2011-02-24 04:08:41Prudent Path: Polar Regions (needs reviewing ASAP)
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Hey All.
Sorry about my late addition but I had some personal issues going on. See here for the post I just made up for the polar regions.

Any thoughts?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Prudent_Path_Polar.html
2011-02-24 05:08:05
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

No problem Robert, Andy drafted up a Prudent Path Week post too, so we can just publish his first.

I would change the reference from "the co2science document" to "the Prudent Path document referenced in the "skeptic" letter to US Congress".  Then I would change "Although I have to commend co2science on..." to "...commend the Prudent Path authors on..."

It would be nice to include links to the papers you reference, if possible.  Not a big deal if this is too time consuming though.

Nasa’s gistemp => capitalize

"it is widely apparent that the current warm period far exceeds the early century warm period".  Would it be accurate to add "in both rate and magnitude"?

Again I'd change all 'co2science' references to 'Prudent Path'.

It would be nice to wrap it all up with some conclusion about the conclusion to be drawn from your analysis, connecting this to the real 'prudent path'.  Something along the lines of ice is melting fast, greenhouse gases are to blame, so the prudent path is to move away from business as usual and take steps to reduce those emissions.

2011-02-24 05:42:04Response
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Thanks for the good commentary. I have made the corrections all except finding the papers which I will do if I have the time to. Let me know if you find any other mistakes and/or have any other suggestions.
2011-02-24 07:52:48
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.91
looks good to me
2011-02-24 08:08:00
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.188.159

Nicely done, Robert.

Some nitpicks:

Punctuating this point, only 2 of the warmest 10 years on record occur prior to 2000...  I'm not sure that "Punctuating" is correct, perhaps you meant "Puncturing" instead. Also I would prefer to write" two of the warmest ten years"

In the quote from the PP on the Antarctic the "2" in CO2 is bolded rather than subscripted and it looks as though you are highlighting it. Also, you should say explicitly that it is you who has emphasized the phrase "Excepting the Antarctic Peninsula".

Fortunately, I have prepared a graphic which I think should be able to answer several of these questions (Figure 3). I think that you should dispense with "Fortunately"or replace it.

The Steig/O'Donnell comparison is instructive but some links to external sites where you got the figures fom would be useful. There's been so much noise over this lately that it would be a shame to have this issue dominate the comments on your article and drown out all the other good points you have made 

 

2011-02-24 08:29:48Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Hey Andy,
Thank you for the comments. I implemented all the changes and put a link to the documents where I got the steig/o'donnell graphs. However considering the remainder of the graphs are my own or from my previous SKS posts I linked to the primary organizations but I didn't think I should link much further.

Thanks for the good commentary.
2011-02-24 12:25:21Great stuff Robert
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.223.91.161

Figure 2 tells a vivid story, love graphs that contain a compelling narrative.

Figure 5 is not so clear but that's the fault of the scientists who plotted it unfortunately. I'm in the process of building what I hope would be a clearer graph (the final version would lose all the paper titles, too much information - I'd probably simplify it to just colour code the estimates by the method so all GRACE estimates would be red, for instance). So I'm not saying include this graph - my end goal would be to add the earlier estimates going back to the 1980s so that then it would be possible to plot a curve of best fit through all the data - make it a nice thick line that clearly shows the trajectory of the Greenland ice - relatively flat until 2000 where it suddenly dips. That curve would be the compelling narrative I'd like to tell.

BTW, here's the Excel file:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Greenland_estimates.xls

2011-02-24 21:38:51Graph
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.12.57

John, how about making all the GRACE estimates one colour, the altimetry estimates another, and the mass balance estimates a third colour?

2011-02-24 22:38:39I was just discussing that idea with Robert
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.223.91.161
At first, I didn't want to do that because I wanted to preserve which estimate belonged to which paper. But as the graph filled out, that concept bcame untenable. And I have to remember James Olsen's words, "don't be such a scientist". The goal of a graph is not to communicate as much information as possible (unless it's in peer review). It's to tell a compelling story.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now. This blog post has been pushed back to Sat morning thanks to Lubos Motl so I should have time to finesse the graph. And the info on which paper belongs to which estimate is still in the excel file which I'll make available in the blog post.

2011-02-25 13:04:00Already live
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.156
John, this post is already live.