It turns out that when you submit a paper to a journal like Nature Geoscience “just in case, we have nothing to lose, they’ll probably reject it straight away”…sometimes you are unexpectedly successful.
Assorted media coverage:
- Commentary piece also published in Nature Geoscience, written by Morgan Schaller (who studies the PETM but was not involved in our study)
- Globe and Mail article by science journalist Ivan Semeniuk
- Press release
More detailed post to come…
ClimateSight 
ps – could I please have the PDF.
D.
David R Greenwood PhD Professor, Dept. of Biology Brandon University
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Hi Kate
Congratulations! Great article!
Attached may be of interest.
Dave
David R Greenwood PhD Professor, Dept. of Biology Brandon University
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
I think WordPress stripped out your attachment? Maybe try including it as a url, that is usually fine.
Congratulations, Kaitlin! What an interesting bit of sleuthing, through 55 million years! — Best wishes, Joel Huberman
>
Congratulations!
Very cool, lead author on a key paper so soon! I’ll be requesting a copy.
Although for some reason the release fails to identify you as a PhD candidate or similar.
I’m desperately late in writing some posts for the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, and there’s enough of an Arctic Ocean and ice melt angle here to cover this topic, so I’ll be in touch with a question or two.
Excellent!
It is pitty that quite some researchers believe the present state-of-the-art climate models do good. I am a PhD student for the last four years delebrately studying about the physical process parameterizations in the models and found them very defiencient. I would encurage here everybody to disprove my thesis !!! Because of this deciency, I had to cut down systematically to land surface components as it should be a starting point to mend such deficient models. I know that the land component is less dynamic than anyother component of the earth system and it also has several issues that I am very aware of it.
First, if I were asked to study some phenomenon, I would spend a lot of effort on if these studying tools (our climate models, the best tools available) would be really helpful in unravelling things.
Second, if I had to compare present day scenarios with peleoclimate (very uneralistic), I would critically think, irrespective of bunch of loosely concluded results in the literature, to compile, if it really is possible, before going for modeling things with such deficient models.
Thank you.