Big story: A new study published in a reputable journal makes a sensational claim that is already getting considerable publicity and is sure to upset a good number of climate scientists as well as anyone who seeks to avoid further complacency. Here is how the story was reported in the Guardian:
In the generika tadalafil 20mg local pharmacies may take a lot of amount for the promotion of the medicine directly to the physicians. generic levitra online But in this 21st century, this health problem can be treated by making lifestyle changes. You have to just fill up a form. sildenafil pfizer Q- women viagra for sale What are my chances of getting prostate cancer at some point in their lifetime.
–The study is getting attention in part because it can make many people feel more comfortable and reduce their level of worries about climate change. Also, the authors are claiming that their new methodology for predicting future temperatures is superior to other methodologies that have been the mainstay of climate scientists for many decades. They claim to “all but rule out” any numbers, either higher or lower, that go beyond the narrow range of the numbers they have decided upon. These numbers are tighter and on average a bit lower than the ones commonly used by the IPCC, which are generally considered as conservative. That kind of challenge to the entire community is sure to get some hard looks.
–The abstract of the study itself can be viewed at this link, but there is no open access to all of it: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
–Here is treatment of the story from the Guardian, which ends with these statements: “One wild card not taken into consideration by the new model is the possibility of rapid shifts in climate brought on by the planet itself. “There is indeed evidence that the climate system can undergo abrupt changes or ‘tipping points’,” Cox said.The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica – any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth’s favour.” That is indeed a fair admission, leaving one to wonder about what has really been ruled out?
—–
Carbon Brief has quickly put together a more far-reaching and quite fair-minded response to the story, without making any final judgments. It concludes with a reference to the cloud uncertainties that underpin the wider range of estimates found in most models, still in need of resolution.
—–
Also from Carbon Brief, it so happens that Part 4 of their series on climate modelling is all about those frustrating cloud uncertainties. The questions that are raised cannot be simply waived off by a change of methodology. Today’s clouds have a net cooling effect, but their size and distribution are likely to change in the future. That can lead to either more cooling or a shift toward greater warming. No one really knows the answer, but many studies have reported seeing indications of the latter in their admittedly less-than-perfect modelling attempts.
—–
A new study finds that trees and forests have a greater cooling effect than recognized. Living trees emit a number of gaseous compounds, some of which have a cooling effect in the atmosphere while some cause warming. The cooling ones have an edge, which is lost upon deforestation, adding about 14% to the larger losses that occur from several different effects after trees have died.
—–
Opposition to “big oil” is showing real signs of strength. The 4-minute video talk by Keith Schneider is a total pleasure to watch, and there are more good things in this post.
Carl