Climate science from climate scientists...
Due to some odd behaviour with our blog software, many people have had problems this week posting comments. We would like to apologise to our readers if they encountered these problems (bizarre redirections and WordPress login screens appearing where they shouldn’t).
We appear to have fixed the problem (fix from here for those interested), but please let us know if anything weird or unusual continues to occur. Thanks for your patience.
Normal service will resume after the break.
Guest commentary by Loretta Mickley, Harvard University
Every summer over much of the United States, we brace ourselves for heat waves. During these periods, the air turns muggy and usually smoggy. After a few days, a cold front moves in, sweeping away the pollution and ending the heat. Given that we are on a path towards global warming, atmospheric chemists are asking how climate change could affect air quality. Will warmer temperatures mean more pollution during these episodes? Will episodes last longer? Most importantly, what effect will changes in air quality have on human health?
Tous les étés, dans la plupart des régions des USA, nous nous préparons aux vagues de chaleur. Pendant ces périodes, l’air devient très humide et généralement brumeux. Après quelques jours, un front froid survient, balayant la pollution et mettant fin à la chaleur. Etant donné que nous nous acheminons vers un réchauffement global, les spécialistes de la chimie de l’atmosphère se demandent de quelle façon le changement climatique pourrait affecter la qualité de l’air. Des températures plus élevées signifieront-elles plus de pollution durant ces épisodes ? Ces épisodes dureront-ils plus longtemps ? Plus important : quels sont les effets des changements dans la qualité de l’air sur la santé humaine ?
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Pollution-Climate Connections
Guest commentary by David Vaughan
The recent retreat of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula has been widely attributed to warming atmospheric temperatures. There is, however, little published work describing the response of glacier margin positions to this regional climate change. In the paper Retreating Glacier Fronts on the Antarctic Peninsula over the Past Half-Century published this week in Science, we presented new data describing trends in 244 marine glacier fronts on the Antarctic Peninsula over the last 50 years. The data come from matching archives of over 2000 aerial photographs of the Antarctic Peninsula to satellite images, and represent about three years of work by Alison Cook. The work was carried out at British Antarctic Survey, but was funded by the US Geological Survey, as part of a larger programme to map change in the coastline of all Antarctica.
One of the most common mistakes that we have observed in discussions of climate and atmospheric change is confusion between the rather separate concepts of ozone depletion and global warming. This isn’t necessarily surprising given the scant information that most people pick up from the media. However, for many years meteorologists have been fighting a rearguard action to persuade people that the globe isn’t warming because there is more sun coming through the ozone hole. There are however important connections between the two issues that complicate potential actions that we might take to alleviate the different problems. This week, for instance, a new IPCC report was released that looked at the greenhouse warming potential of many of the replacement chemicals (HFCs and HCFCs) that were used to replace CFCs in aerosol cans and refrigeration units under the Montreal Protocol (and subsequent amendments).
Dans le débat sur le changement climatique, l’une des erreurs les plus courantes est la confusion entre la diminution de l’ozone et le réchauffement planétaire. Ceci n’est pas vraiment surprenant, compte tenu de la qualité discutable des informations propagées par les medias.
Depuis plusieurs années maintenant, les climatologues et météorologues tentent d’expliquer au public que si la planète se rechauffe, ce n’est pas parce qu’il y a davantage de rayonnement solaire qui passe par le trou dans la couche d’ozone. Les deux phénomenes sont cependant étroitement liés, ce qui complique l’adoption d’une stratégie pour s’attaquer à l’un ou l’autre de ces problèmes. Cette semaine, par exemple, un nouveau rapport de l’IPCC s’est interessé au possible effet de serre des produits chimiques (HCF et HCFC) utilisés pour remplacer les CFC dans les bombes aérosols et les systèmes de refroidissement dans le cadre du protocole de Montréal (et de ses amendements).
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt).
[Read more…] about Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
A “consensus view” amongst climate scientists holds that the Northern Hemisphere will be warming this month, as spring is coming. This is thought to be due to the Earth’s orbit around the sun and the inclination of the Earth’s axis, tilting the Northern Hemisphere progressively towards the sun throughout March and April and increasing the amount of solar radiation received at northern latitudes.
In a new novel, State of Euphoria, bestselling author Michael Crikey uncovers major flaws in this theory and warns against false hopes for the arrival of spring.
[Read more…] about Doubts about the Advent of Spring
One of the most visually compelling examples of recent climate change is the retreat of glaciers in mountain regions. In the U.S. this is perhaps most famously observed in Glacier National Park, where the terminus of glaciers have retreated by several kilometers in the past century, and could be gone before the next century (see e.g. the USGS web site, here, and here). In Europe, where there is abundant historical information (in the form of paintings, photographs, as well as more formal record-keeping), retreat has been virtually monotonic since the mid 19th century (see e.g. images of the glaciers at Chamonix). These changes are extremely well documented, and no serious person questions that they demonstrate long term warming of climate in these regions. New work published in Science (“Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records”) highlights these results, and uses them to make a new estimate of global temperature history since about 1600 A.D., which agrees rather well with previous, independent temperature reconstructions.
Un des exemples les plus irrésistibles visuellement du récent changement climatique est le recul des glaciers dans les régions montagneuses. Aux Etats-Unis, c’est peut-être ce qui est le plus fameusement observé au Glacier National Park où les terminus des glaciers se sont retirés de quelques kilomètres au cours du dernier siècle (voir e.g. le site web de USGS, ici, and ici)ici et ici). En Europe, où il y a des informations historiques importantes (sous la forme de peintures, photographies, aussi bien que sous forme d’enregistrements plus formels), le recul a été virtuellement monotone depuis le milieu du 19ème siècle (voir e.g. images de glaciers à Chamonix). Ces changements sont extrêmement bien documentés si bien qu’aucune personne sérieuse ne doute que cela démontre le réchauffement à long terme du climat dans ces régions. Un travail récent publié dans Science (“Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records”) souligne ces résultats et les utilise pour faire une nouvelle estimation de l’histoire globale des températures depuis environ 1600 A.D., et qui est en assez bon accord avec les précédentes reconstructions indépendantes de la température.
(suite…)
[Read more…] about Worldwide glacier retreat
Guest commentary from David Archer (U. Chicago)
The notion is pervasive in the popular and scientific literature that the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 released to the atmosphere is some fuzzy number measured most conveniently in decades or centuries. The reality is that the CO2 from a gallon out of every tank of gas will continue to affect climate for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years into the future.
Commentaire invité par David Archer (Univ. Chicago) (traduit par Thibault de Garidel)
La notion que la durée de vie du CO2 émis dans l’atmosphère par l’action humaine se situe entre quelques décennies � quelques siècles, est omniprésente dans les revues de vulgarisation scientifique ainsi que celles spécialisées. La réalité est que chaque litre de pétrole que nous utilisons en faisant le plein de notre voiture continuera � affecter le climat pendant les prochaines dizaines et mêmes centaines de milliers d’années.
(suite…)
[Read more…] about How long will global warming last?
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.
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.