RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for group

group

Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition Evaluation par des pairs : une condition nécessaire mais pas suffisante

by

by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt

On this site we emphasize conclusions that are supported by “peer-reviewed” climate research. That is, research that has been published by one or more scientists in a scholarly scientific journal after review by one or more experts in the scientists’ same field (‘peers’) for accuracy and validity. What is so important about “Peer Review”? As Chris Mooney has lucidly put it:

[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they’re willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.

Par Michael Mann et Gavin Schmidt (Traduit par Alain Henry)

Dans ce site, nous insistons sur les résultats de recherches sur le climat soumis à des « évaluations par des pairs » [NdT: l’expression française « évaluation par des pairs » étant lourde et peu satisfaisante, nous utiliserons dans la plupart des cas l’expression anglaise originale peer review et nous désignerons les reviewers comme des évaluateurs]. C’est-à-dire, des recherches publiées par un ou plusieurs chercheurs dans un journal scientifique, après avoir été évaluée par un ou plusieurs experts dans le même domaine (des « pairs ») pour en vérifier la précision et la validité. Quelle est l’importance de ces peer review ? Comme le dit très lucidement Chris Mooney :

[Le peer review] est incontestablement une pierre angulaire de la démarche scientifique moderne. Concept central au choc compétitif des idées qui fait avancer la connaissance, le peer review bénéficie d’une telle renommée au sein de la communauté scientifique que les études qui n’ont pas son imprimatur sont considérées avec scepticisme. Les réputations académiques dépendent de la capacité à franchir le peer review pour être publié dans les principaux journaux ; les presses universitaires emploient le peer review pour décider quels livres elles publieront ; et les agences fédérales comme l’Institut National pour la Santé utilisent le peer review pour évaluer les demandes de fonds fédéraux pour la recherche.

(suite…)

[Read more…] about Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition Evaluation par des pairs : une condition nécessaire mais pas suffisante

Global Dimming II Assombrissement Global II

by

Guest commentary on BBC documentary on “Global Dimming” aired on January 13th 2005 by Beate Liepert, LDEO, Columbia University

I haven’t yet seen the documentary. I have only read the transcript and hence was spared the pictures of the potential apocalypse and the invocation of biblical-scale famines. However, as one of the lead scientists on the topic [and who was interviewed by the BBC for the Horizon documentary (transcript, previous post)], I feel I should explain a few things about it without using religious analogies and stoking unnecessary fear.

First though, this is a nice example of the power of words: Gerry Stanhill coined the observed reduction in solar energy reaching the ground “global dimming”. He called it “global” dimming because the technical term for the radiative energy is called “global solar radiation” and it contrasts nicely with the more common “global warming”.


par Beate Liepert, LDEO, Columbia University (traduit par Pierre Allemand)

Je n’ai pas encore vu le documentaire. J’ai seulement lu la transcription, et je n’ai donc pas été touché par les images d’une apocalypse potentielle et par l’évocation de famines à l’échelle biblique. Cependant, en tant que l’un des scientifiques leader du sujet, [et qui a été interviewé par la BBC pour le documentaire de la série Horizon, (transcription et article précédent)], je me sens dans l’obligation d’approfondir quelques détails sans utiliser d’analogie religieuse ni déclencher d’inutiles inquiétudes.

Première idée : voici un bel exemple du pouvoir des mots : Gerry Stanhill qualifie la réduction observée de l’énergie solaire atteignant le sol, d’ “assombrissement global”. Il l’a appelé assombrissement “global” parce que le terme technique pour l’énergie de radiation est “rayonnement solaire global” et il s’oppose ainsi élégamment au terme plus courant de “réchauffement global”.
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Global Dimming II Assombrissement Global II

The global cooling myth Le mythe du refroidissement global

by

Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

Par William Connolley (Traduit par Pierre Allemand)

De temps en temps, le mythe selon lequel “nous n’allons pas croire aujourd’hui les prédictions concernant le réchauffement global car dans les années 70, on prédisait un nouvel âge glaciaire et/ou un refroidissement”, refait surface. Récemment, George Will le mentionnait dans son éditorial (voir Will-full ignorance) et le fameux Crichton s’arrange pour dire “dans les années 70, tous les chercheurs dans le domaine climatique pensaient qu’un nouvel âge glaciaire allait arriver” (voir Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). Vous pouvez le trouver également dans divers autres endroits [ici, ici (en termes plus nuancés), etc]. Cependant, cet argument n’en est pas un pour les sceptiques respectables et bien informés, car il ne résiste pas à l’analyse. Cela n’empêche pas, néanmoins, qu’il soit régulièrement repris dans les groupes de discussion.

(suite…)

[Read more…] about The global cooling myth Le mythe du refroidissement global

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

by

by Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Gavin Schmidt, Eric Steig, and William Connolley

Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma recently provided us with an update of his views on the issue of climate change in a speech given on the opening senate session, January 4, 2005. His speech opened with the statement:

As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.

Cutting through much of his polemic, Inhofe’s speech contains three lines of scientific argument which, according to him, provide “compelling new scientific evidence” that anthropogenic global warming is not threatening. We here submit his statements to scrutiny.
[Read more…] about Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

Just what is this Consensus anyway? En quoi consiste le “Consensus” ?

by

We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently (see our earlier post on the subject), without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I). Fortunately that report is available online for all to read at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/. It’s a good idea to realise that though the IPCC report contains the consensus, it didn’t form it. The IPCC process was supposed to be – and is – a summary of the science (as available at the time). Because they did their job well, it really is a good review/summary/synthesis.

Par William Connolley (traduit par Pierre Allemand)

Nous avons utilisé le terme “consensus” ici très récemment (voir l’ article précédent sur le sujet) sans réellement définir ce que nous entendions par là. Normalement, il n’y a pas vraiment besoin de le définir – rien de scientifique n’en dépend. Mais, il est d’usage de noter le cœur du sujet sur lequel la plupart des scientifiques sont d’accord, pour des présentations publiques. Le consensus existant est celui des rapports du GIEC, en particulier le groupe de travail n°I (il y a trois groupes de travail. Par “GIEC”, on a tendance à vouloir parler du groupe de travail n°I).
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Just what is this Consensus anyway? En quoi consiste le “Consensus” ?

Aerosol Aérosol

by

A collection of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 µm and residing in the atmosphere for at least several hours. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin. Aerosols may influence climate in two ways: directly through scattering and absorbing radiation, and indirectly through acting as condensation nuclei for cloud formation or modifying the optical properties and lifetime of clouds (from the always useful IPCC glossary).

See-also: wiki:Aerosol.

Particules pouvant être solides ou liquides, en suspension dans l’air, qui ont une taille comprise 0.01 et 10 µm, et qui résident dans l’atmosphère au moins quelques heures. L’origine des aérosols peut être soit naturelle, soit anthropogénique. Les aérosols peuvent influencer le climat de deux manières : soit directement par la dispersion et l’absorption des rayonnements, soit indirectement en servant de noyaux de condensation pour la formation des nuages ou en modifiant les propriétés optiques et la durée de vie des nuages. (définition provenant du très utile glossaire du GIEC).

Welcome to RealClimate Bienvenue à RealClimate

by

Climate science is one of those fields where anyone, regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding, feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies. This can be frustrating for scientists like ourselves who see agenda-driven ‘commentary’ on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis.
Les sciences du climat forment une discipline dans laquelle qui que ce soit, indépendamment de son expertise ou de sa compréhension, se sent qualifiée pour présenter ses observations sur de nouveaux articles et polémiques en cours. Ceci peut se révéler frustrant pour les scientifiques, comme nous-mêmes, qui lisont des ‘commentaires’ sur le web dictés par des préjugés politiques qui ne tiennent compte de la rigueur des observations scientifiques.

(suite…)
[Read more…] about Welcome to RealClimate Bienvenue à RealClimate

Comment policy

by

  1. Comments are moderated. Comments are periodically reviewed, but especially at weekends, evenings and holidays, there may be some delay in approving otherwise non-contentious posts. Please be patient.
  2. Questions, clarifications and serious rebuttals and discussions are welcomed.
  3. Only comments that are germane to the post will be approved. Comments that are “off-topic” should be made on an open thread (usually entitled “Unforced Variations”), and we may move OT comments to those threads.
  4. Comments that contain links to inappropriate, irrelevant or commercial sites may be deleted.
  5. Discussion of non-scientific subjects is discouraged.
  6. No flames, profanity, ad hominem comments are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise try to personalize matters under discussion.
  7. We reserve the right to make spelling corrections, correct text format problems, etc.
  8. We use moderation to improve the “signal to noise” in the discussion. For this reason, we may choose to screen out comments that simply repeat points made in previous comments, make claims that have already been dealt with or that “muddy the water” by introducing erroneous, specious, or otherwise misleading assertions. These comments may be sent to “The Bore Hole“.
  9. We reserve the right to either reject comments that do not meet the above criteria, or in certain cases to edit them in a manner that brings them into accordance with our comments policy (e.g. by simply deleting inflammatory or ad hominem language from an otherwise worthy comment). In cases where we do this, it will be noted by an [edit].
  10. Given that RealClimate represents a volunteer effort by about 10 different contributors, each of whom are free to participate in queue moderation, the items indicated above only constitute the basic ground rules. We cannot insure uniform application of the various considerations listed above from one individual comment to the next.
  11. Quick responses to questions that don’t merit a full post will be placed in-line (with credits).
  12. All comments are assumed to be released into the public domain.
  13. Comments generally close after a month.
  14. Repeat violators of our comments policy (in particular, individuals demonstrating a pattern of “trolling”) may be barred from future access to the blog.

revised 01/06/11

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

by

There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface temperature record – which shows a warming of approximately 0.6°-0.8°C over the last century (depending on precisely how the warming trend is defined) – is essentially uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These include that the land, borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the fact that there is little difference between the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century). This and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05°C to the warming observed over the past century.

[Read more…] about The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island