Climate science from climate scientists...
Guest Contribution by Michael Tobis, University of Chicago
Consider the possibility that the expression “global warming” has become a problematic one, and that it might be best to avoid it.
A big part of the public confusion about climate change comes from sloppy language. The naysayers prey on this confusion, very much as their peers prey on the phrase “evolutionary theory” to suggest that “evolution, well, it’s just a theory”.
[Read more…] about Imprecision of the Phrase “Global Warming”
Getting a serious paper into Nature or Science is deservedly hard. Getting a mention for your climate blog is apparently a little easier!
We are of course collectively very pleased that Nature has welcomed the RealClimate.org effort so forthrightly. We only hope that we will be able to match up to their expectations. As with anything new, done by inexperienced first-timers who really should be concentrating on their actual jobs, there are bound to be teething problems. One, alluded to in the editorial and accompanying news story, is who gets to decide what’s posted, and getting the balance right between inclusiveness and clarity.
In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton’s new novel “State of Fear” is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.
par Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Alain Henry)
Ce message s’écarte des pratiques habituelles de ce site pour commenter une pièce de pure fiction (au contraire des autres messages qui abordent le sujet sous un angle plus subtil). Le nouveau roman de Michael Crichton, « Etat d’urgence » raconte comment une ONG encourage la recherche scientifique sur le réchauffement global pour servir les objectifs de méchants éco-terroristes. Le roman nous amène inévitablement à la conclusion que le réchauffement global est un faux problème. Une leçon pour notre époque? Malheureusement, je ne le pense pas.
(suite….)
[Read more…] about Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
This post is obsolete and wrong in many respects. Please see this more recent post for links to the answer.
14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
25/Feb/05: Groan…and again.
Recent discussions of climate change (MSU Temperature Record, ACIA) have highlighted the fact that the stratosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and surface appear to be warming. The stratosphere lies roughly 12 to 50 km above the surface and is marked by a temperature profile that increases with height. This is due to the absorbtion by ozone of the sun’s UV radiation and is in sharp contrast to the lower atmosphere. There it generally gets colder as you go higher due to the expansion of gases as the pressure decreases. Technically, the stratosphere has a negative ‘lapse rate’ (temperature increases with height), while the lower atmosphere’s lapse rate is positive.
Des études récentes du changement climatique (MSU température Record, ACIA) ont mis en évidence un refroidissement de la stratosphère, en parallèle a un apparent réchauffement de la surface et la basse atmosphère (troposphère). La stratosphère se situe entre 12 et 50 km d’altitude environ. Elle se caractérise par un profil de température qui augmente avec l’altitude, en raison de l’absorption des radiations solaires ultraviolettes par l’ozone stratosphérique. Les choses sont très différentes dans la troposphère (de 0 a 12 km d’altitude environ), ou, en général, la température baisse lorsque l’altitude augmente, en raison de l’expansion des gaz alors que la pression atmosphérique diminue. En d’autres termes, la stratosphère a un gradient de température négatif, alors que la troposphère a un gradient positif.
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize and was the EarthSky Science communicator of the year in 2011. He tweets at @ClimateOfGavin.
More information about his research and publication record can be found here.
All posts by gavin.
Another apparent ‘refutation’ appears in a CNS news story (a right-wing internet news service). The piece is predominantly an interview with Pat Michaels and other less prominent skeptics. We take their scientific points one at a time:
Does the ACIA overstate the problem of ozone depletion? The overview report states that the “stratospheric ozone layer over the Arctic is not expected to improve significantly for at least a few decades”. This is partly because CFC concentrations (that enhance stratospheric ozone destruction) are only expected to decrease slowly as a function of restrictions imposed by the Montreal Protocol and subsequent amendments. Another factor is the fact that stratospheric temperatures are generally cooling as greenhouse gases increase (see MSU Temperature Record, also Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?). Due to the temperature dependence on the rates of chemical reactions involving ozone, cooler temperatures also lead to more ozone destruction. Stratospheric temperatures, particularly near the pole are also significantly influenced by dynamical changes, and in particular, the strength of the [Read more…] about The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment III
by Eric Steig and Gavin Schmidt
Long term temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere are hard to find, and by the time you get to the Antarctic continent, the data are extremely sparse. Nonetheless, some patterns do emerge from the limited data available. The Antarctic Peninsula, site of the now-defunct Larsen-B ice shelf, has warmed substantially. On the other hand, the few stations on the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly (Doran et al, 2002; GISTEMP). At first glance this seems to contradict the idea of “global” warming, but one needs to be careful before jumping to this conclusion.
par Eric Steig et Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Claire Rollion-Bard)
Les données de température à long terme de l’hémisphère sud sont difficiles à trouver, et au moment où vous accédez au continent Antarctique, les données sont extrêmement éparses. Néanmoins quelques tendances émergent des quelques données disponibles. La Péninsule Antarctique, lieu de la barrière de glace Larsen-B, maintenant disparue, s’est réchauffée substantiellement. D’un autre côté, les quelques stations sur le continent et à l’intérieur semblent s’être légèrement refroidies. (Doran et al., 2002 ; GISTEMP). Au premier coup d’œil, cela semble contradictoire avec l’idée de réchauffement “global”, mais on a besoin d’être prudent avant de sauter sur cette conclusion.
[Read more…] about Antarctic cooling, global warming?
Pat Michaels (under the guise of the Greening Earth society) is particularly fond of misquoting Jim Hansen, director of the NASA GISS laboratory (and in the interests of full disclosure, GS’s boss).
Recently he claimed that Dr. Hansen has now come around to the ‘skeptics’ (i.e. Pat Michaels) way of thinking and suggests that they agree on the (small) amount of warming to be expected in the future. Michaels quotes Hansen from a 2001 PNAS paper:
A couple of commentators (Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer) recently raised an issue about the standard scenarios used to compare climate models, in this case related to a study on the potential increase in hurricane activity.
The biggest uncertainty in what will happen to climate in the future (say 30 years or more) is the course that the global economy will take and the changes in technology that may accompany that. Since climate scientists certainly don’t have a crystal ball, we generally take a range of scenarios or projections of future emissions of CO2 and other important forcings such as methane and aerosols.
La plus grande incertitude dans ce qui va se passer pour le climat du futur (dans 30 ans ou plus) est le cours que va suivre l’économie globale et les changements technologiques qui peuvent l’accompagner. Puisque les climatologues n’ont certainement pas une boule de cristal, nous considérons généralement une gamme de scénarios ou de projections des émissions futures de CO 2 et d’autres forçages importants comme le méthane et les aérosols.
[Read more…] about Climate model scenarios