A point I had forgotten about the recent Canadell et al paper, which mt's recent post reminds me of: as he quotes (scroll down to the update):
Ceci suggèrerait d'après eux que les feedbacks carbone/climat se produisent plus rapidement que notre compréhension des phénomènes gouvernant l'absorption des puits ne le laissait penser.
This is indeed what C et al say, and its one possible interpretation. Another, of course, is that since obs show the airbourne fraction going up, and the models say that they should be going down, then... the models are wrong.
- Log in to post comments
The climate models being wrong would be good news, IF they were wrong by being too pessimistic. Now that the models are wrong the other way, we're in deep shite.
The denialists will say "See ? Those models are hopelessly wrong anyways! Can't trust them! Can't trust past, present and future measurements, either!"