by Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Gavin Schmidt, and William Connolley (traduit par Claire Rollion Bard)
Le lundi 29 août, l’ouragan Katrina a ravagé la Nouvelle-Orléans, la Louisiane et le Mississipi, laissant une traînée de destruction dans son sillage. Il va se passer du temps avant que le bilan total de cet ouragan soit estimé, mais les impacts environnementaux et humains sont déjà apparents.
Katrina était le plus craint des évènements météorologiques, un ouragan majeur laissant un terrain vide dans une région très peuplée de faible élévation. Dans le sillage de sa dévastation, beaucoup se sont demandés si le réchauffement global pouvait avoir contribué à ce désastre. La Nouvelle-Orléans pourrait-elle être la première ville majeure des Etats-Unis à être ravagée par le changement climatique causé par les humains ?
(suite…)
Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
Guest commentary by Raimund Muscheler
[note: this is a restore (8/8/05) of an article from August 3, 2005 that was accidentally deleted due to a technical glitch. Unfortunately, most of the comments could not be retrieved. We sincerely apologize to our readers!]
The solar influence on climate is a controversial topic in climate research (see previous posts here and here). The irradiance changes are assumed to be relatively small and the importance of potential amplifying mechanisms is still a matter of current debate. One reason for these uncertainties is that there are only approximately 25 years of satellite-based observations of the solar irradiance. Sunspot observations for the last 400 years clearly indicate that current levels of solar activity are very different from the state of the sun during the Maunder minimum (from approx. 1645 to 1715 AD) where almost no sunspots could be observed.
[Read more…] about Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
Scientists respond to Barton
by Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf
Many readers will be aware that three scientists (two of which are contributors to this site, Michael Mann and Ray Bradley) have received letters from Representative Joe Barton (Texas), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee specifically requesting information about their work on the ‘hockey stick’ papers (Mann et al (1998) and Mann et al (1999)) as well as an enormous amount of irrelevant material not connected to these studies.
Many in the scientific community would welcome any genuine interest in climate change from the committee, but the tone and content of these letters have alarmed many scientists and their professional organisations. In the words of Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Barton letters “give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding.” Other organisations and individual scientists have also expressed strong concerns: [Read more…] about Scientists respond to Barton
The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus
We are disappointed that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has chosen to yet again distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming in their recent editorial “Kyoto By Degrees” (6/21/05) (subscription required).
Last week, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies expressed the consensus view that “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and that “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”. And just last week, USA Today editorialized that “not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming”.
It is puzzling then that the WSJ editors could claim that “the scientific case….looks weaker all the time”.
While we resist commenting on policy matters (e.g. the relative merits of the Kyoto Protocol or the various bills before the US Senate), we will staunchly defend the science against distortions and misrepresentations, be they intentional or not. In this spirit, we respond here to the scientifically inaccurate or incorrect assertions made in the editorial.
[Read more…] about The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus
New contributor
We welcome David Archer of the University of Chicago to the RealClimate team. David adds to our expertise in ocean and carbon cycle modelling and has already contributed a guest post, with more on the way. RealClimate actively solicits contributions from the wider climate science community and so if you’d like to help out, drop us a line.
Betting on climate change
Guest contribution by James Annan of FRCGC/JAMSTEC.
“The more unpredictable the world, the more we rely on predictions” (Steve Rivkin). The uncertainty of an unknown future imposes costs and risks on us in many areas of life. A cereal-growing farmer risks a big financial loss if the price of grain is low at harvest time, and a livestock farmer may not be able to afford to feed his herd if the price of grain goes up. One way to reduce the risk is to hedge against it in a futures market. The two farmers can enter a forward contract, for one to deliver a set quantity of grain to the other for a fixed price at a future date. And indeed farmers do routinely use futures contracts to reduce their risks.
L’accroissement du CO2 atmosphérique: sommes nous entièrement responsable?
Corinne Le Quéré, Université d’East Anglia.
C’est une question qui revient sans cesse, bien que nous connaissions déjà la réponse : nous sommes responsable de la totalité de l’accroissement récent du CO2 atmosphérique, et ceci, malgré le fait que les océans et la biosphère terrestre répondent tous deux aux changements de réchauffement global. Les évidences les plus convaincantes pour les scientifiques (basées sur le décroissement de l’oxygène et des isotopes du carbone) ont déja été expliquées dans une page précédente disponible ici et dans une lettre à la revue spécialisée Physics Today. Cependant, ces évidences peuvent être difficiles à saisir pour les non-spécialistes car elles requièrent des connaissances scientifiques importantes. Je présente ici des évidences plus simples qui mènent aux mêmes conclusions et qui expliquent comment on sait que nous sommes responsables non seulement d’une partie de l’accroissement récent du CO2 atmosphérique, mais de la totalité.
(suite…)
Un avenir brillant pour l’assombrissement global ?
Il y a quelques temps, nous écrivions à propos de l’assombrissement global – une réduction de l’irradiation solaire de 4% ou environ 7W/m_ entre 1961 et 1990 observée dans des stations météorologiques autour du monde. Nous disions alors qu’il y avait des indices de reprise en cours après 1990. Des recherches qui le montrent ont maintenant été publiée. De l’assombrissement à l’éclaircissement: changements décennaux de l’irradiation solaire à la surface de la Terre (From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface) de Martin Wild et al. (Science 6 Mai 2005; 308: 847-850; abonnement nécessaire pour lire l’article) utilise des mesures faites en surface; Les satellittes détectent-ils des tendances dans l’irradiation solaire ai niveau de la surface? (Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?) de Pinker et al., Science 2005 308: 850-854, utilise des satellites. Les deux études identifient une reprise de l’irradiation solaire de la surface depuis environ 1990.
“New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise”
To our readers who have followed the supposed ‘hockey stick controversy’, this press release from NCAR just out today, will be of interest.
2005 Record Arctic Ozone Loss
You read it here first!
Update (09/05/05): Markus Rex was kind enough to send us the full figure from which Nature made their thumbnail, and which is a little clearer. He also cautions that the 2005 numbers are still preliminary, however there is a clear trend towards increasing potential for Arctic ozone loss, which is realised or not depending on the vagaries of each individual winter.