Last Build Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:29:44 +0000
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:29:44 +0000It may make the deniers happy for while, but reality will bite them on the butt. Already, (OT) plants approved for certain zones are dying because of the polar vortex.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:36:59 +0000This sounds like a great idea! I wonder if CARES could be structured as a PubPeer overlay (on analogy to arXiv overlay journals in math, physics, etc. e.g.). So to submit a CARES article, it would first need to be posted as a response to the relevant paper on PubPeer, then go through the CARES review process to become endorsed as a CARES publication.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:13:17 +0000"Invited research article" does not mean much. Authors are encouraged to write to the editor before submitting an article. If they do so, their article is labelled as "invited research article". Really hard to understand how this paper passed peer review. Could someone try to submit a get-me-off-your-fringe-email-list manuscript to Global and Planetary Change to check if they read the manuscript.
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:09:38 +0000I wrote a comment paper on the residence time argument of Essenhigh, Gavin C. Cawley, On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide, Energy & Fuels, volume 25, number 11, pages 5503–5513, September 2011. (http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf) Which may have some useful material, as does my SkS article on Salby's theory https://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html Pretty poor the paper cites at least two papers that have been the subjects of peer reviewed comments, but fails to cite the comments. Be happy to help out if I can. BTW the 4.3% figure is about right if it refers to the fraction of CO2 molecules of directly anthropogenic origin (i.e. not counting those swapped with "natural" CO2 by the vast exchange fluxes' in which case it is accurate, but irrelevant/misleading)
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:31:43 +0000Crikey, it's not hard, is it? We've emitted ~545 GtC since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has only risen by ~120ppm (230 GtC), hence 100% of the rise is anthropogenic. QED. None but the breathtakingly obtuse or willfully ignorant would dispute this.
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:30:50 +0000I think Gavin Cawley's paper is already almost a rebuttal (it was a response to the Essenhigh 09 paper that Harde cites while ignoring Gavin Cawley's response). For example, I think the reason Harde gets 4 years for the residence time is because he's computing how long it would take to turn over all the CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than how long it would take for an enhancement in atmospheric CO2 to decay.
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:49:12 +0000I'd participate in this journal and would be happy to be on the editorial board. I've left several PubPeer comments and do wish that site were more popular among earth scientists. I'm about to leave another comment there on one of my own papers - errata due to a typo.
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:19:56 +0000I'd think about the acronym. The other variation would be CARiES ...
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:11:43 +0000Nick, I'm not so sure about what readers want. Certainly, the big institutions that really pay for the journals have a real interest in an accurate literature. Government is the largest such institution, but private companies might also be interested. I would argue that part of the problem here is the use of the literature as an advertising and career advancement vehicle, which has become a fine art. I know people who don't read others papers because they assume that they are as much about advertising the other persons work as their own papers are.
Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:07:20 +0000But would such a journal be viable? The reason it's hard to get comments and replications/not published is that the existing journals have decided it isn't what their readers want. They may be right. Think of the worst case, where all replications are successful. Good for science, but who would pay to read it?