.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

I was wrong - maybe

Sou | 2:17 AM Go to the first of 3 comments. Add a comment
When you get one out of three wrong, might as well admit it.  When you possibly-maybe-could have got two out of three wrong, might as well delete the post altogether :)

Sorry folks. My fault.

While I slink off to cogitate on the perils of rushing in, go read Victor Venema's latest article - it's a good one. And then read Greg Laden's second latest - it's well worth reading as well.

3 comments:

Victor Venema said...

:-) Thank you for the plug.

MikeH said...

A couple of articles from the authors of the sensitivity paper putting things in context.

From Dr Otto.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article

Myles Allan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate

and from James Annan (in the comments) reaffirming that his position is unchanged from the last time he has this discussion.

"2.5 [for ECS] is still fine by me, though I wouldn't be surprised by a value a bit lower or higher. I don't think the recent decade really changes the best estimate all that much, but it helps to confirm what sensible people were saying several years ago about extremely high values "
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9959776&postID=4110060225847883627

Sou said...

Thanks, Mike. That's a good round up, mostly with a similar message. It would help if more journalists distinguished between transient response and equilibrium or effective climate sensitivity.

We humans find it so hard to think much beyond a decade or two, don't we. Like the Ridley's of the world who put a lot of faith in future generations being so much better than we are today. I don't buy it. If we can't act responsibly today there is no reason to think people will be any different in the future. We've got to make the hard decisions. Future generations will have enough to face on their own. The more we can help them out and try to rectify the damage we've caused the better.