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.
More like this
I am traveling now far away from home towards a large lake in Zurich. What a perfect time to receive this poem from Jan Visser.
Le Lac (written in 1820 by Alphonse de Lamartine)
La falsedad de los universales humanos
Existen universales humanos. Ahora concederme media hora para explicar por qué esto es correcto y falso a al vez. Pero primero, algo sobre el trasfondo y la definición.
One of my colleagues from Scienceblogs.com.br contacted me a week or so ago to talk about creationists and global warming deniers, and I just checked and his story for Brazil's largest paper is online.
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!"