RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for Climate Science

Climate Science

Moulins, Calving Fronts and Greenland Outlet Glacier Acceleration Sifones, frentes glaciares y la aceleración de los glaciares exteriores de Groenlandia

by

Guest Commentary by Mauri Pelto

The net loss in volume and hence sea level contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has doubled in recent years from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers/year has been noted recently (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2007). The main cause of this increase is the acceleration of several large outlet glaciers. There has also been an alarming increase in the number of photographs of meltwater draining into a moulin somewhere on the GIS, often near Swiss Camp (35 km inland from the calving front). The story goes—warmer temperatures, more surface melting, more meltwater draining through moulins to glacier base, lubricating glacier bed, reducing friction, increasing velocity, and finally raising sea level. Examining this issue two years RealClimate suggested this was likely the correct story. A number of recent results suggest that we need to take another look at this story.

Una traducción está disponible aquí
[Read more…] about Moulins, Calving Fronts and Greenland Outlet Glacier Acceleration Sifones, frentes glaciares y la aceleración de los glaciares exteriores de Groenlandia

Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2

by

In January, we presented Lesson 1 in model-data comparison: if you are comparing noisy data to a model trend, make sure you have enough data for them to show a statistically significant trend. This was in response to a graph by Roger Pielke Jr. presented in the New York Times Tierney Lab Blog that compared observations to IPCC projections over an 8-year period. We showed that this period is too short for a meaningful trend comparison.

This week, the story has taken a curious new twist. In a letter published in Nature Geoscience, Pielke presents such a comparison for a longer period, 1990-2007 (see Figure). Lesson 1 learned – 17 years is sufficient. In fact, the very first figure of last year’s IPCC report presents almost the same comparison (see second Figure).
[Read more…] about Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2

Target CO2 Objectivo CO2

by

What is the long term sensitivity to increasing CO2? What, indeed, does long term sensitivity even mean? Jim Hansen and some colleagues (not including me) have a preprint available that claims that it is around 6ºC based on paleo-climate evidence. Since that is significantly larger than the ‘standard’ climate sensitivity we’ve often talked about, it’s worth looking at in more detail.


Traducido por Angela Carosio

[Read more…] about Target CO2 Objectivo CO2

Blogs and peer-review Blogs y reseña de pares

by

Nature Geoscience has two commentaries this month on science blogging – one from me and another from Myles Allen (see also these blog posts on the subject). My piece tries to make the point that most of what scientists know is “tacit” (i.e. not explicitly or often written down in the technical literature) and it is that knowledge that allows them to quickly distinguish (with reasonable accuracy) what new papers are worth looking at in detail and which are not. This context is what provides RC (and other science sites) with the confidence to comment both on new scientific papers and on the media coverage they receive.

Myles’ piece stresses that criticism of papers in the peer-reviewed literature needs to be in the peer-reviewed literature and suggests that informal criticism (such as on a blog) might undermine that.

We actually agree that there is a real tension between a quick and dirty pointing out of obvious problems in a published paper (such as the Douglass et al paper last December) and doing the much more substantial work and extra analysis that would merit a peer-reviewed response. The approaches are not however necessarily opposed (for instance, our response to the Schwartz paper last year, which has also lead to a submitted comment). But given everyone’s limited time (and the journals’ limited space), there are fewer official rebuttals submitted and published than there are actual complaints. Furthermore, it is exceedingly rare to write a formal comment on an particularly exceptional paper, with the results that complaints are more common in the peer reviewed literature than applause. In fact, there is much to applaud in modern science, and we like to think that RC plays a positive role in highlighting some of the more important and exciting results that appear.

Myles’ piece, while ending up on a worthwhile point of discussion, illustrates it (in my opinion) with a rather misplaced example that involves RC – a post and follow-up on the Stainforth et al (2005) paper and the media coverage it got. The original post dealt in part with how the new climateprediction.net model runs affected our existing expectation for what climate sensitivity is and whether they justified a revision of any projections into the future. The second post came in the aftermath of a rather poor piece of journalism on BBC Radio 4 that implied (completely unjustifiably) that the CPDN team were deliberately misleading the public about the importance of their work. We discussed then (as we have in many other cases) whether some of the responsibility for overheated or inaccurate press actually belongs to the press release itself and whether we (as a community) could do better at providing more context in such cases. The reason why this isn’t really germane to Myles’ point is that we didn’t criticise the paper itself at all. We thought then (and think now) that the CPDN effort is extremely worthwhile and that lessons from it will be informing model simulations some time into the future. Our criticisms (such as they were) were mainly associated instead with the perception of the paper in parts of the media and wider community – something that is not at all appropriate for a peer-reviewed comment.

This isn’t the place to rehash the climate sensitivity issue (I promise a new post on that shortly), so that will be deemed off-topic. However, we’d be very interested in any comments on the fundamental issue raised – how do (or should) science blogs and traditional peer-review intersect and whether Myles’ perception that they are in conflict is widely shared.


Traducido por Angela Carosio

Nature Geoscience tiene dos comentarios este mes sobre ciencia y blogging, uno mío y otro de Myles Allen (véase también estos correos de blogs sobre el tema aqui y aqui).

Mi comentario trata de establecer una proposición que es que la gran mayoría de lo que los científicos conocen es “tácito” (por ejemplo, no explícito o escrito en la literatura técnica) y es ese conocimiento que les permite distinguir rápidamente, con precisión razonable, que artículos nuevos valen la pena leer en detalle y cuáles no. Este contexto es lo que provee a RC, y a otros sitios científicos, la seguridad para comentar sobre nuevos artículos científicos y sobre la cobertura que éstos reciben en los medios.

El comentario de Myles destaca que la crítica de artículos y la reseña de pares debe permanecer en la literatura de reseña de pares y que la crítica informal, como la que se encuentra en un blog, podría desmerecer el artículo.

Estamos de acuerdo con que hay una gran diferencia entre rápidamente indicar problemas obvios en un artículo publicado (como el artículo de Douglass et al de diciembre pasado) y hacer un trabajo sustancial y un análisis extra que merece una respuesta reseñada por pares. Los enfoques no son necesariamente opuestos (por ejemplo, nuestra respuesta al artículo de Schwartz el año pasado, que dio lugar a un comentario referido). Pero dada la limitación de tiempo de todos, y la limitación de espacio del periodismo, se presentan y se publican muchas menos refutaciones comparando con la cantidad de quejas. Es más, es extremadamente raro que se escriba un comentario formal sobre un artículo particularmente excepcional, dando como resultado que las quejas son mucho más comunes que los aplausos en la reseña de pares. De hecho, hay mucho que aplaudirle a la ciencia moderna, y nos gustaría pensar que RC juega un rol positivo en resaltar algunos de los resultados más importantes y apasionantes que aparecen.

El comentario de Myles, si bien termina con un interesante punto de discusión, es ilustrado, en mi opinión, con un ejemplo fuera de lugar que involucra a RC, un correo y el posterior seguimiento de un artículo de Stainforth et al (2005) y la gran cobertura que éste tuvo en los medios. El correo original aborda el tema sobre como los modelos ejecutados en el sitio climateprediction.net han afectado nuestra expectativa actual sobre que es la sensibilidad climática y si se justifica una revisión de cualquier proyección a futuro. El segundo correo vino luego de un artículo de periodismo, un tanto inferior, en Radio 4 de la BBC que implicaba, injustificadamente, que el público estaba siendo engañado deliberadamente por el equipo CPDN (Climate Prediction Dot Net, por sus siglas en ingles) sobre la importancia de su trabajo. Hemos discutido entonces, así como le hemos hecho en otras ocasiones, si parte de la responsabilidad de artículos inexactos o exaltados publicados pertenece a la misma prensa o si nosotros como comunidad, podríamos hacer un esfuerzo por proveer un contexto en dichos casos. La razón por la cual esto no es pertinente a lo que Myles opinó es que no hemos criticado en absoluto el artículo en sí. En ese entonces pensábamos, y seguimos pensándolo ahora, que el esfuerzo del equipo CPDN valió la pena y que cualquier lección aprendida será informada a los modelos de simulación en un futuro. Nuestra crítica, tal como era, fue asociada en vez con la percepción del artículo en parte de los medios y en la comunidad en general. Estos medios no son para nada adecuados para comentar una reseña de pares.

Este no es el lugar adecuado para argüir el tema de la sensibilidad climática (prometo un nuevo correo respecto a eso pronto), de modo que se considerará fuera de tema. Sin embargo, estamos muy interesados en comentarios sobre el tema fundamental planteado: como se interceptan, o como debieran interceptarse los blogs sobre ciencia y las tradicionales reseñas de pares, y si la percepción de Myles que estas están en conflicto es ampliamente compartida.

Air Capture Captura de Aire

by

Guest Commentary by Frank Zeman

[This is one of an occasional series on the science of mitigation/adaptation/geo-engineering that we hope to continue. Since this isn’t our core expertise, we’d especially appreciate balanced contributions from other scientists.]

One of the central challenges of controlling anthropogenic climate change is developing technologies that deal with emissions from small, dispersed sources such as automobiles and residential houses. Capturing these emissions is more difficult as they are too small to support infrastructure, such as pipelines, and may be mobile, as with cars. For these reasons, proposed solutions, such as switching to using hydrogen or electricity as a fuel, rely on the carbon-free generation of electricity or hydrogen. That implies that the fuel must be made either by renewable generation (wind, solar, geothermal etc.), nuclear or by facilities that capture the carbon dioxide and store it (CCS).

There is however an alternative that gets some occasional attention: Air Capture (for instance, here or here). The idea would be to let people emit the carbon dioxide at the source but then capture it directly from the atmosphere at a separate facility.

Par Frank Zeman, traducido por Angela Carosio
[Read more…] about Air Capture Captura de Aire

Venus Unveiled

by

Something over a week ago I had the pleasure of making my way up to the little ski resort of La Thuile in the Val D’Aosta to learn about the latest results from the Venus Express mission. (You can imagine it was a tough decision to go to La Thuile and hear real scientists talking about Venus when I could have instead been listening to luminaries such as Mark Morano drone on at the Heartland Institute pseudoscience bash. ) My own connection with the Venus Express meeting came about through some work I’ve been doing on habitability of the newly discovered "Super Earth" extrasolar planets like Gliese 581c. Many of us think these may be "super-Venuses" rather than "Super-Earths," so it seemed like time to touch base with the people working on our own Venus. The fact that we can put together the same bits of physics we use to understand global warming on Earth in order to understand the interplay of the carbon dioxide greenhouse with sulfuric acid clouds on Venus is a testament to the fundamental power of climate science, and gives the lie to Claude Allègre’s oft stated claim that there is no such thing as a science of climate. Altogether, it was a thrilling meeting.

The Venus Express mission was described in this earlier RealClimate article, and you can read more about the mission at the VEX home page. Venus Express was done on the cheap, mostly using instruments cobbled together from leftover hardware from Mars Express and the Rosetta comet mission. The results have been nonetheless spectacular, and La Thuile provided a suitably spectacular venue in which to discuss them. This meeting was one in the series of Rencontres de Moriond in which scientists get together for a week of intensive discussion of leading-edge topics in physics — plus equally intensive skiing, climbing, hiking and enjoyment of good Northern Italian cooking. If you’ve ever read any of Jeremy Bernstein’s accounts of how he got involved in mountaineering through his attendence at particle physics meetings conducted in similar circumstances, you’ll know the general idea about how such things work. It’s a great way to shake loose creative thinking. And it’s one of those things that makes real science so much fun. Perfectly aside from the setting, it was a thrill to see the vigor of this field, and the influx of talented new young postdocs and graduates students, with all their fresh ideas and enthusiasm. I hope to give just a bit of the flavor of what went on during that eventful week.
[Read more…] about Venus Unveiled

A Galactic glitch

by

Knud Jahnke and Rasmus Benestad

After having watched a new documentary called the ‘Cloud Mystery’ – and especially the bit about the galaxy (approximately 2 – 4 minutes into the linked video clip) – we realised that a very interesting point has been missed in earlier discussions about ‘climate, galactic cosmic rays and the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy.

It is claimed in ‘The Cloud Mystery’, the book ‘The Chilling Stars’, and related articles that our solar system takes about 250 million years to circle the Milky Way galaxy and that our solar system crosses one of the spiral arms about every ~150 million years (Shaviv 2003).

But is this true? Most likely not. As we will discuss below, this claim is seriously at odds with astrophysical data.
[Read more…] about A Galactic glitch

The global cooling mole La excusa del enfriamiento global

by

By John Fleck and William Connolley

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard – “How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?” – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.

Una traducción está disponible aqui
Tłumaczenie na polski dostępne jest tutaj.

[Read more…] about The global cooling mole La excusa del enfriamiento global

536 AD and all that 530 AD y todo eso

by

“during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness… and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear.”

Eine deutsche Übersetzung dieses Artikels ist hier.
This quote from Procopius of Caesarea is matched by other sources from around the world pointing to something – often described as a ‘dry fog’ – and accompanied by a cold summer, crop failures and a host of other problems. There’s been a TV special, books and much newsprint speculating on its cause – volcanoes, comets and other catastrophes have been suggested. But this week there comes a new paper in GRL (Larsen et al, 2008) which may provide a definitive answer….

Traducido por Angela Carosio

“en este año hubo un temido presagio. El sol dio su luz sin brillo…y parecía como un sol de eclipse, pues los rayos de luz no eran claros.”


[Read more…] about 536 AD and all that 530 AD y todo eso

Tropical cyclone history – part II: Paleotempestology still in its infancy

by

Guest Commentary from Urs Neu

While analyzing tropical cyclone records is difficult enough (see ‘Tropical cylone history – part I’), it is even more challenging to reliably estimate hurricane activity back in time. Recently, Nature published an attempt to reconstruct past major hurricane activity back to 1730 (Nyberg et al. 2007). The authors concluded that the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity. The paper was advertised in a press release put out by Nature and received broad media attention.

Although the approach outlined by the authors is interesting, the study contains in my view a number of problems, as outlined in a comment published in Nature today (Neu 2008):

[Read more…] about Tropical cyclone history – part II: Paleotempestology still in its infancy