| Updates below |
Purveyors of climate doubt have seized on a news release from the Research Council of Norway with this provocative title: ?Global warming less extreme than feared?? The release describes new research finding that global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases will be on the low end of the persistently wide spread of projections by other research groups. (There?s a presentation describing the work below.)
[Jan. 27, 9:28 a.m. | Update |With Twitter assistance from Norway, the history of this news release is becoming clearer. It appears to be a fresh English translation of a release from October describing a study (Aldrin et al., below) that had been published. Read on for the rest of the initial post, but this incident no longer calls out for a "publicity before peer review" warning.]
[Post as published Jan. 26:] This may well end up being the case (I?d give it higher than even odds; even so, that doen?t justify an ?all clear? alert). But this particular analysis has, as yet, not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This means that although the release comes from a prestigious government science agency, the work needs a publicity before publication caution label. I created one just for this purpose (above) and will use it when needed.
This is hardly the first instance of a promotion-before-review approach to climate discourse. For instance, Richard Muller?s Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project took this path (one of that group?s five papers has finally made it into a journal). (This phenomenon is not limited to climate science, of course; here?s an example related to the fight over gas drilling.)
Earlier today I sent the following query to the Research Council of Norway and I?ll update this post when I hear more:
With some urgency I?m trying to get some clarity on the status of the climate sensitivity analysis that the Research Council promoted yesterday. Is it published in a peer-reviewed journal? The only relevant study I could find was published last year (see below).
Perhaps it?s more like a U.S. National Academy report? If so, please describe the level of peer review. The work is being?aggressively disseminated?by bloggers and news outlets that focus on any research casting doubt on the importance of greenhouse-driven warming.
Thanks for any input clarifying the status of the research and explaining why it was released now if it?s?not yet accepted for publication?
I included a link to a presentation on the paper (which you can find below) and to this relevant paper from last year:
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
Magne Aldrin,?Marit Holden,?Peter Guttorp,?Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Gunnar Myhre,?Terje Koren Berntsen
Here?s a presentation about the new analysis of global warming (the closest thing I?ve seen to the paper itself):
Norwegian Study Finds Limited Warming from Doubled Greenhouse Gases by Andrew Revkin
Finally, for those who want to dig in a bit, here?s a comment I received from Reto Knutti, a Swiss climate scientist, after I sent the Norwegian release and presentation around:
As you said, Aldrin et al. (DOI: 10.1002/env.2140) is published, whereas Skeie et al. is not yet as far as I know. But here are some thoughts that are largely independent of this paper to put these types of studies in context.
If you look at the Fig. 3a in our review (red lines at the top) you see that many previous estimates based on the observed warming/ocean heat uptake had a tendency to peak at values below 3?C (that review is from 2008). The Norwegian study is just another one of these studies looking at the global energy budget. The first ones go back more than a decade, so the idea is hardly new. The idea is always the same: if you assume a distribution for the observed warming, the ocean heat uptake, and the radiative forcing, then you can derive a distribution for climate sensitivity.
What is obvious is that including the data of the past few years pushes the estimates of climate sensitivity downward, because there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing. Also in some datasets the ocean warming in the top 700 meters is rather small, with very small uncertainties (Levitus GRL 2012), pushing the sensitivity down further. However, in my view one should be careful in over interpreting these results for several reasons:
a) the uncertainties in the assumed radiative forcings are still very large. Recently, Solomon et al. Science (2010, 2011) raised questions about the stratospheric water vapor and aerosol, and just days ago there was another paper arguing for a larger effect of black carbon (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml, a massive 280 pages?).
b) Results are sensitive to the data used, as shown by Libardoni and Forest DOI: 10.1029/2011GL049431 and others, and particularly sensitive to how the last decade of data is treated. Very different methods (detection attribution optimal fingerprint) have also shown that the last decade makes a difference (Gillett et al. 2011, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226).
c) The uncertainties in the ocean heat uptake may be underestimated by Levitus, and there are additional uncertainties regarding the role of deep ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al. 2011 Nature Climate Change).
Even though we have many of these studies (and I am responsible for a couple of them) I?m getting more and more nervous about them, because they are so sensitive to the climate model, the prior distributions, the forcing, the ocean data, the error model, etc. The reason for this, to a large extent, is that the data constraint is weak, so the outcome (posterior) is dominated by what you put in (prior).
It is important to note that the IPCC assessment of climate sensitivity is based on many lines of evidence (see Fig. 3 in our 2008 review for an overview). The observed energy budget is just one of them. The latest paleoclimate synthesis (Rohling et al. Nature 2012) supports the ?likely 2-4.5?C?, and all GCMs have sensitivities in the range 2-5?C, the mean in CMIP5 is above 3?C, and once you start evaluating models with observations that tends to get pushed upward (Fasullo and Trenberth, Science 2012).
Finally, note that the effect of the last few years of data is smaller on the transient climate response than on climate sensitivity. It?s the transient climate response (TCR) that determines the 21st century warming and peak warming.
7:52 a.m. |Update
I was remiss in not including a link to an excellent recent breakdown of the climate sensitivity question at RealClimate.org. Gavin Schmidt describes the different approaches to the question, and why there are essentially two conclusions, both surrounded by different kinds of uncertainty. His takeaway line:
[T]he ?meta-uncertainty? across the methods remains stubbornly high with support for both relatively low numbers around 2?C and higher ones around 4?C, so that is likely to remain the consensus range.
(There?s a part 2 post there focused on the role of clouds in warming.)
10:56 a.m. |Update
The same goes for Judith Curry?s long exploration of the mix of modeling and observations leading to the range of possible warming projections from a doubling of pre-industry carbon dioxide concentrations.
11:42 a.m. |Update
This paper is deeply relevant (Roger A. Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado sent a link as part of an e-mail discussion with other climate science and policy researchers:
Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy: The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity
- Jeroen van der Sluijs1,
- Jos?e van Eijndhoven2,
- Simon Shackley3?and
- Brian Wynne4
This paper adds a new dimension to the role of scientific knowledge in policy by emphasizing the multivalent character of scientific consensus. We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate-change field ? namely, climate sensitivity ? operates as an `anchoring device? in `science for policy?. In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus-estimate of 1.5?C to 4.5?C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades. Nevertheless, during these years climate scientific knowledge and analysis have changed dramatically. We identify several ways in which the scientists achieved flexibility in maintaining the same numbers for climate sensitivity while accommodating changing scientific ideas.
We propose that the remarkable quantitative stability of the climate sensitivity range has helped to hold together a variety of different social worlds relating to climate change, by continually translating and adapting the meaning of the `stable? range. But this emergent stability also reflects an implicit social contract among the various scientists and policy specialists involved, which allows `the same? concept to accommodate tacitly different local meanings. Thus the very multidimensionality of such scientific concepts is part of their technical imprecision (which is more than just analytical lack of resolution); it is also the source of their resilience and value in bridging (and perhaps reorganizing) the differentiated social worlds typical of modern policy issues. The varying importance of particular dimensions of knowledge for different social groups may allow cohesion to be sustained amidst pluralism, and universality to coexist with cultural distinctiveness.
brewers matt cain adastra holocaust remembrance day chesapeake energy dick clark death yom hashoah
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন