The primary purpose of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is to assess the available scientific knowledge about climate change, not to initiate new research. The next IPCC report (Assessment Report 4, or AR4) is due in 2007, and in order to update of the state of knowledge it will only consider papers published in peer-review scientific journals between 2000 and papers submitted by May 1st 2005 (must be accepted before December 2005). It is essential that the papers be published in scientific quality journals in order to ensure the credibility of the results. Nevertheless the IPCC reports undergo several additional reviews and revisions involving a large number of independent referees. Thus, the IPCC reports undergo a more stringent review process than common papers in the scientific literature.
Climate modelling
IPCC in action: Part I
This is the first of two pieces on the recent IPCC workshop in Hawaii, This brought together independent researchers from all over the world to analyse computer model simulations of the last 150 years and to assess whether they are actually any good.
Guest commentary from Natassa Romanou (Columbia University)
During the first 3 days of March 2005, balmy downtown Honolulu in Hawaii was buzzing with agile scientists conversing, chatting, announcing, briefing and informing about IPCC assessment reports, climate models, model evaluations, climate sensitivities and feedbacks. These were the participants of the Climate Model Evaluation Project workshop (CMEP) and came here from most (if not all) the major, most prestigious climate research laboratories of the world, including; The US labs National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, the German Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, the French Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques and the IPSL/LMD/LSCE, the Australian CSIRO Atmospheric Research, the Chinese Institute of Atmospheric Physics, the Russian Institute for Numerical Mathematics and the Japanese Meteorological Research Institute. This meeting was sponsored by the benevolent NSF, NOAA, NASA and DOE.
Why looking for global warming in the oceans is a good idea Voici pourquoi rechercher le réchauffement global dans les océans est pertinent
A lot of press and commentary came out this week concerning a presentation and press release from Tim Barnett and Scripps colleagues presenting at the AAAS meeting (The Independent, John Fleck ,(and again) David Appell…etc). Why did this get so much attention given that there is no actual paper yet?
Un grand nombre d’articles de presse et de commentaires sont sortis cette semaine concernant une présentation et un communiqué de presse de Tim Barnett, Scripps et collègues au congrès de l’AAAS (American Society for the Advancement of Science), (The Independent, John Fleck ,(et de nouveau ici) David Appell…etc. (NdT : sites en anglais). Pourquoi cela a-t-il donné lieu à autant d’attention, alors qu’aucune publication n’est encore disponible ?
Exeter conference: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Conférence d’Exeter (G-B): éviter un changement climatique dangereux
The conference last week in Exeter on “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” grew out of a speech by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. He asked “What level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much?” and “What options do we have to avoid such levels?”. The first question is very interesting, but also very difficult. As Roger Pielke has noted the conference organisers actually choose three “key questions”:
- For different levels of climate change what are the key impacts, for different regions and sectors, and for the world as a whole?
- What would such levels of climate change imply in terms of greenhouse gas stabilisation concentrations and emission pathways required to achieve such levels?
- What technological options are there for achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gases at different stabilisation concentrations in the atmosphere, taking into account costs and uncertainties?
It is worth thinking about the difference between the initial aim and the “key questions” chosen. Question 1 is essentially IPCC WGII impacts); question 2 is firmly WGI (how-much-climate-change); question 3 is fairly WG III (mitigation, including technical options). I guess they switched questions 1 and 2 round to avoid making the identification too obvious. The conference steering committee report makes it very clear that they are building on the IPCC TAR foundation.
Par William Connoley (traduit par Thibault de Garidel)
La conférence ayant eu lieu la semaine dernière à Exeter intitulée “Eviter un changement climatique dangereux” a pour origine un discours du premier ministre britannique Tony Blair. Celui-ci avait alors posé deux questions “quel niveau de concentration de gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère peut être considéré comme excessif ?” et “quelles options avons-nous pour éviter de tels niveaux ?”. La première question est très intéressante, mais également problématique. Comme Roger Pielke l’a noté, les organisateurs de cette conférence ont en fait choisi trois “questions principales” :
1. Pour différents niveaux de changement climatique, quels sont les impacts principaux, pour les différentes régions et secteurs, et pour le monde entier ?
2. Pour que de tels niveaux de changement climatique soient atteints, quelles sont les implications en terme de stabilisation des concentrations en gaz à effet de serre, et des options d’émission ?
3. Quelles options technologiques existent pour arriver à stabiliser les gaz à effet de serre à différentes concentrations, en tenant compte des coûts et incertitudes?
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Exeter conference: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
11ºC warming, climate crisis in 10 years? 11ºC de réchauffement, une crise climatique dans 10 ans ?
by Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf
Two stories this week, a paper in Nature (Stainforth et al, 2005) describing preliminary results of the climateprediction.net experiments, and the Meeting the Climate Challenge report from a high level political group have lead to dramatic headlines. On the Nature paper, BBC online reported that “temperatures around the world could rise by as much as 11ºC “; on the latter report it headlined: “Climate crisis near ‘in 10 years’”. Does this mean there is new evidence that climate change is more serious than previously thought? We think not.
par Gavin Schmidt et Stefan Rahmstorf (traduit par Thibault de Garidel et Gilles Delaygue)
Deux travaux sortis cette semaine, un papier publié dans Nature (Stainforth et al., 2005) décrivant des résultats préliminaires de l’expérience climateprediction.net, et le rapport Meeting the Climate Challenge d’un groupe politique, ont mené à des titres catastrophistes dans les médias. Sur l’article de Nature, BBC on line indique que les “températures globales pourraient s’élever de près de 11ºC”; sur le second rapport il est écrit: “Une crise climatique proche pour dans 10 ans”. [N-d-T. : Voir également Le Monde : Un réchauffement climatique de plus de 6ºC n’est plus à exclure ; Libération : Prédire chez soi]. Cela signifie-t-il que de nouvelles preuves montrent un changement climatique plus sérieux que précédemment estimé ? Nous ne le pensons pas.
(suite…)
Global Dimming II Assombrissement Global II
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
Is Climate Modelling Science? La modélisation climatique est-elle de la science?
At first glance this seems like a strange question. Isn’t science precisely the quantification of observations into a theory or model and then using that to make predictions? Yes. And are those predictions in different cases then tested against observations again and again to either validate those models or generate ideas for potential improvements? Yes, again. So the fact that climate modelling was recently singled out as being somehow non-scientific seems absurd.
par Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Gilles Delaygue)
A première vue, cela semble une question étrange. Est-ce-que la science n’est pas précisément la quantification d’observations dans une théorie ou un modèle, et ensuite son utilisation pour faire des prédictions ? Oui. Et est-ce-que ces prédictions de différents cas sont ensuite confrontées, maintes fois, aux observations, afin soit de valider ces modèles ou bien de faire émerger des idées d’amélioration ? Oui, encore une fois. Ainsi la mise à l’index récente de la modélisation climatique comme quelque chose de non scientifique semble absurde.
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Is Climate Modelling Science?
Senator Inhofe on Climate Change
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
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science
Our first post on Crichton’s new novel “State of Fear” hits most of the key points, though there are a few more errors in the book that we hope to expand upon in future posts.
But for those of you uninterested in buying and reading the book, you can actually find a similar-minded opinion piece by Crichton criticizing climate science (and everything from SETI and the “Drake Equation” to Carl Sagan in the process) here in the public domain.
[Read more…] about Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion L’état de confusion de Michael Crichton
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