“You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.
JC comment: Well that is an interesting ‘forecast.’ If this is natural internal variability, e.g. the stadium wave (which includes the PDO), then you would expect warming to resume at some point (I’ve argued this might be in the 2030′s). This would make the hiatus 30+ years (similar in length to the pevious hiatus from 1940 to 1975). This is long enough to invalidate the utility of the current climate models for projecting future climate change.
And about the missing heat reappearing, well stay tuned for my next post on ocean heat content.
Despite the fact that it’s at Cracked, this is a very good article. Note in particular the thing about many scientists not actually understanding statistics, which is particularly a problem with climate science. It has a good bottom line:
Just to be clear: It’s not that you should suddenly stop trusting science in general — without science it would be impossible to distinguish charlatans from people who have actual wizard powers. But there’s a big difference between accepting scientific consensus and just blindly believing everything said by a guy in a white lab coat.
It’s also important to avoid falling into an overhyped misleading “consensus.”
A good survey at The Economist on the coming tsunami on unskilled labor, for which no government is prepared. They’re right that the most important thing is to reform K through post-grad education, root and branch, but there are a lot of entrenched interests that will continue to fight that.
…for viewers who follow politics closely, especially for Republicans who desperately wanted to defeat Barack Obama, there is a revelation in “Mitt” that is not just unexpected but deeply disheartening. At a critical moment in the campaign — the two weeks in October encompassing the first and second general election debates — the Romney portrayed in “Mitt” struggled with a nagging pessimism and defeatism, unable to draw confidence even from a decisive initial debate victory over President Obama. Deep down inside, the Romney seen onscreen in “Mitt” seems almost resigned to losing to Obama in those crucial showdowns.
Only a fool (like the Republicans who voted for Obama the first time) would think that Barack Obama is a good debater (especially after the first debate). Romney should have followed up his first debate victory and gone for the Benghazi jugular in the second debate. He also should have slapped down Candy Crowley when she stuck her ignorant nose in it. Romney deserved to lose.
Looks like they’re in big trouble. It was a business model set up to compete with the Space Shuttle, not a truly reusable vehicle with modern technology. They may continue to get some business for Ariane 5 for political reasons, but I’d say their only chance is back to the drawing board with Ariane 6.