WUWT provides a particularly noteworthy hot-sheet today. Good stuff.

I’m particularly pointing out the dial-back of the El Reno tornado from an EF-5 to an EF-3. That is what they were initially calling it around here. Oh well. I am heartened to see the commitment to getting it right overall.

I’ll remind that polar bears eat snowy owls.

The CO2 note is particularly worth remembering. Our current CO2 levels are abnormally low. Please be mindful of the wording. CO2 is low. CO2 on our planet has been much higher throughout the geological epics, and current levels are well below average. A little lower and all life on earth will die. (As in 100% extinct, all of it.) While we are not in danger of CO2 going dangerously low, it seems particularly silly to worry about it going up a little when we are so close to the danger zone.

The Nature paper referred to is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/nature12448.html, and they want $32 for it. Proud, aren’t they? (I like to think of knowledge as free, but what do I know. Knowledge is power, so they must think they can charge you for it.) The abstract and figures are available there, and the reference list and a supplemental information file, if you are so inclined.

The abstract is informative, and their use of models (and checking the results against the available data) seems appropriate.

It is most remarkable that these plants managed to evolve to control the concentration of CO2 where they needed high concentrations to match their original environment half-a-billion years ago. Cool. Of course if they hadn’t managed, they’d have died out, and we’d be trying to figure out why there is a change in the isotopes. Again, cool.

In the closing sentence of the abstract, the authors put themselves out there with a prediction that we will find more evidence of a CO2 reduction at that time so long ago. It also reminds me that cold kills. Warmer is better.

Watts Up With That?

WUWT_hot_sheet7

Since failures in climate science claims are on the rise, can we start naming climate prediction failures after scientists and activists? I can think of  a few: The Hansen Hiatus, for example.

Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science, in which fake news reports talk of the turmoil and tragedy created by Hurricane Marco Rubio, Hurricane James Inhofe, Hurricane John Boehner and more.

The trouble is, the science on a connection between hurricanes and global warming is going in the opposite direction, if the near-final draft of next month’s climate science assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is any indication.

Andrew Revkin at NYT’s DOT Earth

View original post 923 more words

Advertisements