I do understand that we are a group of many different time schedules and varied real life demands, so while I eagerly anticipate learning that which I do not know and adapting that which I do know through the exchange of information with other intelligent and thoughtful individuals in engaging discussion, perhaps this little excerpt of a statement by Dr Susan Lozier (one of the paper's principle authors) in an exchange with Dr Bill Chameides will help to stimulate further discussion:
Dr. Bill Chameides is the dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He blogs regularly at theGreenGrok.com."It has been quite surprising (and dismaying) that some global warming skeptics have argued that our research 'means that all the current climate prediction models are significantly wrong.'"
"This statement is clearly nonsense. Apparently, by stating that the conceptual model of the lower limb of the overturning circulation as a conveyor belt is broken, the skeptics took this to mean that there is no overturning circulation. From there, they concluded that all climate prediction models are wrong, an astoundingly erroneous interpretation of our work!"
Without comment upon the "skeptical" blogosphere comments, as I generally don't have the time or inclination to surf around, particularly to such politically contrived sites, it seems to me that one of the paper's authors is arguing against any change of "significance" (there's that word again, I wonder if we could source that to the denialist blogosphere?) by these findings with respect to current climate models. Despite this repudiation, I believe that there might be some room for difference of opinion, and I would like to understand any alternative explanations and considerations.