Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage:
Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice.
Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice.
Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation.
Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay.
The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability.
The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.
Area is possibly more important than volume as changes in area affect planetary albedo. Larger summer ice area means more sunlight is reflected back into space whereas smaller summer ice area means that more energy is absorbed.
Skeptical Science has a good summary of the science. It looks like there are many contributing factors to the apparent contradiction of warming temperatures, shrinking antarctic ice volume and growing antarctic sea ice area. The new paper referenced in this article is possibly another factor: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.
Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.
To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing
Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.
Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:
Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).
The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):
King and others, 2012
Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear
The author is a materials scientist, not an oceanographer. So the AC is skeptical of climate modelers because a materials scientist found a concentration of plastic frozen in the arctic that is three orders of magnitude larger than found in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is in fact a shocking find!). Any excuse to deny science.
Given that 1/4 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last decade with no corresponding acceleration of warming that would be predicted, and even a leveling off, I think models aren't correct.
The IPCC has predicted warming at a rate of 0.15C and 0.3C per decade ever since their first report in 1990, and that is exactly what we have observed:
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, (and if you pick small enough intervals the natural oscillations can swamp the long term signal), the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!
It does sound like it is accumulating year over year, otherwise how do you explain the "abundances of hundreds of particles per cubic meter. That’s three orders of magnitude larger than some counts of plastic particles in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch." - http://news.sciencemag.org/ear...
Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?
I think you have the definition of theory exactly wrong. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Just how dangerous is nuclear waste (assuming it doesn't fall into the wrong hands)? What are the concerns with burying the waste somewhere far from human habitation? It doesn't seem like the risks of waste disposal outweigh the benefits of nuclear power.
And might this help explain the melting of the ice more so than global warming
Probably not unless the plastics are dark. If they are dark they will absorb solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected. Black carbon for example can accelerate ice loss: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...
The study, in Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences (Keegan et al. 2014) finds that black carbon from wildfires facilitated widespread Greenland ice sheet surface melting in just two years since the end of the 19th century: 1889 and 2012. They argue convincingly that not just warm temperatures, but the positive feedback with black carbon and surface solar heating can push the surface energy balance into net heating and ice melt. Further, the likelihood for future increases in air temperature and wildfire boosts the probability of high altitude former “dry snow area” surface melting by end of century to every few years, if not even more frequently, they conclude.
Arctic ice loss is occurring much faster than was anticipated by climate models, so it is likely that there are other factors at play.
Jane often "admits" a mistake in his first sentence, then immediately contradicts himself. It's not clear if he's genuinely this addled, or if this is just another layer of obfuscation to confuse the public. After all, either way the focus shifts from science to Jane, giving him the attention he desperately craves and producing the illusion of a debate.
Honestly, there is no point in discussing science with Jane. If we cannot agree on whether or not I posted the link she quoted from then what hope do we have with anything remotely complicated? I am deeply curious whether Jane can admit to an obvious error. The evidence is right on the page, but she still insists that up is down. It is truly fascinating!
You haven't addressed the substantive point that the reviews clearly find fault with the study. That was the very first post I wrote to you. Instead you went on the "you oughta know where my quotes come from" tangent. I didn't know. I couldn't be expected to know. And without knowing who you were quoting it was impossible to evaluate their merit.
You have yet to address my very first post to you (except to mock me that I didn't know where your quote came from.).
Look a little deeper. You derailed the conversation from the get go and just kept digging your heels in deeper despite the evidence being quite clear.
Ok - try to be a bit introspective here. You quoted something that you found in a link that was referenced in another link that was posted several links up the chain - but you didn't cite the quote because, well, obviously everyone will have already followed every link tree right down to the leaf on every comment. You then went on to berate me for inquiring where the quote was from.
"If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot."
and
if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to
You posted a confused 30 message rant (all the while calling me a troll!) only to finally admit that the quote was not where you sent me looking for it. And by way of apology you suggest that I'm nit picking. Why not just cite the quote? Why should we have to go searching for it?
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
Of course, no one knew at the time who was quoted or in what context because you didn't cite the quote. See why that is important? See why it is probably not so horrible of me to have asked where it came from? See why it is easier for you to just post the damn link instead of making us read through piles of horse shit?
And yes, clearly the reviewers did have issues with the paper. They are spelled out in the reviews. (duh!)
I do love these insights into the machinery of your mind:
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
and
Further, I think you were thanking yourself.
I am not sure what I can do for them but they are certainly fascinating.
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
But your quote is from ioppublishing.org, - the link you erroneously(?) posted. It is not in the link that I posted. So what on Earth are you talking about? Honestly, if you had just cited the reference you may have had a point to make. Instead you sent me and the readers on a wild goose chase that leads to a dead end that you refuse to acknowledge. All the while berating me for not having guessed where you pulled the quote from. How could anyone have a serious conversation with you when you are willing to repeatedly assert something that is quite obviously and easily shown to be false?
By the way, Please review and you will clearly see that I never posted a link that contained your quote. Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
Here is the quote for which you provided no citation and without any indication of who had said it:
I quote here:
"Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
You repeatedly berated me for not knowing where the heck that quote came from and claimed that it was in a link I posted. AC has a really good summary and you can clearly see that I never linked to any page with that quote: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen.
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Interestingly the second reviewer has now released her review. She has most of the same concerns about the quality of the paper. Why would two anonymous reviews point out the same errors if these errors didn't exist in the paper? Of course, Bengtsson could just release the paper and let the community judge, but he has been backpedaling ever since the first review was released in full. He was much happier to quote mine it for the press.
Slashdot Mirror
Although volume is possibly more important because that is driving sea levels higher.
Here is an even better summary of factors that influence arctic sea ice: http://www.skepticalscience.co...:
Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage:
Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice.
Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice.
Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation.
Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay.
The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability.
The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.
But it is still fascinating to study.
Area is possibly more important than volume as changes in area affect planetary albedo. Larger summer ice area means more sunlight is reflected back into space whereas smaller summer ice area means that more energy is absorbed.
Skeptical Science has a good summary of the science. It looks like there are many contributing factors to the apparent contradiction of warming temperatures, shrinking antarctic ice volume and growing antarctic sea ice area. The new paper referenced in this article is possibly another factor: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.
Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.
To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing
Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.
Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:
Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).
The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):
King and others, 2012
Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear
Interesting. Thanks.
The author is a materials scientist, not an oceanographer. So the AC is skeptical of climate modelers because a materials scientist found a concentration of plastic frozen in the arctic that is three orders of magnitude larger than found in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is in fact a shocking find!). Any excuse to deny science.
Given that 1/4 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last decade with no corresponding acceleration of warming that would be predicted, and even a leveling off, I think models aren't correct.
The IPCC has predicted warming at a rate of 0.15C and 0.3C per decade ever since their first report in 1990, and that is exactly what we have observed:
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, (and if you pick small enough intervals the natural oscillations can swamp the long term signal), the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!
It does sound like it is accumulating year over year, otherwise how do you explain the "abundances of hundreds of particles per cubic meter. That’s three orders of magnitude larger than some counts of plastic particles in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch." - http://news.sciencemag.org/ear...
Just go back to the last century like the 60s and 70s.
Ok, I went back to the 60's. It was nutty, no doubt, but no one mentioned plastic vs paper while I was there. Perhaps you could include a citation?
New Report Finds Climate Change Caused By 7 Billion Key Individuals
Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?
I think you have the definition of theory exactly wrong. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.
Yes. Yes it is.
Just how dangerous is nuclear waste (assuming it doesn't fall into the wrong hands)? What are the concerns with burying the waste somewhere far from human habitation? It doesn't seem like the risks of waste disposal outweigh the benefits of nuclear power.
And might this help explain the melting of the ice more so than global warming
Probably not unless the plastics are dark. If they are dark they will absorb solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected. Black carbon for example can accelerate ice loss: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...
The study, in Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences (Keegan et al. 2014) finds that black carbon from wildfires facilitated widespread Greenland ice sheet surface melting in just two years since the end of the 19th century: 1889 and 2012. They argue convincingly that not just warm temperatures, but the positive feedback with black carbon and surface solar heating can push the surface energy balance into net heating and ice melt. Further, the likelihood for future increases in air temperature and wildfire boosts the probability of high altitude former “dry snow area” surface melting by end of century to every few years, if not even more frequently, they conclude.
Arctic ice loss is occurring much faster than was anticipated by climate models, so it is likely that there are other factors at play.
It freezes in the winter. It melts in the summer. The overall trend is down: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Goodbye.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I am truly done with this.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I shall not answer you again,
- http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
This is my last post in this thread.
Promises, promises.
Jane often "admits" a mistake in his first sentence, then immediately contradicts himself. It's not clear if he's genuinely this addled, or if this is just another layer of obfuscation to confuse the public. After all, either way the focus shifts from science to Jane, giving him the attention he desperately craves and producing the illusion of a debate.
Honestly, there is no point in discussing science with Jane. If we cannot agree on whether or not I posted the link she quoted from then what hope do we have with anything remotely complicated? I am deeply curious whether Jane can admit to an obvious error. The evidence is right on the page, but she still insists that up is down. It is truly fascinating!
You have yet to address my very first post to you (except to mock me that I didn't know where your quote came from.).
Look a little deeper. You derailed the conversation from the get go and just kept digging your heels in deeper despite the evidence being quite clear.
"If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot."
and
if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to
You posted a confused 30 message rant (all the while calling me a troll!) only to finally admit that the quote was not where you sent me looking for it. And by way of apology you suggest that I'm nit picking. Why not just cite the quote? Why should we have to go searching for it?
You then suggested that we look at the actual review, when what I had quoted was from that page at ippublishing which does in fact contain quotes from the review itself, plus comments by the Director about the review.
Of course, no one knew at the time who was quoted or in what context because you didn't cite the quote. See why that is important? See why it is probably not so horrible of me to have asked where it came from? See why it is easier for you to just post the damn link instead of making us read through piles of horse shit?
And yes, clearly the reviewers did have issues with the paper. They are spelled out in the reviews. (duh!)
And I now suspect that you are in fact the same troll posting under AC. You, or he, or whatever alternate personality you happen to be living in now, need to learn how to read.
and
Further, I think you were thanking yourself.
I am not sure what I can do for them but they are certainly fascinating.
I clearly explained that the link to ioppublishing.org was an editing mistake, and it was only the other link I was referring to. The other link -- the one that was not an acknowledged editing mistake -- was in fact the same page he linked to, and the source of the quote I posted.
But your quote is from ioppublishing.org, - the link you erroneously(?) posted. It is not in the link that I posted. So what on Earth are you talking about? Honestly, if you had just cited the reference you may have had a point to make. Instead you sent me and the readers on a wild goose chase that leads to a dead end that you refuse to acknowledge. All the while berating me for not having guessed where you pulled the quote from. How could anyone have a serious conversation with you when you are willing to repeatedly assert something that is quite obviously and easily shown to be false?
This is just nuts. There was no slaying.
It's just a flesh wound! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
By the way, Please review and you will clearly see that I never posted a link that contained your quote. Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
Here is the quote for which you provided no citation and without any indication of who had said it:
I quote here: "Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
You repeatedly berated me for not knowing where the heck that quote came from and claimed that it was in a link I posted. AC has a really good summary and you can clearly see that I never linked to any page with that quote: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Your thinking is so clouded.that you cannot and will not see any truth that obscures your world view. Even something as mundane as this. This is why they call it denial.
Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen.
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
I was thanking AC for slaying you.
Couldn't have put it better myself ;)
Interestingly the second reviewer has now released her review. She has most of the same concerns about the quality of the paper. Why would two anonymous reviews point out the same errors if these errors didn't exist in the paper? Of course, Bengtsson could just release the paper and let the community judge, but he has been backpedaling ever since the first review was released in full. He was much happier to quote mine it for the press.