{"id":408,"date":"2007-02-23T01:51:21","date_gmt":"2007-02-23T06:51:21","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=408"},"modified":"2007-03-22T21:31:21","modified_gmt":"2007-03-23T02:31:21","slug":"climate-reporting-in-physics-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/02\/climate-reporting-in-physics-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Reporting in Physics World Reportagem sobre o Clima na Physics World<\/lang_po>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"PhysicsWorld The February 2007 issue of PhysicsWorld<\/em> contains several articles relevant to climate research, with a main feature article on climate modelling<\/a> written by Adam Scaife, Chris Folland, and John Mitchell, and a profile<\/a> on Richard Lindzen<\/a> as well as an article on geoengineering<\/a> 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<\/a>‘, arguing that it would be wrong of PhysicsWorld<\/em> 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. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One thought that immediately struck me was: has PhysicsWorld<\/em> tried to make a ‘balanced report<\/a>‘, or does the issue of doubt and scepticism by itself merit the profile article? Is the scepticism or doubt really genuine<\/a> (doubt is the product)? To be fair, the article does bring up objections against some of Lindzen’s arguments (citing Gavin). However, I’d like to see a more consistent and critical article, as Lindzen’s arguments – at least the way they are echoed in PhysicsWorld<\/em> – are in my opinion inconsistent. <\/p>\n

Here is one example: Take Lindzen’s controversial claim that the good comparison between modelled and historical temperature evolution is an exercise in “curve fitting”. Written between the lines is the assumption that the climate models are driven with forcings based on historical GHG emissions. Later in the article Lindzen argues that the climate models used by the IPCC are far too sensitive to changes in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2<\/sub>. To me, these two statements say opposite things – and are thus in violation with each other. Because, either the models give a good description of the historic evolution or they don’t, given past GHGs, aerosol emissions and natural forcings (surely, Lindzen must have known about these simulations). <\/p>\n

So, why didn’t the magazine ask critical questions about these conflicting views, or at least comment on what appears to be faulty logic? Or, perhaps Lindzen bases his claim on other aspects of model evaluation? Lindzen argues that the effect of CO2<\/sub> on the temperature is small because the effect of additional CO2<\/sub> molecule decreases as the concentration increases, but at the same time, Lindzen also seems to forget – just for a moment – all the feedbacks which can enhance the warming. Gavin confounds him with an objection on a different point – that Lindzen has not taken the delay response properly into account, for instance due to the ocean thermal inertia. In the next paragraph, however, Lindzen maintains that climate models do not replicate the feedback mechanisms in the climate system, and later on refers to his hypothesis, the ‘infrared iris effect<\/a>‘, which more or less has been buried by the scientific community. <\/p>\n

Gavin makes this point in the article (also see an argument for why it is wrong<\/a>), but a final thought that dawned on me was that Lindzen is probably no better at calculating the feedback effects in his head than the climate models. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"PhysicsWorld A edi\u00e7\u00e3o de fevereiro de 2007 da PhysicsWorld<\/em> cont\u00e9m v\u00e1rios artigos relevantes em ci\u00eancias do clima, com um artigo principal em modelagem clim\u00e1tica<\/a> escrito por Adam Scaife, Chris Folland e John Mitchell, um texto<\/a> de Richard Lindzen<\/a>, bem como um artigo sobre geoengenharia<\/a> na se\u00e7\u00e3o ‘News & Analyses’. A revista tamb\u00e9m cont\u00e9m um artigo (Vivendo na Estufa, ‘Living in the greenhouse’) na se\u00e7\u00e3o ‘Lateral Thoughts’ que traz consigo um apanhado de poss\u00edveis analogias para um amplo leque de t\u00f3picos completamente n\u00e3o relacionados ao efeito estufa num sentido t\u00e9cnico, e um coment\u00e1rio editorial ‘T\u00f3pico Quente<\/a>‘, argumentando que seria um erro da PhysicsWorld<\/em> ignorar outros estudos que n\u00e3o seguem a linha consensual. Para ser mais preciso, o coment\u00e1rio editorial devota algumas linhas justificando o texto de Lindzen e a not\u00edcia sobre geoengenharia, com uma refer\u00eancia \u00e0 cita\u00e7\u00e3o de Feynman: “N\u00e3o existe dano em d\u00favida e ceticismo, pois \u00e9 atrav\u00e9s desses que novas descobertas s\u00e3o feitas”. S\u00e1bias palavras! No entanto, Eu n\u00e3o posso resistir de fazer algumas reflex\u00f5es. <\/p>\n

Um pensamento que imediatamente surgiu foi: A PhysicsWorld<\/em> tentou fazer ‘not\u00edcia equilibrada<\/a>‘, ou a quest\u00e3o sobre d\u00favida e ceticismo por elas pr\u00f3prias merecem o texto? Ser\u00e3o o ceticismo ou a d\u00favida realmente genu\u00ednos<\/a> (a d\u00favida seria o produto)? Para ser justo, o artigo traz obje\u00e7\u00f5es contra alguns argumentos de Lindzen (citando Gavin). Todavia, gostaria de ver um artigo mais consistente e cr\u00edtico, umavez que os argumentos de Lindzen – ao menos do modo como eles foram ecoardos na PhysicsWorld<\/em> – s\u00e3o em minha opini\u00e3o inconsistentes. <\/p>\n

Aqui est\u00e1 um exemplo: tome a controvertida cita\u00e7\u00e3o de Lindzen de que a boa concord\u00e2ncia entre a evolu\u00e7\u00e3o das temperaturas modeladas e hist\u00f3ricas \u00e9 um exerc\u00edcio de “ajuste de curva”. Escrita nas entrelinhas h\u00e1 a premissa de que os modelos clim\u00e1ticos s\u00e3o dirigidos por for\u00e7antes baseadas nas emiss\u00f5es hist\u00f3ricas de gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Mais adiante no artigo, Lindzen argumenta que os modelos clim\u00e1ticos usados pelo IPCC s\u00e3o muito sens\u00edveis \u00e0s mudan\u00e7as de concentra\u00e7\u00e3o atmosf\u00e9rica de CO2<\/sub>. Para mim, estas duas declara\u00e7\u00f5es dizem coisas opostas – e est\u00e3o, assim, violando uma a outra. Isso porque ou os modelos fornecem uma boa descri\u00e7\u00e3o da evolu\u00e7\u00e3o hist\u00f3rica ou n\u00e3o, dadas as passadas emiss\u00f5es de GEE e de aeros\u00f3is e as for\u00e7antes naturais (certamente, Lindzen deveria saber dessas simula\u00e7\u00f5es). <\/p>\n

Ent\u00e3o, por qu\u00ea a revista n\u00e3o perguntou quest\u00f5es cr\u00edticas sobre essas vis\u00f5es conflitivas, ou ao menos comentou onde parecia haver falta de l\u00f3gica? Ou, talvez Lindzen fundamenta suas id\u00e9as em outros aspectos de avalia\u00e7\u00e3o de modelos? Lindzen argumenta que o efeito do CO2<\/sub> sobre a temperatura \u00e9 pequeno pois o efeito de mol\u00e9culas adicionais de CO2<\/sub> diminuem a medida em que a concentrac\u00e3o aumenta, mas ao mesmo tempo, Lindzen parece tamb\u00e9m esquecer – s\u00f3 por um breve momento – todos os feedbacks que podem amplificar o aquecimento. Gavin o confunde com uma obje\u00e7\u00e3o sobre um ponto diferente – que Lindzen n\u00e3o considerou o atraso de resposta apropriadamente, por exemplo, devido \u00e0 in\u00e9rcia t\u00e9rmica do oceano. No par\u00e1grafo seguinte, entretanto, Lindzen mant\u00e9m que os modelos clim\u00e1ticos n\u00e3o replicam os mecanismos de feedback no sistema clim\u00e1tico, e posteriormente se refere a sua hip\u00f3tese, o ‘efeito \u00edris<\/a>‘, o qual de certo modo foi sepultado pela comunidade cient\u00edfica. <\/p>\n

Gavin faz essa observa\u00e7\u00e3o no artigo (veja tamb\u00e9m um argumento para o porque disso estar errado<\/a>), mas um \u00faltimo pensamento que surgiu em mim \u00e9 que Lindzen n\u00e3o deva provavelmente ser melhor em calcular efeitos de feedback em sua cabe\u00e7a do que os modelos clim\u00e1ticos. <\/p>\n

traduzido por Ivan B. T. Lima e Fernando M. Ramos<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/lang_po><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,26,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-408","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-rc-forum","8":"category-reporting-on-climate","9":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}