====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 2/11/10 5:19 PM, Paula wrote: > Louis, it's because the science itself is difficult to pin down. That's why > scientists are still investigating climate change, improving their models, > etc. For an example see this recent report, 'Water Vapor Caused One-Third of > Global Warming in 1990s, Study Reveals': > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change > for which there is a nice discussion over at realclimate.org from a few weeks ago: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/ along with copious scientific discussion. doubtless, Paula is entranced by the headlines because the media speculates this could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change. i assume she knows climate scientists have ALWAYS known about water vapour and its contribution to climate. as the authors of the current study state, their work is investigating decadal changes in climate due to changes in water vapour concentrations in the lower stratosphere. and in fact this may explain some suggestion that warming "leveled off some" in the last decade. remember that denialists ragged on Kevin Trenberth for stating we should have a better handle on *short-term* changes. well, here is a contribution, which Paula turns around and tries to push its relevance, presumably, for the longer term climate dynamics. here is from Trenberth's website, as a response to the CRU emails: """In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 99,200 items (in Google). Here is the quote: /"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."/ It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.""" http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html see also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html nice coverage at NOAA: """The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. """ http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html and better coverage in the popular press: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704194504575031404275769886.html Les ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
