Clean thread, clean thread, move down!
As this was promoted – by its author – on Arctic News, I feel rather dubious toward any of this, but as it managed to make it into a journal, I figured I’d at least bring it up.
How exactly could one even determine from what observations we have on Mars that these shapes are the same as the strange holes in Siberia?
And how does he know the ones on Mars are recent or what their frequency is. Perhaps someone with access to the paper can enlighten us. Even if they are similar, how is it an analog for the Arctic?
Yikes, yes. Small journal, single author with no academic affiliation… Not a good sign to read “Identical mounds occur in their millions on Mars but are uniformly interpreted as ancient volcanic structures, a geomorphic paradigm whose geological basis continues to escape objective observation” in the abstract.
Sure looks like a crackpot paper.
Gesh… so happy we actually have science. The world is indeed round and gravity is actually real. Oh, and BTW, carbon molecules trap heat. Lol. I’m thankful for reputable peer-reviewed journals by multiple authors doing quality science using reliable methodologies.
Hey, ALL. Scott and Will, long time no talk.
I’m very curious about your reaction to this article in Science Magazine, titled “Earth’s climate to increase by 4 degrees by 2084” citing a paper in Advances in Atmospheric Chemistry, Vol 35, No & July 2018. It’s from a collaborative research team in China (details at bottom).
First thing I notice before reading article is that the journal’s cover page is July 2018, meaning it’s over a month early. Do publications actually do that?
Link to actual ACC article with no pay wall is below, and title of journal article itself is:
“Climate Change of 4°C Global Warming above Pre-industrial Levels”.
Here is the abstract:
“Using a set of numerical experiments from 39 CMIP5 climate models, we project the emergence time for 4◦C global warming with respect to pre-industrial levels and associated climate changes under the RCP8.5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario. Results show that, according to the 39 models, the median year in which 4◦C global warming will occur is 2084. Based on the median results of models that project a 4◦C global warming by 2100, land areas will generally exhibit stronger warming than the oceans annually and seasonally, and the strongest enhancement occurs in the Arctic, with the exception of the summer season. Change signals for temperature go outside its natural internal variabilities globally, and the signal-tonoise ratio averages 9.6 for the annual mean and ranges from 6.3 to 7.2 for the seasonal mean over the globe, with the greatest values appearing at low latitudes because of low noise. Decreased precipitation generally occurs in the subtropics, whilst increased precipitation mainly appears at high latitudes. The precipitation changes in most of the high latitudes are greater than the background variability, and the global mean signal-to-noise ratio is 0.5 and ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 for the annual and seasonal means, respectively. Attention should be paid to limiting global warming to 1.5◦C, in which case temperature and precipitation will experience a far more moderate change than the natural internal variability. Large inter-model disagreement appears at high latitudes for temperature changes and at mid and low latitudes for precipitation changes. Overall, the intermodel consistency is better for temperature than for precipitation.”
About Research Team: Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, the Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters at the Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, the Joint Laboratory for Climate and Environmental Change at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences contributed to this study.
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Katharine Hayhoe just comments by Twitter: “Classic example of poor headlining. Ugh. This is what gives good science a bad name.”
So, #1, understand this has nothing to do with the journal Science. That’s a crap website reprinting press releases for easy money. The journal this is published in is not a big one–I don’t think I’ve heard of it before, though that’s not really a surprise for a journal based in China. It is a real journal, though.
The study itself doesn’t sound surprising–and couldn’t be, given that they’re simply analyzing the model simulations prepared before the last IPCC report. The press release just has a very stupid headline (translation probably didn’t help). It’s not predicting that we will see 4C warming by 2084, it’s just stating that’s what happens given the highest emissions scenario. That’s basically a fact you could have eyeballed off the IPCC figures.
Yep, I discovered that ScienMag is not Science Magazine. I contacted Science Magazine and they told me so. Thanks, Scott. And the 8.5 scenario is highly unlikely considering how coal has become so uncompetitive as renewables provide more affordable options, and coal will continue to atrophy. Gas is about to follow coal, if not already doing so, and rightfully.
Thanks for giving us all a place where we can work these things out by drawing on a greater community. A lot of the science in this paper is way beyond my experience to understand, but I try anyway. Cheers!
Hi guys. Thought this might be of interest,
Antarctica Is Losing An Insane Amount of Ice. Nothing About This Is Good
“Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years, and that ice loss has accelerated rapidly over the last five years.
“In a new study, the most comprehensive to date of the continent’s icy status, an international group of 84 researchers analyzed data from multiple satellite surveys, from 1992 to 2017.
“They discovered that Antarctica is currently losing ice about three times faster than it did until 2012, climbing to a rate of more than 241 billion tons (219 billion metric tons) per year. Total ice loss during the 25-year period contributed to sea level rise of about 0.3 inches (around 8 millimeters), approximately 40 percent of which — about 0.1 inches (3 mm) — happened in the past five years. [In Photos: Antarctica’s Larsen C Ice Shelf Through Time]
“Millimeters of sea level rise may not sound like much, but previous surveys suggested that Antarctica’s massive ice sheets likely wouldn’t be affected by climate change at all. The new findings hint that the continent’s ice cover may not be as resistant to warming as once thought, and present a very different picture of Antarctica’s potential contributions to a rising ocean: Consider that if all of Antarctica’s ice melted, the resulting water could elevate sea levels by about 190 feet (58 meters), the researchers reported.”
Yep. So not good news. Just read a Tweet by Michael Mann confirming a new paper’s conclusion we are looking at 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 at a minimum, not just one meter. And that could still rise in the next decade. We are now at 4.2mm / year.
Anyone have any idea on rate of increase each year. It must be around 1-2 mm per year because just a few years ago it was 3.7 mm/year.
Cheers, but not a cheery situation…
You can’t say 2 meters is the minimum, even in the high emissions scenario. I assume you mean this tweet? https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1007043784473886720
He’s talking about the max numbers there.
It could be that this year will see 4.2 mm rise (I don’t have a good source at hand), but there’s a significant amount of year-to-year variability. There’s not a sudden change like that: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level
Sorry about the double posting. Somehow the address got lost the first time and I couldn’t find the edit button.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.