Re: Specially for the Slow Man

On 10 jan, 21:14, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:00:13 +0000, Raveninghorde

<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:16:37 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On 10 jan, 01:27, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:18:44 -0800, John Larkin

<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt.  This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention.  Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

All the "popular" AGW simulations assume large positive feedbacks.
They have to; straight CO2-induced warming is too small to get upset
about. It's not clear if the major feedbacks are indeed positive. Like
someone said, not only don't we know the magnitudes of major
atmospheric effects, we don't know the signs.

Methane has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, ballpark 10


As posted previously feedback or not discussed here:

Other than Bill most people will accept this guy as credible. Check
his profile on his website.

The editor and at least one reviewer at Geophysical Research Letters
found him less than convincing, if his web-site is to be believed.

Eeyore and Ravenhorde may find him credible, but people who know more
about the subject seem to have reservations.

What's the problem? Is the article too difficult for you to
understand?  As always when you haven't a clue you hide behind someone
elses opinion this time an editor.

Q: Have we put too much faith in the peer review system? And should we
seek sources outside the usual scientific circles?

A: Peer review is simply a cursory check on the plausibility of a
study. It is not a rigorous replication and it is certainly not a
stamp of correctness of results.  Many studies get far more rigorous
peer review on blogs after publication than in journals.  I use our
own blog for the purpose of getting good review before publication for
some of my work now, because the review on blogs is often far better
and more rigorous than from journals. This is not an indictment of
peer review or journals, just an open-eyed recognition of the

Doesn't "Peer Review" mean the "peers" kiss each other's ass ?:-)

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reminds us - once again - that
he doesn't know what he is talking about.

People who referee papers normally do so anonymously. Referees reports
almost always include at least one - usually several - suggestions
about the way the paper being refereed might be improved, even if they
recommend immediate publication. Flattering reviews are very rare. As
far as I can recall my wife had just one, when - as a new and pretty
much unknown post-doc - she first published the rather remarkable
research that eventually made her and her collaborators famous within
their speciality. The much more substantial follow-up papers involved
quite a lot of negotiation with referees, and she still has to revise
most of the papers she submits before they are finally accepted for

Bill Sloman, Nijmegen