2012-01-03 20:46:49New research from last week 1.2012
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

It's time to start this thing. Draft of the first weekly post is available with first paper of this week. I'll add newly published papers to the draft and post a notififcation of them in this thread. Feel free to comment on the opening paragraphs and the content of the papers. I'll include 'comments from SkS author community' section for each paper we get relevant commentary. I think the introductory paragraph could use something to make it more interesting. Perhaps I should start with the summary paragraph and include the additional information paragraph after that (or even to the end of the post).

2012-01-04 04:14:23My thoughts
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

It might be more effective to incoporate a new section into the SkS 2012 Weekly Digest series rather than generating another weekly series specific to new research. 

Whether your concept gets folded into the SkS 2012 Weekly Digest series or not, I believe that posting the complete Abstract of a new paper in a SkS product is not the way to go. I say this for two reasons:

1. Abstracts are way too technical for the average person to absorb. The average pesrson will therefore not read them.

2. The details about each paper, including the Abstract, can be accessed at your website. The climate-science-savy SkS readers can therefore click on an embedded link to access details.

For these two resons, I recommend that summary descriptions of new research papers be written in plain English and not be more than 2-5 sentences in length.

PS -- I usually compose the SKS Weekly Digest on Sunday afternoon (US Eastern Time).

2012-01-04 04:58:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think this should be separate from the Weekly Digest.  Don't want the digest getting out of control in size.

2012-01-04 17:02:34
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

I added new paper: "Extreme organic carbon burial fuels intense methane bubbling in a temperate reservoir".

Weekly digest and this don't have much in common, except that both are published weekly. It would be nice to be able to do a short summary on each paper in plain English but currently I don't seem to have time for it. If that is required, then someone else has to do it or then we'll forget about publishing this in SkS. Also, my point in originally giving the full abstract instead of self-written summary is that there's no further interpretation involved, it's the raw text as scientists have written it. If there's something wrong, it's their mistake, not mine. ;)

2012-01-04 17:04:51
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Quite some time ago there was discussion about SkS reading club. As I don't seem to be able to get that rolling, I thought that perhaps I should include one classic paper to this weekly research summary. What do you think?

2012-01-04 22:40:05
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.211

I added another paper: "An investigation of the calcification response of the scleractinian coral Astrangia poculata to elevated pCO2 and the effects of nutrients, zooxanthellae and gender - Holcomb et al. (2012)"

2012-01-05 03:00:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Adding a classic paper could be interesting.

2012-01-05 06:00:27
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

I wiill volunteer to draft a brief description of each paper that you post on your website. 

2012-01-05 18:13:37
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.203

Three new ones today:

Cosmic rays and space weather: effects on global climate change - Dorman (2012)

Different malaria species react differently to warming in India's Thar Desert Influence of climate on incidences of malaria in the Thar Desert, northwest India - Jhajharia et al. (2012)

On carbon transport and fate in the East Siberian Arctic land–shelf–atmosphere system - Semiletov et al. (2012)

 

2012-01-06 00:59:54
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

John, if you are eager to do that, you don't need to wait for my website post, the papers are already available for viewing in the draft. If you do make summaries of them, just post them here and I'll add them to the draft. We just need to consider the format. It's either separate section for summaries and separate section for abstracts, citations, and links, or then each summary is included to the section of each paper so that there's first the headline, then summary, then abstract and links.

2012-01-06 02:09:12
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

I'll take a crack at drafting a brief summary of each of the papers in your draft document and will post them on this comment thread.

I will also post a suggested rewrite of your introductory paragraphs. The introduction to the first edition of this new series will, by necsssity, conatin more information than the standard introduction embedded in subsequent editions.

We also need to revise the title of this new series so that it includes the phrase, "climate change."  Doing so will ensure that the Google Alert system will flag each edition.   

 

2012-01-06 02:26:49
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Upon further review, I withdraw my offer to draft brief summaries of each paper.  I do so for two reasons:

1. The headlines that you have written adequately capture the essence of the paper.

2. Correctly translating the subject matter of some of the papers is well beyond my understanding of the scientific matters being addressed. 

2012-01-06 02:37:20
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Your weekly summary of new papers should include only those that have been peer-reviewd and published in reputable scientiifc journals. It should not include a paper like Cosmic rays and space weather: effects on global climate change - Dorman (2012). Including such a paper is counterproductive for the same reasons that you have argued against reposting a blog analysis by Spencer on SkSin the comment thread to the General Chat post, Dr Spencer deals with the 'greenhouse effect is caused by pressure' myth.
   

2012-01-06 02:46:53
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

How about the following for the title of the series?

"SKS Summary of New Climate Science Papers: Week #1" 

2012-01-06 03:27:15
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Here's my suggested rewrite of the introduction for the inagural edition of your new series.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of the “SKS Summary of New Climate Science Papers”. This new weekly feature provides a summary of selected, peer-reviewed papers on climate science published in reputable scientific journals during the previous week.

A daily summary of new papers is provided by the AGW Observer Facebook page and/or Twitter page. This weekly summary draws directly from materials posted on the AGW Observer.

Please let us know what you think about this new series.

I see no particular reason to plug A Few Things Illconsidered in the introduction.  Doing so, dilutes the primary message. If you want plug this website, do it aa a "Note" at the end of each post. 

2012-01-06 18:04:36
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

One new paper (see the draft):

Estimates of the North Atlantic Oscillation back to 1692 using a Paris–London westerly index - Cornes et al. (2012)

 

2012-01-06 18:21:20
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

John, I'll get back to your suggestions later but now I just quickly point out that I don't think this is a summary, but more like a random selection.

2012-01-07 01:28:22
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.43.42

I don't like this lead-in:

"New article says cosmic rays have strong effect to climate while ignoring the opposing evidence"

If the paper actually makes valid points, then waving it off as "ignoring evidence" seems flippant and insufficient.  Not that I think any of that is true objectively, but think of what a "skeptic" might say.  The problem I have with the paper is its complete disregard for up to date data (regarding Figure 4).  They use data given in a very crude plot from 12 years ago, for cripes sake - the actual data shows no such trend.

2012-01-07 18:03:14
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Alex, the paper in its introduction section builds a picture where cosmic rays have strong effect to the climate without mentioning single paper showing otherwise (and we know that such papers exist and plenty of them too). In the discussion section 3 such papers are mentioned in passing but all others are ignored completely. That is why I wrote that title. But I quess that I could clarify it a bit:

New article says cosmic rays have strong effect to climate while ignoring papers showing opposing evidence

Or, I also could leave it out:

New article says cosmic rays have strong effect to climate

At any case, perhaps it would good to include comment section for this paper:

Comments from SkS Authors: "This paper makes a case for strong effect of cosmic rays on climate. However, the paper seems to ignore most of the papers showing evidence against the cosmic ray hypothesis. There are plenty of such papers[LINK HERE]. Discussion section mentions couple of them in passing but otherwise they are ignored. Paper also seems to use very old data, as is evident for example in Figures 2, 3, and 4, but newer data[LINK HERE] is not touched."

How about if I include the neutral title above (the latter one) and the paragraph above?

Oh, and John, I think this article is peer-reviewed. I'm including this paper so that the first information on this paper doesn't come from denier blogs and that I can include a mention of the shortcomings of the paper.

2012-01-07 18:05:06
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

I added three new papers today:

Selective drought-induced decline of pine species in southeastern Spain - Sánchez-Salguero et al. (2012)

The Younger Dryas: relevant in the Australian region? - Tibby (2012)

Time of emergence of climate signals - Hawkins & Sutton (2012)

 


2012-01-07 18:45:08
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

John, on the title, is there something wrong with the current one (I might not notice it as English is not my first language)?

I edited the introduction incorporating some of your suggestions, check it out. I also wrote first version of the summary paragraph. I added additional links to a green box in the bottom of the post.

I'm still thinking of changing the format of the paper sections. Perhaps to something like this (give me your opinions):

Spanish pines are selective in showing the decline

Selective drought-induced decline of pine species in southeastern Spain - Sánchez-Salguero et al. (2012) [Full Text link here, if available]

Comments from SkS Authors: "Here I insert comments if there are something relevant to say about the paper."

Abstract: "The negative impacts of severe drought on the growth and vigor of tree species and their relationship with forest decline have not been properly evaluated taking into account the differential responses to such stress of trees, sites and species. We evaluated these responses by quantifying the changes in radial growth of plantations of four pine species (Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra, Pinus pinaster, Pinus halepensis) which showed distinct decline and defoliation levels in southeastern Spain. We used dendrochronological methods, defoliation records, linear mixed models of basal area increment and dynamic factor analysis to quantify the responses of trees at the species and individual scales to site conditions and drought stress. In the region a temperature rise and a decrease in spring precipitation have led to drier conditions during the late twentieth century characterized by severe droughts in the 1990s and 2000s. As expected, the defoliation levels and the reductions in basal area increment were higher in those species more vulnerable to drought-induced xylem embolism (P. sylvestris) than in those more resistant (P. halepensis). Species adapted to xeric conditions but with high growth rates, such as P. pinaster, were also vulnerable to drought-induced decline. The reduction in basal area increment and the defoliation events occurred after consecutive severe droughts. A decrease in spring precipitation, which is the main driver of radial growth, is the most plausible cause of recent forest decline. The sharp growth reduction and widespread defoliation of the most affected pine plantations of Scots pine make their future persistence in drought-prone sites unlikely under the forecasted warmer and drier conditions."

Citation: Raúl Sánchez-Salguero, Rafael M. Navarro-Cerrillo, J. Julio Camarero and Ángel Fernández-Cancio, Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0372-6.

2012-01-07 19:43:17Out of the loop...
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.217.71.221

Gentlemen, I have been somewhat out of the loop on this although I gave initial support.

So let me put forward a general perspective of why this is a damn important initiative.

Ari. All sorts of papers are of interest and relevence. And occassionally some are significant. Meehl et al 2011 rings that bell for me. However, over and above the significance of ay one paper, is the significance of the flood of papers.

So. Ari. Your take on this has tended to be collecting papers. Earth-Shattering as well as just local journey-man stuff. More power to your arm. Thats your metier. But now if we are to take your work to another level, we need a certain detachment from the details of any one paper and ask what the broader significance os a paper iis. Abnd it may well be that the existance of the paper carries more weight than its findings. This is a  PR War.

Soooo... Don't we need a 'feed' that says first and foremost 'there were this many AGW papers this week! And this is the summary of them. And then these are the abstracts  from them. Then finally this is the link to the full paper.

Isn't the number of papers the primary story?

2012-01-08 00:03:29
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I like that better Ari, just because if we really want to mention it first and bring up its shortcomings, we might want to be more specific.

2012-01-08 00:53:42
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Glenn, currently I cannot offer the number of papers published because I follow only limited set of journals. From those that I follow, hundreds of papers are published weekly. My primary story here is that there is broad spectrum of research in large quantities published continuously relating to climate science. Another goal with this series is to show that science is cool.

Alex, that paper is not the first anymore. I'm adding newest papers always to the top, so the whole post is (roughly) temporally ordered with oldest papers in bottom.

2012-01-08 02:02:59
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Your current title is a tad too cyrptic for my taste. That is why I proposed changing it to:

"SKS Summary of New Climate Science Papers: Week #1" 

 

2012-01-08 02:21:47
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Ok, but the problem there is that this is not a summary. This is also not just SkS thing. These are also not just climate science papers but also some papers in closely related scientific fields are included. Week numbering also doesn't work properly like that, as next year we bump into a same title again, unless you mean that I should just count upwards continuously. So, I guess I find your title too vague. ;)

Do others feel that title of the post should be changed?

2012-01-08 04:29:48
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Your post will indeed a be "SkS" product and will indeed be a "summary", albiet not a an all-inclusive summary. The scope of the "summary" is adequately explained in the introdcutory paragraph.

Re the numbering system, next year the title would be expanded to "2013 SKS Summary of New Climate Science Papers: Week #1"  -- assuming you make it through the entire first year.*

The term "climate science" should be included in the title in order to make it more likely that each post will be picked-up by Google. If a paper is related to climate science, it fits under the "climate scince" umbrella.

*Having churned out 31 consecutive weeks of the SkS Weekly Digest, I know how tedious the job of cranking out a weekly prodcut is. You may or may not be able/willing to do so for an entire year. Who will be your back-up author in the event you are sick or on vacation? 

2012-01-08 06:34:06
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

I have already done this over a year (which is one reason why I'm not that keen on changing the title). This is not a new thing that's just starting. It is just published also here from now on.

2012-01-08 06:46:56ready?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

You ready to publish this one Ari?

2012-01-08 06:54:33
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Not yet. I publish this on mondays in my own blog, so there's over one day to go and there might be more papers still to come. So the publication day for this should probably be monday (or perhaps even tuesday). Of course, if it is needed, it's no big deal to change the scheduling of this thing.

2012-01-08 06:55:45
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Before publication I also might do the formatting thing I suggested above.

2012-01-08 06:58:30
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Ari - I didn't mean first in the list, I was referring to your comment about getting mention of it out before skeptics could pick it up and start running with it.  

2012-01-08 06:59:41
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Also Ari, do you have access to the Twitter account?  I have started to update it with the posts, I just don't know if this is something you would be posting with the SkS account as well or if you want me to watch out for it.  Or, should I retweet from your own Twitter?

2012-01-08 09:25:12
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

Thanks for the clarification. I obviously was not aware that you had already been distributing a weekly summary from your website. 

2012-01-08 17:32:59
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

Alex, we talked about it in another section in John's crowd-sourcing thread and it seems that retweeting from my Twitter account is simplest way to go. It would be great if you're willing to do that.

2012-01-08 19:10:51
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

I added final 3 papers, made additions to the cosmic ray paper as discussed above, added couple of related paper links to the Spanish pine paper, and added the Classic of the week. I also edited the post to a new format. See what you think and comment on anything.

2012-01-09 03:43:20
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Ari,

I believe readability would be enhaced by inserting a hoirizontal line between each synopsis. Other than that, it looks great.

Thank you for all that you do.

2012-01-09 03:44:11
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Thumbs up!

2012-01-09 05:15:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

Looks good Ari.  I agree with John H and went ahead and inserted the horizontal line breaks.

2012-01-09 06:41:05
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.97.114

That's good, I also thought that something like that were needed.

2012-01-10 15:55:07
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.47.237

Retweeted for you.

2012-01-10 17:45:28
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Alex, I think it was meant that the single papers I tweet during the week are retweeted in SkS twitter (so that we give people the option to get new papers as fresh as possible). These weekly posts should then be tweeted as normal SkS posts are.

I expect to tweet couple of new papers in couple of hours.