RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for Communicating Climate / Reporting on climate

Reporting on climate

Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds Aldatıldık: Carl Wunsch Cevap Veriyor

by

The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on global warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle which misrepresented them.

Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film “The Global Warming Swindle”

Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
[Read more…] about Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds Aldatıldık: Carl Wunsch Cevap Veriyor

Swindled! Aldatıldık!

by

By William and Gavin

On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]

So what did they have to say for themselves?
[Read more…] about Swindled! Aldatıldık!

Climate Reporting in Physics World Reportagem sobre o Clima na Physics World

by

PhysicsWorld cover, Volume 20, no. 2, February 2007 The February 2007 issue of PhysicsWorld contains several articles relevant to climate research, with a main feature article on climate modelling written by Adam Scaife, Chris Folland, and John Mitchell, and a profile on Richard Lindzen as well as an article on geoengineering in the ‘News & Analyses’ section. The magazine also contains an article (‘Living in the greenhouse’) under ‘Lateral Thoughts’ that brings up a bunch of tentative analogies to a wide range of topics completely unrelated to the greenhouse effect in a technical sense, and an editorial comment ‘Hot topic‘, arguing that it would be wrong of PhysicsWorld to ignore those outside the mainstream. To be more precise, the editorial comment devotes a few lines justifying the profile on Lindzen and the report on geoengineering, with a reference to a Feynman quote: “There is no harm in doubt and scepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made”. Wise words! Nevertheless, I cannot resist making some reflections.

[Read more…] about Climate Reporting in Physics World Reportagem sobre o Clima na Physics World

What triggers ice ages? O que Dispara as Eras Glaciais? Buzul Çağlarını Tetikleyen Nedir?Qu’est ce qui déclenche les glaciations?

by

by Rasmus Benestad, with contributions from Caspar & Eric

In a recent article in Climatic Change, D.G. Martinson and W.C. Pitman III discuss a new hypothesis explaining how the climate could change abruptly between ice ages and inter-glacial (warm) periods. They argue that the changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun in isolation is not sufficient to explain the estimated high rate of change, and that there must be an amplifying feedback process kicking in. The necessity for a feedback is not new, as the Swedish Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry), Svante Arrhenius, suggested already in 1896 that CO2 could act as an amplification mechanism. In addition, there is the albedo feedback, where the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, scales with the area of the ice- and snow-cover. And are clouds as well as other aspects playing a role.

por Rasmus Benestad, com contribuições de Caspar & Eric

Em um artigo recente da Climatic Change, D.G. Martinson e W.C. Pitman III discutem uma nova hipótese que explica como o clima pode mudar abruptamente entre eras glaciais e períodos interglaciais (quentes). Eles argumentam que as mudanças na órbita da Terra ao redor do Sol em isolado não são suficientes para explicar as altas taxas de mudanças estimadas, e que deve necessariamente haver a ação de um mecanismo de feedback (ou retro-alimentação) amplificando o processo. A necessidade de um feedback não é nova, pois o sueco ganhador do Prêmio Nobel (Química), Svante Arrhenius, já havia sugerido em 1896 que o CO2 deveria agir como um mecanismo de amplificação. Além do mais, existe o feedback do albedo, pelo qual a quantidade de radiação solar que é refletida de volta ao espaço é escalonável com a área de cobertura de gelo e neve. E existem nuvens bem como outros aspectos envolvidos.

Orbital forcing A hipótese de Martinson & Pitman III formula que a entrada de água doce funciona em consonância com o ciclo de Milankovitch e o feedback de albedo. Eles concluem que os ‘maiores’ términos podem somente acontecer após um acúmulo de gelo grande o suficiente para isolar o Artico, inibindo o fluxo de entrada de água doce até um ponto em que o aumento da salinidade na camada superficial, através de um vagaroso e contínuo crescimento do gelo marinho, causa uma inversão das águas marinhas do Ártico (pelo efeito na circulação atmosférica e nas correntes oceânicas). A inversão vertical traz água quente de baixo para cima, promovendo condições mais favoráveis ao degelo. A salinidade também tem um papel, mas a hipótese não menciona variações de gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Algumas questões: Martinson e Pitman III esqueceram disso? Ou os GEE representam somente uma pequena contribuição? E, não poderiam as mudanças nos GEE explicar boa parte da variabilidade? Por outro lado, parece plausível que mudanças na salinidade e na entrada de água doce poderiam afetar a formação de gelo marinho e a convecção profunda. Contudo, até o presente, a hipótese proposta por Martinson and Pitman III é meramente uma especulação, e estamos aguardando para ver se a hipótese pode ser testada através de experimentos de modelos numéricos (o que pode requerer modelos oceânicos e de gelo marinho com maior resolução que os atualmente usados em modelos climáticos globais). Seria interessante conduzir experimentos para avaliar a significância individual da água doce, dos GEE e o efeito combinado.

Uma reação ao trabalho de Martison e Pittman é: Onde está o cálculo de energia? Gases de efeito estufa contribuem somente com alguns W/m2, em contraste com uma forçante >40 do ciclo sazonal de Milankovich. Para esta nova idéia ter mérito, teria sido melhor ter no mínimo fluxos de calor em paralelo com a forçante radioativa do CO2. Estudos de modelagem anteriores encontraram que GEE produzem aproximadamente 50% de todo Último Máximo Glacial (inglês, LGM) para a resposta da temperatura atual (veja por exemplo Broccoli & Manabe), a outra parte sendo o albedo, etc., que respondem ao ciclo sazonal de irradiância. É muito difícil isolar completamente as causas individuais pois as mudanças nos GEE podem produzir alterações na distribuição de nuvens e gelo marinho. Mas a grosso modo, se você rodar um LGM e somente somente reduzir o nível do mar, introduzir as calotas de gelo, mudar a vegetação, adicionar alguma poeria (embora esta ainda seja grosseira), então você alcançaria ao redor de 50% do caminho que você quer ir. Mude a concentração de GEE e você chegaria mais próximo. Isso é mais ou menos o que Manabe e Stouffer mostraram há quinze anos atrás. A questão é se realmente precisamos de algo mais, e se esse ‘algo mais’ tem força suficiente.

traduzido por Ivan B. T. Lima e Fernando M. Ramos.


[Read more…] about What triggers ice ages? O que Dispara as Eras Glaciais? Buzul Çağlarını Tetikleyen Nedir?Qu’est ce qui déclenche les glaciations?

Consensus as the New Heresy

by

Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, David Archer, Stefan Rahmstorf, William Connolley, and Raymond Bradley

Andy Revkin, who’s one of the best journalists on the climate beat, wrote a curious piece in the NY Times discussing the ‘middle stance’ of the climate debate. It’s nice to see news pieces on climate that aren’t breathless accounts of a new breakthough and that take the time to point out that the vast majority of relevant scientists take climate change extremely seriously. To that extent, the message of this piece was a welcome one. The curious part, however, was the thread running through the piece that this middle ground is only now emerging, and even curiouser, that this middle ground can be characterized as representing some sort of ‘heresy’.

Heresy, is commonly defined as ‘an opinion or doctrine at variance with the official or orthodox position’. So where does this idea come from, and why is it now ’emerging’?
[Read more…] about Consensus as the New Heresy

Inhofe’s last stand

by

Part of me felt a little nostalgic yesterday watching the last Senate hearing on climate change that will be chaired by Sen. James Inhofe. It all felt very familiar and comforting in some strange way. There was the well-spoken ‘expert’ flown in from Australia (no-one available a little closer to home?), the media ‘expert’ from the think tank (plenty of those about) and a rather out-of-place geologist. There were the same talking points (CO2 leads the warming during the ice ages! the Medieval Warm Period was warm! it’s all a hoax!*) that are always brought up. These easy certainties and predictable responses are so well worn that they feel like a pair of old slippers.
[Read more…] about Inhofe’s last stand

Broadly Misleading

by

Just when we were beginning to think the media had finally learned to tell a hawk from a handsaw when covering global warming (at least when the wind blows southerly), along comes this article ‘In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming’ by the New York Times’ William Broad. This article is far from the standard of excellence in reporting we have come to expect from the Times. We sincerely hope it’s an aberration, and not indicative of the best Mr. Broad has to offer.

Broad’s article deals with the implications of research on climate change over the broad sweep of the Phanerozoic — the past half billion years of Earth history during which fossil animals and plants are found. The past two million years (the Pleistocene and Holocene) are a subdivision of the Phanerozoic, but the focus of the article is on the earlier part of the era. Evidently, what prompts this article is the amount of attention being given to paleoclimate data in the forthcoming AR4 report of the IPCC. The article manages to give the impression that the implications of deep-time paleoclimate haven’t previously been taken into account in thinking about the mechanisms of climate change, whereas in fact this has been a central preoccupation of the field for decades. It’s not even true that this is the first time the IPCC report has made use of paleoclimate data; references to past climates can be found many places in the Third Assessment Report. What is new is that paleoclimate finally gets a chapter of its own (but one that, understandably, concentrates more on the well-documented Pleistocene than on deep time). The worst fault of the article, though, is that it leaves the reader with the impression that there is something in the deep time Phanerozoic climate record that fundamentally challenges the physics linking planetary temperature to CO2. This is utterly false, and deeply misleading. The Phanerozoic does pose puzzles, and there’s something going on there we plainly don’t understand. However, the shortcomings of understanding are not of a nature as to seriously challenge the CO2.-climate connection as it plays out at present and in the next few centuries.

[Read more…] about Broadly Misleading

Sachs’ WSJ Challenge

by

Jeffery Sachs of the Columbia Earth Institute has an excellent commentary in Scientific American this month on the disconnect between the Wall Street Journal editorial board and their own reporters (and the rest of the world) when it comes to climate change. He challenges them to truly follow their interest in an “open-minded search for scientific knowledge” by meeting with the “world’s leading climate scientists and to include in that meeting any climate-skeptic scientists that that the Journal editorial board would like to invite”.

RealClimate heartily endorses such an approach and, while we leave it to others to judge who the ‘world leading’ authorities are, we’d certaintly be willing to chip in if asked. To those who would decry this as a waste of time, we would point to The Economist who recently produced a very sensible special on global warming and proposed a number of economically viable ways to tackle it, despite having been reflexively denialist not that many years ago. If the Economist can rise to the challenge, maybe there is hope for the Wall Street Journal….

Chinese whispers in Australia

by

We decided months ago that we would not comment on leaks of the draft of the upcoming IPCC report (due Feb 2007) but we are prepared to correct obvious errors. The ongoing revisions of the text and the numerous drafts make any such commentary, let alone conclusions drawn from it, pretty pointless. This is even more true when the leaks are obviously confused about a central point. The principle error in the latest ‘exclusive’ is that the writer confuses a tightening of the estimate of climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 (as discussed here) with projections of climate change in 2100. These projections obviously depend on the uncertainties in the scenarios of future technology, economic progress and population (etc.) plus uncertainties in feedbacks related to the carbon or methane cycles. Unfortunately these have not been reduced since the last assessment report (and in some cases have actually increased).

That occasional stories will come out that get basic things wrong is unfortunate but not surprising. What is more troubling is that they subsequently get picked up by Reuters and UPI, and republished in places (such as Scientific American, though in their defence, it is simply a posting of the wire report) where the editors should know better. Worse still, the wire service stories are too brief to make the source of the error obvious, and thus the error gets propagated in an ever more confused state. As usual the blogsphere is playing a key role in amplifying and further muddying the story. The advantage of blogs is that errors can be corrected quickly, and the comments on Prometheus for instance, quickly revealed the confusion and the potential agenda of the original story.

There will be plenty of time to discuss the new IPCC report when it comes out and where everyone can read for themselves what has and what hasn’t changed since 2001. Until then, we would counsel against journalists and editors jumping at supposed ‘exclusives’ and – more dangerously – going ahead with them without even a basic sanity check of the details.