sokolow

Members
  • Content Count

    587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sokolow

  1. Furthermore I think there's good reason to critique the ideological stance which asserts an idealized binary division between supposed separate realms of "science" and "advocacy," if only because the division is obviated by how funding gets done.
  2. Yeah. I have every expectation that the pessimistic induction will hold to a greater or lesser extent. However -- and this came up in discussing that op-ed with the headline "the debate is over" a while back -- we need to especially careful not to retreat to nitpicking via rarefied philosophy of science when we know statements like "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" are shorthand ways of saying the science is at present sufficiently & robustly established for the purposes of setting legislative and economic policy, or for that matter, in terms of establishing cultural attitudes and discursive stances in the matrix of public (lay) language.
  3. From a certain perspective I always thought the argument from iPad (formerly thinkpad) was the pragmatic response to that concern in the sense you're giving it, and also a real pointed sense thats maybe outside the scope of this thread.
  4. ???Frankly the US could straight pay for rapid decarbonization through old school cold war deficit spending and a cold war tax structure and the result would be full employment and prosperity
  5. ^^^^^ well for certain values of nice. s'nawnice, f'r t'snaw'n'ice to paraphrase bud neill In other news SKS has a roundup, not much that's new but this survey of Marzeion et al (2014), covering attribution fractions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/athabasca.html Upshot being anthropogenic contribution intensifies after 1920, becomes especially salient from ~1975 forward, in line with experiences analyzing borehole temps in Alps, and the wide error bars reflecting prior studies probing variability by Oerlemans and Roe.
  6. Best when you can feel temps crater & wind kick up
  7. I certainly have heard from the outside that Columbia's L-D crowd is home to strong and vibrant personalities with strong, vibrant opinions on this issue in particular
  8. Sure, but bear in mind Seager is a vehement advocate for an opposing stance, as is plain in the second link you give, which is titled Climate Mythology in big bold letters. ... and that's fine, Seager-Battisti is a thorough analysis of the weaknesses for meltwater-AMOC theories. But he's not the final word, he's very much involved in an active conversation. So for instance Shakun and Carlson (2010) are defending & advancing an AMOC model over Seager's view, and chiang (2009, 2012) flat out writes off the tropical stance: With that in mind, What's the application to the N. Atl trigger? I don't doubt that it has potential implications, given the other authors (Brauer) but it doesn't seem to have disturbed subsequent researchers in starting off from a meltwater injection YD initiation and folding Lane into their analysis (Ana Moreno's 2014 paper in Nature Geoscience).Also look at the modification of the synchroneity assertion in paper & in interview: Plausible, sure, but also contested by Carlson in 2009, writing in QSR, and by Teller in 2013, writing in QR and challenging the feasibility of evaporation based off hydro budgets and insufficient evidence for appropriate changes in temp, runoff, and precip. Looks like Liu (2014) went out to buttress the evaporation hypothesis via sediment analysis and came back with ambiguous results. Also presently contested, by Wan (2009) Geophysical Research Letters in and Schmidt & Stieglitz (2011) writing in Paleoceanography. The former on the basis of the Cariaco basin potentially reflecting localized dynamic effects appropriate to strong gradients, the latter applying evidence from the Florida Straits and concluding their findings are in line with a N.Atl AMOC initiation.And the point of all that is not that I'm an ardent supporter of YD onset through meltwater injection or that I have an answer -- the point is that clearly, numerous qualified men and women are still arguing this in very recent high profile publications, that researchers still cite the "Wally hypothesis" in their introductions when giving context to their investigations and aren't laughed off the stage, and that this state of affairs does not support the view that meltwater injection is widely regarded within the relevant disciplines & editorial / referees bodies as dead, old, obsolete, outdated, discarded, marginalized, or overwhelmed by contrary evidence. Indeed it's still on the table, and frequently cited as the likely mechanism. But the ongoing debage does speak to the importance of your friend's diss in giving an analysis of an open & intriguing question!
  9. Yah that's the one where they were having an argue over the 10Be dating & the terminal moraine:Barrows, T. T., Lehman, S. J., Fifield, L. K., & De Deckker, P. (2007). Absence of cooling in New Zealand and the adjacent ocean during the Younger Dryas chronozone. Science, 318(5847), 86-89. With replies comments & whatnot going back and forth
  10. OK well I think your department might be on the cutting edge of this one or the news hasn't reached nonspecialists because near as I can tell it is an open, common statement that meltwater injection and hence north atlantic direction YD onset is a question up for debate and as yet unresolved. However I don't see and can't find any summary or overview field statement that its an outdated, obsolete, or widely rejected view. AFAICT the EGU and AGU were still taking papers on it as of the early 2010s, people at name brand programs in the USA (OSU!) UK CAN and DK were still publishing on it in meanstream journals, and have open research programs -- at least on the issue of Laurentide drainage. It would be helpful to have a survey paper or chapter that traces the fall from "Wally Was Right" (2007) to "Wally's A Chump" (2014) before discarding it itt.
  11. At any rate if Broeckerland has been definitively discredited I'd be interested to read the gory details & postmortem just for the interest of it, but also b/c more than a few people I know in the paleoanth zone are still running around believing that it's credible and plausible, and how much fun is it to mess with your friends & colleagues
  12. Sure! I believe you -- my only angle is "global how" and "global how much" matter a lot, for land ice, especially given the potential for bizarre precipitation regimes. Conversely, with the potential for strong regional variability its worth caution trying to interpret glacial fluctuations, and also worth caution when (for example, not that we do this itf) taking climate into account in discussing human migration, changes in tool & resource use, &c. I guess I was curious because none of the mainstream stuff I'd been reading made it sound that grim for North Atlantic crew; I had the impression the catch theory- obs- and modelwise wasn't tropical atlantic temps, but lack of a distinct outlet for the proposed Laurentide drainage reorganization. I'd come away with the idea that while the question is still open & intriguing, if researchers could give a plausible account for drainage its not just Broecker himself, but a large body of evidence & consensus that would end up, as per Richard Alley's bluntly titled 2007 paper, coming around to saying "Wally Was Right." As in the meltwater injection framework isn't by any means marginal -- it has a strong evidential & theoretical underpinning with useful explanatory & predictive power.
  13. I guess my comment there is given a YD signal in the Andres core that's not just "broadly contemporaneous" or "synchronous within the limitations of the dating method employed" but indeed a temporally well-resolved regionally representative YD signal with necesary magnitude and diachronic "shape" that is highly synchronous with YD records in the northern hemisphere isn't necessarily a deathblow to a North Atlantic meltwater injection framework -- that doesn't invalidate the causal chain. And AFAIK theirs is one of relatively few such southern hemisphere paleorecords, such that marine records from offshore NZ and Oz are open to alternative explanation and sometimes standing in complex relation to terrestrial records. My impression was that "complex" is the word for southern hemisphere YD temperature signals in terms of chronology, magnitude, shape, and regional coherency -- that's my impression because the NZ glacial complex the Andres team cites has in years since proved to be a giant pain in the butt, datingwise, and it would be nice to have a check to bring back to chronologies of glacial fluctuations in the Southern Alps.
  14. Thanks. I hadn't seen that particular one but FWIW I always wondered if the fixation on Lake Agassiz was some kind of reverse Bretz, where he had a channeled scabland evidencing massive outburst floods, but no source for the water until they reconstructed Missoula -- and with Agassiz here we have a lake but disputed evidence for the location of its outlet(s) and / or breach. So the fixation is building in the antiholistic assumption that a catstrophic, sudden eastward draining of Agassiz is the only mechanism of freshwater injection. Congrats to your friend in advance! I guess I don't know I'd found an arguement for synchroneity of cooling off of moraine radiocarbon and surface exposure dating of valley glacier fluctuations
  15. I guess I had thought that the freshwater melt hypothesis was not only still plausible, but also still retains its status as most likely forcing mechanism for the YD cold event? IDK if there's a good broad field review that summarizes the state of the field (your friend's lit review?)
  16. n/p ... and yeah i didn't catch tornado strength addressed in the paper or in his quotes from the press release. My guess is the author of the science daily splasher took Elsner's spoken / the paper's claim that when deep convection kicks off, its more likely to go severe and took that to mean "tornadoes are more severe"Also I went to go reread the splasher and turns out he's active on Twitter as @hurricanejim, and he's posted a personal copy of both the paper as well as his code for anyone who wants to screw with it. Looks like he's amenable to questions @hurricanejim Interested in our new tornado study? Find it here ... Code for replication is here paper (pdf link top of the pubs list) http://t.co/Y2OAA5DM5L code http://t.co/iPI82a7afP
  17. Most reviewers (and many editors!) for most journals don't get paid. No-one I know has been paid as a referee or a reviewer. Probably we all know but never really say out loud good review is incredibly time consuming specialist work that requires a person to simultaneously carry out the most brutal attacks on someone's work you can think of while simultaneously imagining & suggesting constructive ways those critiques might be answered. How many reviewers can do that, or choose to, or have the time to? Even complying with quality metrics to figure that out in a standardized way would be a giant timesuck pain in the a$$.Too, most papers get two, maybe three referees. The referees are bought into trying to deconstruct what might be an elaborate interdisciplinary and multi-method analysis by several authors who are each deploying his or her expert training in novel ways. A stunning amount of peer review manages to totally miss blatant errors because two sets of eyes working in their spare time (anonymously & apart from their own research) are not sufficient. It wouldn't be possible to have peer review full stop if people actually charged consulting rates that reflected their training; it's almost neccessary that it's mostly volunteer work donated in the name of science & scholarship. The editorial staff of journals and journal services add a lot of value -- but a huge chunk of the value is straightup dealing with vast numbers of document pages, basic quality control, managing the metadata, getting all the text & figures & citations into a common format, and corralling a months long communication & revision process between authors and their reviewers. I know a guy whose sole job it is to fix shoddy figures and graphics submitted by actual big -S scientists leading multimillion dollar labs. Some of which graphics are constructed from improperly used clip art, textbook figures, and GIS results they don't own the rights to. Re: access the practical test IMO is that access is attainable but every man and woman reading threads like the ECS or FSU tornado study who wants to participate has to haul down to the library and ILL / dl the pdf for themselves -- even on a huge forum full of weather nerds, how many people can do that, and how does that change the timeframe for discusison? Unless there's an open discussion copy, or that its been unlocked. Fair use limits the kind of sharing we can do without getting the board (any board) in trouble.
  18. All true & good points -- replied in banter threadhttp://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/38652-climate-change-banter/?p=3033670
  19. The upshot of the section on clustering is they look at touchdown locations and conclude, Then comes the wrap-up. The gist of their summary & conclusions can be drawn from the latter half of the abstract, but the following portions bear on their interpretation of results and caveats on those findings, which I gather are gonna be of interest to you all,
  20. First they look at tornadoes per year, and the authors note that mean annual rate is 505 tornadoes per year and the median rate is 474 tornadoes per year. They then observe that even given the inter-annual variation in the annual number of tornadoes, their statistical methods identify no long term trend -- its flat. They go on to plot the number of days with least one tornado, calling those days 'one-tornado days, which varies a lot around a mean of 128/year -- max in 1979, min in 2013. They then say that in contrast to tornadoes per year, Their next move is to say that the ratio of blockbuster days to a one-tornado day stands as the conditional probability of a big day The next subsection of the paper deals with spatial clustering.
  21. They use the SPC archive for all reported tornadoes over the period 1950–2013 with the download link for the files they used as www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/zipped/tornado.zip , saying they restrict their analysis to tornadoes rated EF1 and higher per SPC guidance, their description of the data and guidance taken from Verbout & crew (2006) "Evolution of the U.S. tornado database: 1954–2003."
  22. @bob Not really. What there is is a relationship between traditional outlets and prestige b/c a pretty big chunk of the high impact / big name journals & their archives are pay for play. Not too much most individual researchers can do about that because junior scholars have to gun for big name journals (to get hired), tenure track scholars have to gun for big name journals (to stay hired), and senior scholars have to gun for big name journals (to raise the profile of their department & their teams in order to secure funding from the Uni and the granting agency / as well to make sure your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. authors who might be junior or int'l scholars get their contributions in recognized outlets). Like we were explicitly instructed by our mentors to sit on our first papers rather than take the CV hit comes from publishing record made up entirely of "mediocre" journals. Also think about how much of the argumentative structure every paper rests on a lit review & field history which resides in journal archives held behind paywalls. Not only can persons without comprehensive access not read work their taxes paid for, you can't even work through the citation chain for papers that are free. Changing institutions or going private changes access; I was abroad for a while and my overseas affiliation had a different access set which meant I was nagging colleagues to send me articles. Long enough out of the academy and you end up having to pay to access the published versions of your own research. It's terrible. @ORH / everyone if noone else has access I'll do my best to summarize it in enough detail for everyone else to critique it
  23. So here is a neat thing, in terms of land ice. Outside the polar regions studies of glacial ice and cores from icecaps and other bodies often come from fairly high altitudes, in relatively isolated & exposed places that by and large are above the boundary layer and hence have the same qualifiers as 3000m+ met stations like those at Sonnblick and the Jungfraujoch vs. "where people actually live." But there's also ice masses in caves -- "mini cave glaciers" -- some of which display seasonal deposition in their stratigraphy reaching back hundreds or even thousands of years. Image from a team at Ruhr Uni Bochum, layering clearly visible: Like ice caps, these can be cored (if awkwardly and not without difficult access). Image from a microbiology team at Uni Innsbruck. Kern (2013) in his article "Cave ice – the imminent loss of untapped mid-latitude cryospheric palaeoenvironmental archives," points out that cave ice offers two complementary advantages compared against surface alpine ice cores, which are that you get regional spread on account cave ice usually comes from nonglaciated terrain, and also the atmospheric chemistry, inclusion, particulate, and precip records can come from lower altitudes below the boundary layer. However, cave ice studies are a relatively new field. This means that there's still a whole lot of work to be done sorting out how the specifics of deposition alter the chemical profile of cave ice, what kinds of ice flow and floor topography interactions are happening that mess up stratigraphy in nonobvious ways, periods of hiatus consequent to reduced deposition or increased ablation, and how air movement affects conditions for each specific cave -- so for instance Lava Beds Natl' Monument has some potentially long-lived ice masses, but interpreting past wastage in the cores is complicated by having to consider possible circulation changes resulting from passage collapse, or growth of the ice body itself. That's particularly pressing when your models for ice accumulation are founded on various mechanics of cold-air trapping & pooling. Any of you all who've had the joy of doing mine, tunnel, or sewer work can imagine how much fun it would be to reckon that out. And there's other issues: one guy had his study complicated by the fact that in previous decades the locals had gone through and mined the cave glacieret for their iceboxes. Consequently when dating or building a chronology from ice cores, you're really hoping for a straightforward stratigraphy lots of organic detritus to give points for radiocarbon dating, though it doesn't always doesn't give conveniently narrow values. So the team led by Hercman (2010), for their paper "The first dating of cave ice from the Tatra Mountains, Poland and its implication to palaeoclimate reconstructions," ended up relying on moths imprisoned in the ice wall, and then using historical investigations from the 1950s and earlier to constrain their RC dates. So doing, her team argue that the entrapped moths have dates likely in the 17th-18th centuries -- the LIA. Their team also noted a very strong unconformity in the ice layers, and they interpret the erosion boundary as representing melt occurring during the MWP, with older ice below and LIA-age above. Icewall of moth death from their paper: Stoffel and colleagues (2009) worked with Swiss cave ice to assemble a timeline using dendrochronology and RC methods to date tree embedded trunks, branches, etc., presenting their findings in their paper "Evidence of NAO control on subsurface ice accumulation in a 1200 yr old cave-ice sequence, St. Livres ice cave, Switzerland." Their figures for stratigraphic analysis and chronology below the fold. They attempted to correlate periods of ice accumulation in St. Livees against reconstructions of past NAO indices, offering their study as a useful supporting proxy for long-term trends in cold season precip. At any rate, like with small-ice-body / "ice patch" archaeology, cave ice is a relatively new field of paleoclimate research. As plain from the title of the Kern paper, its an archive similarly threatened by loss through melting. Worse, the recent strong negative mass balances are mostly affecting the top meter or so of these ice bodies, meaning that what's getting slagged off are precisely the layers needed for doing calibration against instrumental records. Figure showing cave ice melt in caves with long-term investigation, from the 2013 Kern paper. Note the relative density of the observational record from Europe.