Interesting research and seemingly good news.

I absolutely adore the simple fact that the pronouncement is made after the long research period of one year. I imagine the AGWers will quickly chime that the statement is based upon little information. I agree.

It also is intriguing that it would imply that climate modeling is fairly inaccurate due to this change in the base chemistry.

What I find humorous though is that the initial results from the observatory were apparently contradictory to what the researchers expected. That is why the aircraft was brought in and it then confirmed their fears, a natural process seems to lessen the supposed impact of human society.

So in quick, damage control mode, the lead researcher has to make the conclusion jump that clearly there is a "fine balance" here in the atmosphere and burning of fossil fuels might "tip" that balance in the wrong way. Nice use of the AGW mantra present buzz words.

More importantly, apparently they were surprised by the findings, so how do they make the statement that it is in a "fine balance"? Sounds like a means by which to present their opinion in lieu of facts.

Good thing Hansen wasn't involved in this or he would have just simply "fixed" the data cause clearly he knows more than mother nature.

Brett, the linked Science Daily story is a good illustration of a common problem there and elsewhere in the media.

The SD headline reads:

"Destruction Of Greenhouse Gases Over Tropical Atlantic May Ease Global Warming"

Wow! That was surprising since generally it's the case with such greenhouse gas sources and sinks that they've been operating indefinitely, meaning that when a new one is found there's no reason to expect a change in the total flux of greenhouse gases. Also, none of the comments by the scientists in the article itself support the headline.

So is the headline accurate? Knowing that SD articles are usually just the verbatim press releases from the scientists, I went looking for the original (here). While the text is identical, the headline is entirely different in meaning:

"Destruction of greenhouse gases over tropical Atlantic"

And so it becomes completely clear that the scientists have no expectation that their findings have any effect on global warming, although more precise information on sources and sinks will improve the models a little.

How boring.

Very interesting.

In the majority of responses here, there appears to be a fundamental disconnect with reality and with the way science works. Science is a continuous process including checking, exploring, revising, etc. etc. It is based on reality. Despite a few rogues (who will always exist as in other walks of life), the premise on which science is based is that the truth must always be told, no matter how inconvenient.

So when data appear that change or amend previous conclusions, the publication of these data are not "proof" that science is wrong, but rather confirmation that science is honest and on a continuous trajectory toward finding out more. Using the very process of science itself as a "gotcha" that, unlike religious texts, it is subject to revision and growth, is misinformed.

All the conveniences you take for granted (cars, air conditioning, computers, etc. etc.) were invented by scientists who were willing to learn and grow.

We who are concerned about the growing dangers of extreme weather and their concomitant social consequences, would be more than delighted to find out that billions will not be displaced and that the poor and unlucky are not going to be wiped out by the consequences of heedless use of diminishing resources and the willingness of the rich and powerful to poison air, earth, and water for the sake of short-term gain.

When it comes to AGW, every silver lining must have a dark cloud. This is interesting, and let me guess: this dynamic isn't built into the climate models, is it?

Darren,

That was to ensure that there is no threat to future funding of his research. If he had come out with a statement contrary to that which is required, he would have promptly been excommunicated from the Church of AGW.

The fact that life has survived for billion years on this planet is a pretty good indicator that negative feedback mechanisms dominate. Otherwise the earth would be more like Venus or Mars.

There have been lots of similar "surprises" of late. For example, increased clouds over warm water increase the earth's albedo and reduce the temperature.

Hansen always assumes that positive feedback dominates, which is a critical mistake in his belief system. The historical records demonstrates otherwise.

There is much to learn about biosphere feedbacks. This constitutes a small step forward.

I must credit Lovelock. He at least opened the door to a concept. He did not get the details right, but the idea of the Earth itself, especially the biosphere, as an active part in the system, has great merit.

Another unexpected surprise finding that *CO2 flux readings suggest that the Mojave Desert in Nevada is gulping carbon at the rate of a temperate forest*.

Science Magazine, June 13, 2008, p.1409
*Have Desert Researchers Discovered A Hidden Loop in the Carbon Cycle?*

Some comments from the article:

*The alkaline soil of Gubantonggut (desert in western China) is socking away large quantities of CO2 in an inorganic form. A CO2 gulping desert in a remote corner of China may not be an isolated phenomenon. Halfway around the world, researchers have found that Nevada�s Mojave Desert, square meter for square meter, absorbs about the same amount of CO2 as some temperate forests. The two sets of findings suggest that deserts are unsung players in the global carbon cycle.*

*The effect could be huge: about 35% of Earth�s land surface, or 5.2 billion hectares, is desert and semiarid ecosystems. If the Mojave readings represent an average CO2 uptake, then deserts and semiarid regions may be absorbing up to 5.2 billion tons of carbon a year�roughly half the amount emitted globally by burning fossil fuels*.

There are still some caveats, but still they say the two sets of findings *must be followed up*.

The point is though, there are still studies going on, and some surprising results keep showing up. This is why I want to postpone returning to the lifestyle of the Great Ape as long as possible, which my government may force upon me.

Off topic: As mentioned several times before, we have been taking temp readings for some time around the old homestead, which is in a semi-rural area in southeast PA. Today, checked the Accuweather site for our town, which said temp was 83 with a Real Feel of 90. So I immediately checked the sensor, went outside to get the full effect, the temp was 75 and the Real Feel per my body was around 75, which my body apparently seemed to enjoy thereby making it hard to return to the computer to do my consulting work.

Anyway, so far this year, we have only used the AC 3 days, have had one of the lowest energy bills for this time of year. Sure this is a local weather thing (I get the difference between climate), but my observation is that during the winter and cool weather (non-AC weather), the homestead sensors and Accuweather readings are pretty much in sync. But when it starts getting hot, the Accuweather reading starts diverging more and more the hotter it gets from the homestead sensors, difference can range 2 to 15 degrees higher. So I am guessing the Accuweather temp gauge for my area must be near concrete, asphalt or in the local city. Just an observation.
Reply: More likely from an airport.

An interesting and unexpected preliminary scientific result. Such findings are why I feel it's hubris for climate scientists to place such dogmatic faith in their computer model predictions, since time after time we find yet another significant variable not yet included in the model. I support such computer modeling research; I simply feel that way too much faith and public policy rhetoric is placed in these attempts.

I have to agree with Darren's post. One study is never enough to be conclusive about anything.

If verified this would poke another hole in the Swiss cheese science behind most climate computer models. Until then, this remains something interesting that needs more research.

I really like this comment, though because it's an admission that the climate models don't take enough factors in account and don't model accurately:

Dr Lucy Carpenter, University of York and UK co-ordinator of the Observatory added: "This observatory is a terrific facility that will enable us to keep an eye on the chemical balance of the atmosphere and feed this information into global climate models to greatly improve predictions for this region in the future".

Does this mean the science isn't settled?

So Brett,

Speaking of startling discoveries, are you going to cover in this blog the recent story about a dramatic undersea volcanic eruption - UNDER THE ARCTIC OCEAN ? which occurred, scientists believe, in 1999.

Coincidentally, this is the same time that Arctic sea-ice loss began to rapidly accelerate, culminating in the dramatic loss last year !

Gee, does anyone think that the tremendous heat released may have warmed the depths of the Arctic Ocean increasing the melt rate ? Or that it may have caused, or contributed to, the reversal of the Arctic Ocean circumpolar current documented by NASA JPL a few months ago ?

How can the Atlantic be a "sink" (permanent or not)for ozone if the ozone is destroyed over the Atlantic? It seems to me that the ozone would have to enter the ocean for the Atlantic to become a sink.

Steve Bloom,

Interesting that you have a problem with the SD headline which hints at easing global warming when over the years there have been countless headlines linking everything imagineable to climate change and you have never raised any problem with them at all

Weather wathcher:
Yes you hit it on the head. Darren and Galt, just read the headlines and pray. They don't see the ebb and flow, of Science as a reality, just a political football to stall for there short term greed. Global warming is here and you know who suffers first, the poor, the elderly, the planet,our ecosystems and their species. But just keep playing your stalling games to the detriment of the very thing, you espouse to know and love so much. Real science.Didn't either one of you read the last paragraph to this article. Or are we in la la land with Swiss cheese and your devil HANSEN. A real Scientist. With guts!
KIPP

Mary,

The entire East Coast is significantly above average this June:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/tanal/montoday/mon2dayf.gif

The fact that your little house on the prairie is 'cooler than average' indicated that your way of taking the temperature isn't standardized. There is a way of standard way of taking temperature, and if you don't follow it, your readings aren't going to be anywhere near the true ambient air temperature.

Put your thermometer about six feet off the ground vertically, and in a highly ventilated area at least 30 feet away from other objects. No trees or buildings should be anywhere close to the thermometer. It can't be in the sun either. Do you have a Smithson screen?

I follow the guidelines as much as possible and my temperature sensor is always within one degree away of the temperature at the local airport, for both highs and lows.

Nobody is putting steroids on these thermometers to support a political agenda, which is what you insinuate. Just fix the way you take the temperature. And BTW, the temperature sensors on cars are probably the crappiest way to gauge temperature, so don't use that, either.

Oh, all this confusion.

Brett, I've been thinking about how you can improve the quality of the dialog here while not censoring anyone and not having to work harder, and here's an idea I think would help:

Do a weekly open thread so that people can post off-topic comments. In addition, take all the non-substantive rants directed to the topical threads and put them in the open thread, and either put those threads on a separate RSS feed or leave them out so that subscribers also get the benefit of the change.

Among other advantages, people who make substantive comments would be rewarded while those who just like to rant or make things up would be encouraged to mend their ways. The open threads might become a bit like the threads at Free Republic, where people mainly participate just to get their prior views reinforced by their friends. I have no problem with that as long as I have a means of avoiding it.

Reply: Sounds interesting. What do others think of this suggestion?

NGW Steve,

I'm responding to your response of my post in the thread a few day sago about understanding. At the end you bemoaned the fact that no one defends CO2 as a GHG. While not exactly "defending" it, I would like to engage in a dialong on it. I know you've done it before, but, so we're on the same page, could you take a few paragraphs to explain your objections.

Thanks,
cbmclean

WeatherWatcher,
You may not have intended it, but your post above adopts a very condescending tone and it insulted my intelligence. I'm no climate scientist (I make a living in healthcare management), but I did quite well in college level physics, chemistry, and advanced calculus. There is a good bit of the science discussed here that I can actually follow. I suspect that most others here possess similar or greater metal capacity than my own. Please don't talk down to this forum.

You wrote, "We who are concerned about the growing dangers of extreme weather and their concomitant social consequences, would be more than delighted to find out that billions will not be displaced and that the poor and unlucky are not going to be wiped out by the consequences of heedless use of diminishing resources and the willingness of the rich and powerful to poison air, earth, and water for the sake of short-term gain."

That is an incredible statement and I would pick it apart bit-by-arrogant-bit, but I suspect that the members of this forum do not want to take the time to read such a long and tedious post from me.

SHHHHH.......the agw ers are sleeping....I have not heard a peep out of em. Bottom line, us humans do not control the weather/climate. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.......WAKE UP!!!!!

one time not so long ago in human history,anybody who disagreed with the so called and proved scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth was either a lunatic or heretic.i think we are at last are seeing the emergence of brave scientists who dare to contradict old worn out theories and base their scientific facts as they stand on newly aquired knoweledge.no doubt they will suffer the wrath of the fundamentalist green brigade.i hope they bring us to a new era of understanding climate without fear of being burnt at the stake.

WeatherWatcher, thank you for your post. Your understanding of the scientific process is greatly appreciated. Science is a continuous process, always refining our understanding of nature.

The evolving scientific process has benefited humanity, from food production to flat screen TVs.
I share your concerns about the effects of global warming on life on the planet. If the IPCC is half correct millions will suffer.

This was brought home by the the recent National Intelligence Assessment that clearly points to the huge risk climate change poses to the security of our nation. They confirmed all the points in your last paragraph.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/we-judge-global.html

So deniers also want to ignore the national security risks and the Defense Department. Are deniers anti-American? Seems so.

Patrick:Is there Snow on Venus?
Scientists believe that once upon a time there was water on Venus. Where did it go.They think it was evaporated! And what is the Atmosphere of Venus now.CO2.On our planet, why is it getting warmer. Well infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere, and some is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules. The effect of this is to warm the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere!CO2 is a leading gas linked to the rise and fall of temperatures. Now that the ice is melting, shouldn't we want to know why? Just how much man induced CO2 will the Earth absorb. Enough to kill us? Further progress should require treating climate and the carbon cycle as part of the same Global system rather than seperate entities.AGW is real.
KIPP

This is simply another thing that underscores a basic, but very important theme: Our knowledge about Earth's climate and all of the factors that contribute to how it changes and reacts (or doesn't) is minuscule. We have barely scratched the surface. There is more that we don't know than we do know. And there is no justification to plunge the world economy into a depression based on ignorance.

More discovery to increase my sense of wonder. There are times that the swirlings of organic chemistry make mankind look pretty simple. We like to think we are pretty smart, with our wonderful plastics, and puff out our chests and state our plastics are not biodegradable, and will last longer than the pyramids. However it wouldn't surprise me if a study came out which stated a particular bacteria made the same plastics naturally, but another bacteria ate it for breakfast.

Also I expect a Realclimate study will have me pondering about the ozone-destroying bromine and iodine oxide, by discovering there are two types of bromine and iodine oxide. There is "new" bromine and iodine oxide, and there is "old" bromine and iodine oxide, and the ratio between the two is changing, which proves I should pay more taxes, to pay for a chicken-inspector to come nose around my hen-house.

All this stuff is truly fascinating. I've been reading that the same volcanoes which cool the earth with their ash destroy ozone up high, with their sulfur, so that, when the ash settles, there is increased warmi