I sure wish he would avoiding putting prescriptive statements in ostensibly
scientific papers. Scientific papers should contain descriptive, not
prescriptive, statements.
That said, I think he is right about long-term climate sensitivity being
higher than the century-scale sensitivity inferred
Hi David,
I disagree with your estimation of 12 years and suggest 5 years is more
likely and could even be optimistic, at least for September sea ice decline
to below the 10% mark.
The PIOMAS graph, updated to end June 2011 here [1], made me think that 2016
was the most likely date, fitting a
Why don't those of you dipping a (cold) toe in this arena enter the Sea Ice
Outlook comparison held each season by SEARCH?
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/guidelines
(I noticed that WattsUpWithThat did~ )
More on that effort from Dot
Dear Ken,
I've already looked at this interesting paper [1], from Jim Hansen and
Mikiko Sato - but I'd not read before of his conjecture about rate of ice
mass loss doubling per decade, producing many metres of sea level rise this
century. But the implication is that the situation can be saved
Two points:
I am not opposed to scientists making prescriptive statements in their roles as
citizens.
However, I am opposed to prescriptive statements (statements about what we
should do) in peer-reviewed scientific papers.
I think science is about establishing objective facts about the
Dear all,
In case you were not aware, the workshop, which was to have been 3-4th
September, is now going to be on 15-16th October. Here is the background
and purpose of the workshop.
A group of scientists and engineers (including myself) is deeply concerned
about the potential of methane from
