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