussions (July 23) and under review for the journal Atmos. Chem. & Phys." and links to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf. Ah, that's the "posit" version, 56 pages including refs. Whereas http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1602/1602.01393.pdf is the "hypothesise" version, 64 pages including refs. So the b*st*rd thing has got bigger - argh, can nothing kill this monster? But the arXiv thing doesn't have any definitive status its true; I was assuming that's the "noveau" but I could be wrong. Hmm -W]
First its definitely the absolute right of the journal and its editors to make a decision informed by the reviewers and their own reading. Its only the first step in eventual scientific acceptance after all. I'd back the editors to make the call they see appropriate.
Second, as you astutely point out its still very long. Repeated re-review may well require a case being lodged with the RSPCPR (you can work out that acronym I have no doubts).
Either way it shall shortly no longer be in the discussion paper hinterland that has caused such confusion over what it is which I think, overall, shall be positive.
> If the ocean continues to
> accumulate heat and increase melting
Try Steynbrecher Heisenbogen from Ch. Gavin
It's a naive little Cote du Jones, but I think you'll admire its presumption.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Peer Reviewers
Why don't you like -ize?
[I don't know, I just like -ise. I can't remember if I'm supposed to like gray or grey, either -W]
Just going off the title of both versions linked its virtually certain (carefully couched IPCC language) that neither is the final version. Wait for ACP to publish the final version which shouldn't be long now...
[Interesting; thank you. I must have been mislead by Eli; never trust a wabbit -W]
There is a modern tendency for the English to prefer -ise, but it appears to be hypercorrection of the barmy American habit of using -ize even for words which don't deserve it. In English, -ize has much better pedigree than -ise. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/ize-ise-or-yse
I thought it was funny seeing you griping about spelling in a post which has a blatant spello in the title.
[It has? -W]
S is overused. Z is not used enough.
Don't be bland like all too much English cooking.
[Ah, that. OK, corrected -W]
It's a myth that English cooking was or is bland. Unless you forget the mustard, the horseradich sauce, the pickles and chutneys that meals were served with so you could adjust the level of heat required to exactly your own taste. And to do that would suggest an ignorance of the subject ...
[Just so. and, of course, the traditional English curry -W]
Want a fell and greasy meat, perilous to man's health?
Try the traditional English curry at Climate Etc.
Amasing how little it takes to get a rize out of a Stoat.
I don't know what to think of this paper. I've read part of it again. I think its important that someone is trying to play with some of these worse case scenarios. I recently read a local planning document that discussed the fact of 0.8 meters or so of sea level rise by 2100, with no mention of the possibility that it could be higher. This bugz me, but I'm not sure how much hope there is of ever seeing such a document which says SLR is probably going to be X, but we also consider what would happen in a worst case scenario Y.
I find it interesting in the introduction when he talkz about motivating factors. In some sense it reads like he is trying to force the models to achieve the desired outcomes without consideration to what is the best outcome. Perhaps not the most scientific approach, but maybe a good approach to explore worst case scenarios.
The model experiments injecting varying amounts of cold fresh water result in so much cooling over such a large area I suspect there might be an end to the ice loss, let alone doubling ice loss every 5,10 or 20 yearz.
The authoritative source:
And off-topic, no amount of chutney can undo the effect of overboiling on veggies.
Since the Staot makes a comment about spelling, I'll note that the phrase "Commentator's at Eli's" has a mistake (Commentators is plural, not possessive).
There must be an iron law about things like this happening.
[Damn, is there no end to these things? I've fixed that too. Still, at least I didn't start it with a capital :-) -W]
crf: indeed. Like pointing out a mistake right after you misspell the blog owner's nom de plume.
I did that on purpose, otherwise, my comment wouldn't ring true.
Glad you noticed ...
[I thought it was funny seeing you griping about spelling in a post which has a blatant spello in the title.]
I shall simply highlight this ;-)
As long as the pH > 7 the oceans are sour
Skitt is no more. He died in August last year.
He was a naturalis(z)ed Latvian who served in the US armed forces in Greenland, of all places.
Farewell, Skitt, you awkward so-and-so.
"whilst looking only to 2100 is in some ways a bit short sighted, from a societal point of view I doubt you can do better."
Well that societal p.o.v. was capable of looking nearly 110 years ahead for the first IPCC report and for the last one it's only 80-something years ahead. I know they made vague hints of discussing longer periods but it's past time to pick a new marker for the next report, say 2130.
Cue a 110 year old LPCC ( League of nations Panel on Climate Change ) report on the existential threat to the 20th century of a 1 degree temperature rise from the Arrhenius Effect.
The real Beaujolais nouveau release shall occur at 12Z tomorrow.
[But will it be beau or jolie? -W]
Like any such release YMMV
For lack of a better place to post this, I give you the pinnacle of British Polar Research Vessels: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/world/article67322252.html
I demand a recount! "Big Metal Floaty Thingy" clearly was the winner. The whole contest was rigged.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html - the official version
[Thanks for the note. The question now is, who is going to volunteer to read it? -W]
is the Heavy Metal Vegeltungsflotte Thingy laying in wait for it in Scapa Flow ?
Interesting comments to be had on this Hansen, et. al. discussion page ...
No matter how Hansen15 is written it is IMHO a mess (I will reread all comments 1st + the newer comments, but very likely the paper itself to stay in the tl;dr pile).
So, for example, Hansen16 references May (2015), I read most of that rather messy paper, completely different nearshore conditions.
Frank Dentener ...
"I would like to encourage the scientific community to engage in the critical experiments (observations and modelling) that could corroborate or falsify the main thesis of your publication."
That should go without saying even.
Followed by ...
"Given the potential significance and implications of the results, I will recommend to highlight this publication to the EGU’s press officer."
Oh boy, can't wait for the PR with quotes even.
Four Days After The Day Before Yesterday.
[No need to wait, the PR blitz has started, it am all over fb: http://fortune.com/2016/03/22/james-hansen-study-global-warming/ etc etc -W]
Everett - I do believe that ACP is an EGU publication.
Few people have PhD's in climatology, so when Dr Hans Jelbring (one who has) strongly supports what I have said I would suggest you ought to heed this new 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of planetary temperatures and heat transfer mechanisms.
So please note this strong support from Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD climatology) in an email I have just received reading ...
"Dear all, Including politicians, laymen and scientists.
I am strongly supporting what Doug is writing below based on the fact being one of few scientists who actually have a doctorate in climatology. All of you who believe in authority should believe what Doug is saying below which is according to my own research and what some qualified scientists have told since many years. ....
I would also like to give credit to Doug Cotton who never seems to give up in his fight against ignorance among both politicians and scientists."
(There's more detail at http://climate-change-theory.com )
I'm guessing "Support from PhD in climatology" is Doug Cotton himself, wearing another dirty sock. Amirite?
Maybe I looked up the wrong person, but the only impressive thing about Hans Jelbring appears to be that he has 9 publications and 0 citations. In fairness, this could be because they're all patents, not a climate science paper to be found. Also, in fairness, it appears to not include the papers he published in Pattern Recognition in Physics which - I am assuming - was such a disreputable journal that the citation database has chosen not to include it.
ATTP, Jelbring has a 1995 paper in J Coastal Res, which appears to be the only publication he has in a reputable journal. He has a PhD from Nils-Axel Mörner's department (from 1998), with a thesis entitled "wind controlled climate", but it looks like that one did not yield any publications.
Quite the expert Doug Cotton relies on.
[I point out that the C-word will trigger auto-moderation, and put me to the trouble of releasing your fine words. I recommend "DC" instead -W]
I profusely apologize to our gracious and magnanimous host for using the C-word. DC it is, henceforward and forever.
[I point out that the C-word will trigger auto-moderation, and put me to the trouble of releasing your fine words. I recommend “DC” instead -W]
Ah, that's what happened to my previous comment. Let me try again: I'm guessing "Support from PhD in climatology" is DC himself donning another dirty sock. Amirite?
[I strongly suspect the IPs would confirm it but I haven't checked; this one fails the duck test -W]
I think DC has used a thousand and one sock puppets. Dr Woy probably has an extensive list of the ones he's banned - though I think he may have given up in frustration.
DC has gone far beyond D-K .... I'm not even sure what characterization is appropriate.
I've waited so long to write here but my questions, until now, were never worthy.
What will happen to comments if you decide to post on a topic related to the textile industry or to the agriculture of' "The plant is a shrub native to tropical and subtropical regions around the world, including the Americas, Africa, and India. The greatest diversity of wild [DC] species is found in Mexico, followed by Australia and Africa."
[Interestingly (I bet you're all fascinated) I will be posting on Adam Smith soon who *is* concerned with the textile industry... -W]
"[I don’t know, I just like -ise. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to like gray or grey, either -W]"
Poms prefer grey. So do Aussies. Yanks demur. There's a bit of crossover, though.
-ise is more commonly used in UK/Aussie English, but it's variable and either is acceptable. I use -ise because it means I don't have to remember the special set of words that must use -ise in any dialect. Can't go wrong, except with US sticklers.
Which one of Doug's sock puppets is Fred Singer's ghostwriter?
DC is just a crank, and (thank you WikiPedia) there's a lovely bit from Nature 1906:
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
— Nature, 8 Nov 1906, 25/2
Adam Smith is wooly.
With a name like DC maybe he should be able to cotton on a bit better.
Such is the excellence and economy of the wooly Manufactures of Scotland that Mr. Smith's countrymen have entirely forgone the burning of Coals for Power.
"Damn, is there no end to these things?"