This month’s open thread. We’ve burned out on mitigation topics (again), so please focus on climate science issues this month…
Reader Interactions
278 Responses to "Unforced variations: March 2015"
Eric Swansonsays
Barton Paul Levenson @147 mentions his effort(s) to publish a paper. That the journal which was recommended for your rejected paper is curious, as ACS published THIS PAPER, which questions the entire scientific background supporting claims of AGW. Perhaps you should just self publish, either on your web site or thru a non-peer reviewed site…
Hank Robertssays
> Jim Larsen … If somebody posts claims that they cite …
You’re reading this backwards, Jim.
Your description of how it ought to work is exactly what I’m recommending.
Find bloggers who post stories with quotes and provide cites.
I check when I see quotes (and paraphrases) — to find trustworthy bloggers.
I applaud them.
I encourage others to read science bloggers who do it right.
We get fooled more easily by people whose hearts are, we think, in the right place — who exaggerate what they write in the direction that we want to lean. Rhetoric is terribly tempting.
That’s my whole caution.
Somebody is wrong on the Internet. Gasp.
That isn’t going to change.
That’s _why_ science relies on — and checks — citation.
Hank R said, “You’re reading this backwards, Jim.”
I often do that. I never learned left from right.
The question I was attempting to address is of who is responsible for digging deeper. My answer tends to be the person who wants more depth. A cite of any form is sufficient enough as long as one remembers that a cite is just an opinion one step removed. Of course, the result is Fox News, where they have someone do an opinion piece without cite and then cite the opinion piece to give it weight.
So, in the end, I admire you so I put the responsibility on you. It’s tough being the good guy.
I appreciate the support, guys, but without a paper that passes peer review, I’ve got nothing. Publishing on a web site doesn’t cut it.
Killiansays
#146 Jim Larsen said, 140 Hank R said, I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.”
If somebody posts claims that they cite that you don’t agree with, it is up to YOU to challenge the claim. Do the work or be quiet.
Thank you! Ivory Tower bullying around here – by non-scientists, no less – is ridiculous.
Killiansays
#147 Barton Paul Levenson said, Remember how AJCC turned down my drought paper because “This paper is of low quality and recommend not to publish?” I asked for clarification. Yesterday I got back, “1.Your paper is impressive to us, however the manuscript is more suitable to be published in other chemical journals such as acs (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences: http://www.scirp.org/journal/acs/)”
So it’s either
A) a bad paper, or
B) an impressive paper better suited for a chemistry journal
Which really makes me think they haven’t read the damn thing.
As a long-time dealer with language up close and personal, and having edited thousands of pages of documents(including tech manuals)/writing assignments, my reading of that response is, what you have to say is OK, how you are trying to say it, not so much.
Will be happy to review it for you from an editor’s perspective.
Steve Fishsays
BPL:
Doing original research and writing it up for publication is a craft. Most learn their scientific craft from their Ph.D. adviser, learn more from a post doc adviser, and then continue with communication with mentors and friends. Get yourself a scientific adviser. Now! This can be a humbling experience, but is worth it.
I’d echo what Steve wrote. Perhaps you just need a more polished introduction. If the reviewer does not see their own work cited there, they may dismiss the paper as not showing adequate understanding of the issues in the field.
If the reviewer does not see their own work cited there, they may dismiss the paper as not showing adequate understanding …
Yep.
Thomas O'Reillysays
Correction #26 Thomas O’Reilly says: 8 Mar 2015 at 4:55 PM
#10 “the world still derives 80% of all its energy from fossil fuels”
Make that figure closer to 87% – and not decreasing in any statistically significant volume.
“A hundred years from now, humans may remember 2014 as the year that we first learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion more than 10 feet of sea level rise.
Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when we learned the same about one gigantic glacier of East Antarctica, which could set in motion roughly the same amount all over again….
The findings about East Antarctica emerge from a new paper just out in Nature Geoscience by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France and Australia. They flew a number of research flights over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica — the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet — and took a variety of measurements to try to figure out the reasons behind its retreat. And the news wasn’t good: It appears that Totten, too, is losing ice because warm ocean water is getting underneath it.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
Ray Ladburysays
Killian@157
The fact that you see Hank’s admonition to check sources as “bullying” speaks volumes of your own insecurity. People play climateball with academic papers–overstating, or in the case of denialists, outright fabricating conclusions based ostensibly on the paper. A pointer to original sources is essential to preserve information.
Realclimate is one of the few places where laymen can turn for reliable information about the science. Let’s not blow that reputation by playing fast and loose in the comments.
Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you’ve missed the fact that I have gotten into the peer-reviewed journals before, and therefore know how to prepare an academic paper, thank you very much.
Now you will glad to know (especially Hank!), I’m not actually going to ask about methane. Halfway through the article, Kolbert starts referring to other responses to GW, like earthquakes!
Now I know from my last attempt to raise the issue on RC (2011), that its not a popular subject round here, but I thought Kolbert was a respected voice?
Now he is a Prof of Geophysical and Climate Hazards, so this is his field, and I think his book, ‘Waking the Giant-How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes’, is based on the work presented in this fringe magazine (its probably one of those fake journals I hear about!) in 2010, I think he guest edited.
Now feel free to read all of it (and chase all those lovely references!) or none of it, but his argument is not that all hell-and-damnation is about to break loose tomorrow. In fact all he is saying is that given the earths response to the extensive deglaciation and sea level rise post-LGM, it would surprising if we didn’t see something similar, but on a much smaller scale, as a result of the rapid effects of AGW. He also highlights that the speedy nature of AGW may well significant factor in the degree of response.
It doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch to me, but then I am no more of a vulcanologist than I am a Climate scientist
Thanks for reading, and/or responding. I’m not expecting massive approval or interest, but I will try and keep it civil and brief.
Since distorting the temperature record , past and future , is what the Climate Wars are all about , one way to illuminate the subject is to show the graphs without the data
NSIDC have called the maximum Arctic Sea Ice Extent, although it’s a bit hedged in the language they use. “On February 25, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the sea ice melt season. “
This would be the lowest maximum daily SIE on record and a very early one. JAXA put the maximum daily SIE even earlier at 15th February.
Since the late 1980s the maximum has been getting later. We have not seen a March with lower average SIE than February since the mid 1990s, that is until March 2015 which cannot overhaul February now.
Killiansays
#168 Hank said, Hey, look on the bright side. Ten feet of Antarctic meltwater will hold the methane monster down a while longer. Deeper water, higher pressure.
That would only hold true if the methane monster is not already out of the bag. While I think the many interactions of the earth system are driving things, even now, faster than the vast majority believe (so glad others are starting to catch up to this sad reality, tho), and that we could see a major melt of combined Greenland and Antarctica equal to 3 – 6 meters SLR this century, that’s still a long time given the changes already seen in sub-sea and on-shore methane sources.
I don’t think SLR is going to make much difference at all given we are seeing bubbling up from all depths of the Siberian Arctic Shelf and pathways are obviously finding their ways regardless of those depths.
Oh, and in the Pacific and off the US East Coast, Svalbard… It’s just not likely SLR will help.
Still, one can hope.
Killiansays
#167 Barton Paul Levenson said, Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you’ve missed the fact that I have gotten into the peer-reviewed journals before, and therefore know how to prepare an academic paper, thank you very much.
Huh. You do realize people were only trying to help? You do realize what appeals to one editor/audience may not appeal to another? Or that we all just sometimes write poorly?
K, in his usual charming manner: Huh. You do realize people were only trying to help? You do realize what appeals to one editor/audience may not appeal to another? Or that we all just sometimes write poorly? Good lord, you very much.
BPL: What the cake said to Alice, Killian.
Richard Kimseysays
I just want to say “Thank you” to all who post here. I learn so much …
Edward Greischsays
31 Barton Paul Levenson: I wonder what the editor thinks “quality” means? Publish your paper right here in unforced variations or on your web site if you must so that we can reference it, please. Or don’t give up.
if the methane monster is not already out of the bag.
If it were, it appears we’d have known about a change in the rate, from the scientists who have been tracking the trend:
Current methane growth in the Arctic is
gradual
…
If a sudden venting (bubbling) of methane would
happen due to hydrates destruction, IASI would be
able to detect it.
Ed, thanks for the support. But I’ve already given up. Publishing on a web site doesn’t count; Tony Watts and Lord Monckton do that. Without a paper accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, I’ve got nothing. I’ve been trying for years, and I’m tired. Let God save the world; it’s not my job.
Chop everything up through “4/” — what follows that is the real link.
Mark ssays
RE 178-9
Thanks Hank, that made interesting reading, though because it was 360 posts long, I just skimmed the Malthus stuff. Its interesting to compare today’s evidence with the concerns of 2007.
In that vein, and as Malthus was discussed heavily, I just want to highlight a recent documentary I saw. Population was a bigger concern for me, until I watched a program/ lecture delivered by the marvellous statistican (and stand-up comedian!), Prof Hans Rosling.
The program is called ‘DON’T PANIC – The truth about population’ and is one of the best bits of science communication I have ever seen. The core message is that we should peak at a global population of around 11 billion. His message is an important one for fighting the apathy induced by the perception of unstoppable population rise, and also demonstrates how our concerns for the future will always be changing to accomodate new evidence.
Its also an interesting thread because it is an example of a poster highlighting work that gets taken up and assessed by some of the esteemed contributers. That must be very rewarding!
Funnily enough, I am in that 2007 thread asking about McGuire’s work, to little avail, though I’m sure thats partly due to my lack of skill as a poster (I only lurk normally!).
But I would of thought guest editing an edition of the worlds longest-running science journal on this specific subject implied a certain amount about McGuire’s credibility, but his message is a tough sell, partly because of the politics of the ‘climate wars’. I’m now reaching the end of the book, and its basically a call-to-arms to reduce warming ASAP, to minimise any possible risks.
Anyway, I will keep my eye on the subject and come back to you 2019, with as much additional information as may emerge:-)
Thanks again to all at RC contributers and posters (apart from the snarky one’s!)
Since this article is dated 2007 and not much in the way of taking action has happened since then. I’m assuming th “catastrophic scenario” is ancient history and we’re well past that. I don’t know what level is beyond “catastrophic” but we should give it a name.
“The “catastrophic” scenario assumes positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle to warm the planet by 5.6 °C by the year 2100, and sea level has risen by 2 meters. I feel compelled to note that if this is supposed to be a worst-case scenario, I personally can imagine worse in terms of sea level rise. In the social realm the crystal ball gets murkier as the report progresses from expected to severe to catastrophic, but one important ingredient in the prognosis for the catastrophic scenario is the migration of millions of people, a scale unprecedented in human history, potentially enough to undermine the stability of civilized governance. One participant recommended that we check out the movie Mad Max, only imagine it hotter.”
As the story notes, we can’t assume the problem is licked, or that we’ve hit max emissions. But nonetheless there is a lot of structural work that has gone into that ‘pause.’
I hope that some more of the ‘structural work’ will pay off in Paris in December.
All that aside, though, thanks for digging up that article. It’s a good resource, and one that’s timely for me just now–I’ve been looking at impacts, and will continue to do so. FWIW, I think all 3 scenarios are still in play.
Lawrence Colemansays
I was very touched by your comments of condolence for Mum’s loss. Thank you Gavin and many others who responded, that’s means a lot!. Actually Mum was becoming quite an CC activist during the last 10 years of her life. I taught her as much a I could on the process at work with CC and she told her friends as to the state of the predicament and how to do their bit to help. Damn!, I wish now I had mentioned that in the eulogy but just 10 mins to cover her life was next to impossible anyway.
Just read that the amazon’s carbon uptake has halved since the 1980’s from 2Bill Tonnes/year to now just under 1 billion and is experiencing rapid die-off of it’s massive old trees. 100 researchers and scientists conducted by Leeds University concluded it’s project over several decades. Interesting point is that there was initially a growth spurt due to increased levels of CO2 and that sped up the life cycle of trees, but due to less rainfall, periods of extreme temp and probably a lowering ground water level millions of large old trees are dying and not being replaced. Aside from the marine algae, these forests are essential as carbon sinks. Those who thought that increased CO2 would benefit trees better think again in light of this new comprehensive study. We can’t keep stacking up these positive feedback systems like we are doing!!!
Lawrence Colemansays
168: Hank I don’t think a mere 10 feet is going to much to muzzle the clathrate monster compared to the mean depth of the ocean there.
Edward Greischsays
A number of us are upset about those editors’ treatment of Barton Paul Levenson’s paper. At the same time, the drought in California is about to drive up the price of almonds and other favorite foods. We will be able to say “Bart told you so” unexpectedly soon. Maybe one of the editors will remember and change his mind.
Lawrence Colemansays
Saw the late Stephen Henry Schneider The Truth About Global Warming – Science & Distortion. Two main points, he highlights the media new protocol of so called balanced viewpoints, how they be balanced if the weighting is 50/50 whereas the correct weighting should be 97/3. I do not know how we can revert back to more sensible reporting of the facts. Market forces are clearly unable to do this, it will have to be legislated on a global level that appropriate weighting is given to the available evidence whether it’s in the print journalism, cable or internet. Another point that he made that kind of made me sigh in despair is that he said ” we know that tipping point are out there, we just don’t know where they are”. I doubt for a second that a tipping point will suddenly occur that makes everyone sit up and say..WOW! did you see that tipping point just get crossed. Antarctica (esp.the WAIS and also that huge outlet glacier to the east) are melting at a slower rate that the north polar regions. I cannot think any other way that a primary tipping point is already being crossed as we talk(keep going round in circles). It has required just 0.8C ave. global warming of the troposphere to cause the north polar ice to go into the most dramatic death spiral imaginable. This process is clearly now unstoppable! Result the rapidly warming waters and now ‘rain’ around the Greenland and Bering sea causing massive fresh water run off from the Greenland ice shelves with a corresponding surge in the rate of sea level rise. I won’t elaborate for the umpteenth time as to all the consequences this process will manifest, we all know. Question again, if this is not a tipping point going over the edge then what the hell is!. Are we going to keep waiting for the ‘WOW! did you see that’ moment before anyone takes notice of what’s already happening now?
Thomassays
Lawrence. I think you are right that there won’t be a tipping point moment. Take those Antarctic glacier basins, we probably won’t know within a decade or two exactly when any particular tipping point is passed, the rate of ice loss won’t suddenly jump up, but will continue to slowly rise, but with shortterm variations caused by weather, and quasiperiodic climate cyles (like PDO/ENSO,…) superimposed on that.
Barton Paul Levenson @147 mentions his effort(s) to publish a paper. That the journal which was recommended for your rejected paper is curious, as ACS published THIS PAPER, which questions the entire scientific background supporting claims of AGW. Perhaps you should just self publish, either on your web site or thru a non-peer reviewed site…
> Jim Larsen … If somebody posts claims that they cite …
You’re reading this backwards, Jim.
Your description of how it ought to work is exactly what I’m recommending.
Find bloggers who post stories with quotes and provide cites.
I check when I see quotes (and paraphrases) — to find trustworthy bloggers.
I applaud them.
I encourage others to read science bloggers who do it right.
We get fooled more easily by people whose hearts are, we think, in the right place — who exaggerate what they write in the direction that we want to lean. Rhetoric is terribly tempting.
That’s my whole caution.
Somebody is wrong on the Internet. Gasp.
That isn’t going to change.
That’s _why_ science relies on — and checks — citation.
For Jim Larsen, an example for citing a source well. This is a science writer blogger. He checks claims, cites sources, and explains clearly.
https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/general-climate-discussion-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3943
For BPL — “Scientific Research” is among those identified as a fake/predatory journal.
http://allfakejournals.blogspot.com/
http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/
Hank R said, “You’re reading this backwards, Jim.”
I often do that. I never learned left from right.
The question I was attempting to address is of who is responsible for digging deeper. My answer tends to be the person who wants more depth. A cite of any form is sufficient enough as long as one remembers that a cite is just an opinion one step removed. Of course, the result is Fox News, where they have someone do an opinion piece without cite and then cite the opinion piece to give it weight.
So, in the end, I admire you so I put the responsibility on you. It’s tough being the good guy.
I appreciate the support, guys, but without a paper that passes peer review, I’ve got nothing. Publishing on a web site doesn’t cut it.
#146 Jim Larsen said, 140 Hank R said, I’m urging you to check the claims that worry you, that you repost here.”
If somebody posts claims that they cite that you don’t agree with, it is up to YOU to challenge the claim. Do the work or be quiet.
Thank you! Ivory Tower bullying around here – by non-scientists, no less – is ridiculous.
#147 Barton Paul Levenson said, Remember how AJCC turned down my drought paper because “This paper is of low quality and recommend not to publish?” I asked for clarification. Yesterday I got back, “1.Your paper is impressive to us, however the manuscript is more suitable to be published in other chemical journals such as acs (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences: http://www.scirp.org/journal/acs/)”
So it’s either
A) a bad paper, or
B) an impressive paper better suited for a chemistry journal
Which really makes me think they haven’t read the damn thing.
As a long-time dealer with language up close and personal, and having edited thousands of pages of documents(including tech manuals)/writing assignments, my reading of that response is, what you have to say is OK, how you are trying to say it, not so much.
Will be happy to review it for you from an editor’s perspective.
BPL:
Doing original research and writing it up for publication is a craft. Most learn their scientific craft from their Ph.D. adviser, learn more from a post doc adviser, and then continue with communication with mentors and friends. Get yourself a scientific adviser. Now! This can be a humbling experience, but is worth it.
Steve
Oh, that!
No.
Seriously.
Like this. In science writing, cites are to the science, the origin, not to opinion somewhere.
(Nowadays, we have to add: real ones, not the fake and predatory “journals” proliferating so fast recently).
BPL (#156),
I’d echo what Steve wrote. Perhaps you just need a more polished introduction. If the reviewer does not see their own work cited there, they may dismiss the paper as not showing adequate understanding of the issues in the field.
Yep.
Correction #26 Thomas O’Reilly says: 8 Mar 2015 at 4:55 PM
#10 “the world still derives 80% of all its energy from fossil fuels”
Make that figure closer to 87% – and not decreasing in any statistically significant volume.
SORRY that should be ~83% ….. do blame me, doh!
“A hundred years from now, humans may remember 2014 as the year that we first learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion more than 10 feet of sea level rise.
Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when we learned the same about one gigantic glacier of East Antarctica, which could set in motion roughly the same amount all over again….
The findings about East Antarctica emerge from a new paper just out in Nature Geoscience by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France and Australia. They flew a number of research flights over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica — the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet — and took a variety of measurements to try to figure out the reasons behind its retreat. And the news wasn’t good: It appears that Totten, too, is losing ice because warm ocean water is getting underneath it.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
Killian@157
The fact that you see Hank’s admonition to check sources as “bullying” speaks volumes of your own insecurity. People play climateball with academic papers–overstating, or in the case of denialists, outright fabricating conclusions based ostensibly on the paper. A pointer to original sources is essential to preserve information.
Realclimate is one of the few places where laymen can turn for reliable information about the science. Let’s not blow that reputation by playing fast and loose in the comments.
Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you’ve missed the fact that I have gotten into the peer-reviewed journals before, and therefore know how to prepare an academic paper, thank you very much.
Hey, look on the bright side.
Ten feet of Antarctic meltwater will hold the methane monster down a while longer.
Deeper water, higher pressure.
Scorchio!!!
February NCDC is 0.82°C, the third warmest anomaly after Feb 1998 & Jan 2007 that both sit at 0.86°C.
#196–Thanks, MAR! You scooped me again!
“…scooped again…”
But there is this:
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/warmest-winter-on-record-earth
161 Hank Roberts: A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth
I think that is a problem that each of us must strive to overcome.
Scientistss Get Personal About Climate
> a problem that each of us must strive to overcome.
I should hope so, most sincerely, considering the source for that sentiment isn’t a moral beacon.
Another not so good development:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/amazon-rainforest-soaking-up-less-carbon-as-trees-die-young-study-1.3000236
Hi everyone,
its been a while, but I thought I’d pop my head over the parapet again.
What got me back on this topic was this
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/siberia-mystery-craters-methane-climate-change
Now you will glad to know (especially Hank!), I’m not actually going to ask about methane. Halfway through the article, Kolbert starts referring to other responses to GW, like earthquakes!
Now I know from my last attempt to raise the issue on RC (2011), that its not a popular subject round here, but I thought Kolbert was a respected voice?
http://www.livescience.com/49751-iceland-rising-melting-ice.html
This is the Iceland story that Kolbert mentions. This caused me to finally buy the Bill McGuire book I had half forgotten about.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199678754.do
Now he is a Prof of Geophysical and Climate Hazards, so this is his field, and I think his book, ‘Waking the Giant-How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes’, is based on the work presented in this fringe magazine (its probably one of those fake journals I hear about!) in 2010, I think he guest edited.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317
Now feel free to read all of it (and chase all those lovely references!) or none of it, but his argument is not that all hell-and-damnation is about to break loose tomorrow. In fact all he is saying is that given the earths response to the extensive deglaciation and sea level rise post-LGM, it would surprising if we didn’t see something similar, but on a much smaller scale, as a result of the rapid effects of AGW. He also highlights that the speedy nature of AGW may well significant factor in the degree of response.
It doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch to me, but then I am no more of a vulcanologist than I am a Climate scientist
Thanks for reading, and/or responding. I’m not expecting massive approval or interest, but I will try and keep it civil and brief.
And if its all BS someone should tell Kolbert
Mark
166:
Since distorting the temperature record , past and future , is what the Climate Wars are all about , one way to illuminate the subject is to show the graphs without the data
This previous thread is worth re-reading
An earlier thread here, well worth re-reading
NSIDC have called the maximum Arctic Sea Ice Extent, although it’s a bit hedged in the language they use. “On February 25, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the sea ice melt season. “
This would be the lowest maximum daily SIE on record and a very early one. JAXA put the maximum daily SIE even earlier at 15th February.
Since the late 1980s the maximum has been getting later. We have not seen a March with lower average SIE than February since the mid 1990s, that is until March 2015 which cannot overhaul February now.
#168 Hank said, Hey, look on the bright side. Ten feet of Antarctic meltwater will hold the methane monster down a while longer. Deeper water, higher pressure.
That would only hold true if the methane monster is not already out of the bag. While I think the many interactions of the earth system are driving things, even now, faster than the vast majority believe (so glad others are starting to catch up to this sad reality, tho), and that we could see a major melt of combined Greenland and Antarctica equal to 3 – 6 meters SLR this century, that’s still a long time given the changes already seen in sub-sea and on-shore methane sources.
I don’t think SLR is going to make much difference at all given we are seeing bubbling up from all depths of the Siberian Arctic Shelf and pathways are obviously finding their ways regardless of those depths.
Oh, and in the Pacific and off the US East Coast, Svalbard… It’s just not likely SLR will help.
Still, one can hope.
#167 Barton Paul Levenson said, Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you’ve missed the fact that I have gotten into the peer-reviewed journals before, and therefore know how to prepare an academic paper, thank you very much.
Huh. You do realize people were only trying to help? You do realize what appeals to one editor/audience may not appeal to another? Or that we all just sometimes write poorly?
Good lord, you very much.
K, in his usual charming manner: Huh. You do realize people were only trying to help? You do realize what appeals to one editor/audience may not appeal to another? Or that we all just sometimes write poorly? Good lord, you very much.
BPL: What the cake said to Alice, Killian.
I just want to say “Thank you” to all who post here. I learn so much …
31 Barton Paul Levenson: I wonder what the editor thinks “quality” means? Publish your paper right here in unforced variations or on your web site if you must so that we can reference it, please. Or don’t give up.
If it were, it appears we’d have known about a change in the rate, from the scientists who have been tracking the trend:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/system/presentations/files/44_Yurganov_rep.pdf
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/files/2012/11/ePosterYurganov_rep.pdf
[Submitted to Climate Change Letters] — haven’t found that.
That doesn’t appear in comments at the monster blogs, though.
I’ve tried.
Ed, thanks for the support. But I’ve already given up. Publishing on a web site doesn’t count; Tony Watts and Lord Monckton do that. Without a paper accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, I’ve got nothing. I’ve been trying for years, and I’m tired. Let God save the world; it’s not my job.
I got a duplicate post above, thought it hadn’t worked the first time.
And
Russell’s link a few responses above (#177 at the moment) succumbed to a glitch and currently is mangled as:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/unforced-variations-march-2015/comment-page-4/vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/03/better-than-best.htmlChop everything up through “4/” — what follows that is the real link.
RE 178-9
Thanks Hank, that made interesting reading, though because it was 360 posts long, I just skimmed the Malthus stuff. Its interesting to compare today’s evidence with the concerns of 2007.
In that vein, and as Malthus was discussed heavily, I just want to highlight a recent documentary I saw. Population was a bigger concern for me, until I watched a program/ lecture delivered by the marvellous statistican (and stand-up comedian!), Prof Hans Rosling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7K4cgrjng
The program is called ‘DON’T PANIC – The truth about population’ and is one of the best bits of science communication I have ever seen. The core message is that we should peak at a global population of around 11 billion. His message is an important one for fighting the apathy induced by the perception of unstoppable population rise, and also demonstrates how our concerns for the future will always be changing to accomodate new evidence.
Its also an interesting thread because it is an example of a poster highlighting work that gets taken up and assessed by some of the esteemed contributers. That must be very rewarding!
Funnily enough, I am in that 2007 thread asking about McGuire’s work, to little avail, though I’m sure thats partly due to my lack of skill as a poster (I only lurk normally!).
But I would of thought guest editing an edition of the worlds longest-running science journal on this specific subject implied a certain amount about McGuire’s credibility, but his message is a tough sell, partly because of the politics of the ‘climate wars’. I’m now reaching the end of the book, and its basically a call-to-arms to reduce warming ASAP, to minimise any possible risks.
Anyway, I will keep my eye on the subject and come back to you 2019, with as much additional information as may emerge:-)
Thanks again to all at RC contributers and posters (apart from the snarky one’s!)
Mark
Eating is an agricultural act, and agriculture is a climate forcing and feedback.
Since this article is dated 2007 and not much in the way of taking action has happened since then. I’m assuming th “catastrophic scenario” is ancient history and we’re well past that. I don’t know what level is beyond “catastrophic” but we should give it a name.
“The “catastrophic” scenario assumes positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle to warm the planet by 5.6 °C by the year 2100, and sea level has risen by 2 meters. I feel compelled to note that if this is supposed to be a worst-case scenario, I personally can imagine worse in terms of sea level rise. In the social realm the crystal ball gets murkier as the report progresses from expected to severe to catastrophic, but one important ingredient in the prognosis for the catastrophic scenario is the migration of millions of people, a scale unprecedented in human history, potentially enough to undermine the stability of civilized governance. One participant recommended that we check out the movie Mad Max, only imagine it hotter.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/the-forecast-in-the-streets/
Chuck,#191–I think more has happened since 2007 than you give credit for, as witness the ‘pause’ in CO2 emissions last year:
http://news.yahoo.com/flat-co2-emissions-not-enough-curb-climate-change-131403873.html
As the story notes, we can’t assume the problem is licked, or that we’ve hit max emissions. But nonetheless there is a lot of structural work that has gone into that ‘pause.’
I hope that some more of the ‘structural work’ will pay off in Paris in December.
All that aside, though, thanks for digging up that article. It’s a good resource, and one that’s timely for me just now–I’ve been looking at impacts, and will continue to do so. FWIW, I think all 3 scenarios are still in play.
I was very touched by your comments of condolence for Mum’s loss. Thank you Gavin and many others who responded, that’s means a lot!. Actually Mum was becoming quite an CC activist during the last 10 years of her life. I taught her as much a I could on the process at work with CC and she told her friends as to the state of the predicament and how to do their bit to help. Damn!, I wish now I had mentioned that in the eulogy but just 10 mins to cover her life was next to impossible anyway.
Just read that the amazon’s carbon uptake has halved since the 1980’s from 2Bill Tonnes/year to now just under 1 billion and is experiencing rapid die-off of it’s massive old trees. 100 researchers and scientists conducted by Leeds University concluded it’s project over several decades. Interesting point is that there was initially a growth spurt due to increased levels of CO2 and that sped up the life cycle of trees, but due to less rainfall, periods of extreme temp and probably a lowering ground water level millions of large old trees are dying and not being replaced. Aside from the marine algae, these forests are essential as carbon sinks. Those who thought that increased CO2 would benefit trees better think again in light of this new comprehensive study. We can’t keep stacking up these positive feedback systems like we are doing!!!
168: Hank I don’t think a mere 10 feet is going to much to muzzle the clathrate monster compared to the mean depth of the ocean there.
A number of us are upset about those editors’ treatment of Barton Paul Levenson’s paper. At the same time, the drought in California is about to drive up the price of almonds and other favorite foods. We will be able to say “Bart told you so” unexpectedly soon. Maybe one of the editors will remember and change his mind.
Saw the late Stephen Henry Schneider The Truth About Global Warming – Science & Distortion. Two main points, he highlights the media new protocol of so called balanced viewpoints, how they be balanced if the weighting is 50/50 whereas the correct weighting should be 97/3. I do not know how we can revert back to more sensible reporting of the facts. Market forces are clearly unable to do this, it will have to be legislated on a global level that appropriate weighting is given to the available evidence whether it’s in the print journalism, cable or internet. Another point that he made that kind of made me sigh in despair is that he said ” we know that tipping point are out there, we just don’t know where they are”. I doubt for a second that a tipping point will suddenly occur that makes everyone sit up and say..WOW! did you see that tipping point just get crossed. Antarctica (esp.the WAIS and also that huge outlet glacier to the east) are melting at a slower rate that the north polar regions. I cannot think any other way that a primary tipping point is already being crossed as we talk(keep going round in circles). It has required just 0.8C ave. global warming of the troposphere to cause the north polar ice to go into the most dramatic death spiral imaginable. This process is clearly now unstoppable! Result the rapidly warming waters and now ‘rain’ around the Greenland and Bering sea causing massive fresh water run off from the Greenland ice shelves with a corresponding surge in the rate of sea level rise. I won’t elaborate for the umpteenth time as to all the consequences this process will manifest, we all know. Question again, if this is not a tipping point going over the edge then what the hell is!. Are we going to keep waiting for the ‘WOW! did you see that’ moment before anyone takes notice of what’s already happening now?
Lawrence. I think you are right that there won’t be a tipping point moment. Take those Antarctic glacier basins, we probably won’t know within a decade or two exactly when any particular tipping point is passed, the rate of ice loss won’t suddenly jump up, but will continue to slowly rise, but with shortterm variations caused by weather, and quasiperiodic climate cyles (like PDO/ENSO,…) superimposed on that.
@~196
Re: weighting 50/50 etc.
Chris Mooney on the psychology of “equality bias”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/10/the-science-of-protecting-peoples-feelings-why-we-pretend-all-opinions-are-equal/
And a chatty piece on bad thinkers’ bad habit of falling into conspiracy theories; by explaining questionable beliefs with other questionable beliefs, for instance. It’s meta, I suppose, but perhaps we should be putting a lot more emphasis on “educating for intellectual virtues”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/10/the-science-of-protecting-peoples-feelings-why-we-pretend-all-opinions-are-equal/
Darn (bad thinking)! That second link should have been:
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists/
Tipping points? Are only ever known long after they have been passed.
Obviously.
The Great Barrier Reef has lost 50% of Corals in the last 30 years = Fact.
It’s only 2300 km (1,430 miles) long.
A good book on conspiracy theories – Occam’s Nightmare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg
http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/s-peter-davis/occams-nightmare-ebook/ebook/product-21017102.html