Well, I’m shocked. I don’t know how you could manage to get something that actually has science in it published in a major publication on the subject of climate change projections. Congratulations!

If you want to (and are allowed to) follow up your terrific achievement with another paper that has actual science, I have a good topic.

You could write a paper that recommends that the IPCC should drop its “scenario” analysis completely, and switch to probabilistic predictions of *all* climate forcing variables, with resulting probabilistic predictions for temperature rise.

For example, Figure 10.26 of AR4 has approximately the following methane concentrations (in ppb) in the year 2020 for various scenarios:

B1 = 1920
B2 = 1980
A1F1 = 2000
A2 = 2010
A1T = 2010
A1B = 2020

Those (ridiculous) projections could be replaced by realistic probabilistic predictions, e.g.

5% probability methane concentration will be less than 1700 ppb,

50% probability methane concentration will be less than 1800 ppb, and

95% probability methane concentration will be less than 1900 ppb.

The same thing could be done for each climate forcing (warming and cooling) agent, e.g., CO2, black carbon, sulfur dioxide, organic carbon, etc.

I think this would probably be too much real science for Nature. But you the man! Maybe you can get it published.

Mark