RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for Extras

Extras

How rapid-response works

by

Nature this week published a letter from Dr. Huang (U. Mich) highlighting how this ‘brave new world’ of science blogging works. He writes:

I was concerned to find that … [a figure] included an outdated and erroneous reconstruction of borehole data. … In my view, the website should have used a later version … To be fair, the authors of the website added a correction after I drew their attention to this.

In an early post, we used a figure that contained a minor error regarding how a borehole temperature reconstruction had been scaled. This mistake had been properly corrected in the literature, and so this was indeed an oversight on our part. Dr Huang was kind enough to remind us of this and we amended the caption immediately to point this out and direct readers to the correction should they be interested. Since this mistake was not central to the point being made in the post, we left the original figure in place.

The Internet is nothing if not flexible, and unlike in journals where mistakes can persist an awfully long time, we are able to correct such problems very quickly. In this respect, Dr. Huang’s letter seems to indicate that things are actually working quite well here.

We would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate our commitment to getting the science right, and as importantly, getting it right in real-time. We welcome all corrections or clarifications and we will endeavour to fix any errors, great or small, as quickly as we can.

RealClimate

Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy Guide pratique pour comprendre la dernière controverse sur la « crosse de hockey »

by

by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman

Due to popular demand, we have put together a ‘dummies guide’ which tries to describe what the actual issues are in the latest controversy, in language even our parents might understand. A pdf version is also available. More technical descriptions of the issues can be seen here and here.

This guide is in two parts, the first deals with the background to the technical issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05), while the second part discusses the application of this to the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH98) reconstruction. The wider climate science context is discussed here, and the relationship to other recent reconstructions (the ‘Hockey Team’) can be seen here.

NB. All the data that were used in MBH98 are freely available for download at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/ (and also as supplementary data at Nature) along with a thorough description of the algorithm.

par Gavin Schmidt et Caspar Amman (traduit par Pierre Allemand)

Suite à la demande populaire, nous avons écrit un « guide pratique » qui essaie de décrire quels sont les problèmes débattus dans la dernière controverse sur la “crosse de hockey”, dans un langage que même nos parents peuvent comprendre. Des descriptions techniques complémentaires sur ces problèmes peuvent être trouvées ici et ici.

Ce guide comporte deux parties, la première concerne le fond des questions techniques soulevées par McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05), tandis que la seconde partie traite de ses applications à la reconstitution de Mann, Bradley et Hughes (1998) (MBH98). Le contexte plus large de la science du climat est discuté ici et les relations avec les récentes autres reconstitutions (« l’équipe de hockey ») sont traitées ici.

NB. Toutes les données utilisées dans le MBH98 sont librement téléchargeables sur ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/ (ainsi que des données supplémentaires dans Nature) et une description complète de l’algorithme).

[Read more…] about Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy Guide pratique pour comprendre la dernière controverse sur la « crosse de hockey »

A disclaimer Mise au point

by

Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml).
par Eric Steig

Les lecteurs du Wall Street Journal du 14 fév. 2005 ont pu avoir l’impression que RealClimate pourrait être associé à une organisation environnementale. Nous souhaitons préciser que bien que notre domaine soit hébergé par “Environmental Media Services”, et le communiqué de presse initial a été organisé par “Fenton Communications”, aucune de ces deux organisations n’était de quelque façon impliquée dans la planification initiale du site RealClimate, et n’a jamais eu quelque contrôle éditorial ou tout autre. Ni Fenton, ni EMS n’ont jamais payé aux auteurs de RealClimate.org quoique ce soit. Ni l’un ni l’autre ne nous ont rémunérés ou financent notre recherche. Tous ces faits toujours ont été clairement communiqué à quiconque le demandait (voyez par exemple: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml ).

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

Is Climate Modelling Science? La modélisation climatique est-elle de la science?

by

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? La modélisation climatique est-elle de la science?

On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

by

McIntyre and McKitrick (MM), in one of their many false claims regarding the Mann et al (MBH98) temperature reconstruction, assert that the “Hockey Stick” shape of the reconstruction is an artifact of the “non-centered” Principal Components Analysis (PCA) convention used by MBH98 in representing the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) data series. We already demonstrated the falsehood of this assertion here by showing (a) that the hockey stick pattern emerges using either the MM (centered) or MBH98 (non-centered) PCA conventions, but was censored by MM through an inappropriate application of selection rules for determining the number of Principal Component (PC) to retain, (b) that use of the correct number of PC series (5) to be kept with the MM (centered) convention retains the characteristic “Hockey Stick” pattern as an important predictor, and yields essentially the same temperature reconstruction as MBH98, and finally [Read more…] about On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick

A Welcoming Nature

by

Getting a serious paper into Nature or Science is deservedly hard. Getting a mention for your climate blog is apparently a little easier!

We are of course collectively very pleased that Nature has welcomed the RealClimate.org effort so forthrightly. We only hope that we will be able to match up to their expectations. As with anything new, done by inexperienced first-timers who really should be concentrating on their actual jobs, there are bound to be teething problems. One, alluded to in the editorial and accompanying news story, is who gets to decide what’s posted, and getting the balance right between inclusiveness and clarity.

[Read more…] about A Welcoming Nature

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? Comment savons-nous que l’augmentation récente du CO2 est due aux activités humaines ? (mise-à-jour)

by

Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

Det finns en svensk översättning tillgänglig här
Una traducción en español está disponible aquí.

par Eric Steig (traduit par Gilles Delaygue)

Note :Ceci est une mise-à-jour d’un article précédent, que beaucoup ont trouvé trop technique. L’original, ainsi qu’une série de commentaires, se trouvent ici.

Pendant les 150 dernières années, la concentration en dioxyde de carbone (CO2) a augmenté de 280 à 380 parties par million (ppm). Le fait que cette augmentation soit due pratiquement entièrement aux activités humaines est si bien établi qu’on le voit rarement remis en question. Pourtant, il est tout à fait raisonnable de se demander comment nous le savons.

(suite…)

[Read more…] about How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? Comment savons-nous que l’augmentation récente du CO2 est due aux activités humaines ? (mise-à-jour)

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).