RealClimate logo


欢迎来到RealClimate

Filed under: — group @ 9 December 2004 - ( Français)

Climate science is one of those fields where anyone,regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding,feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies.This can be frustrating for scientists like ourselves who see agenda-driven ‘commentary' on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis.

许多科学家参与了教育公众的努力,并通过在流行杂志如EOSandNew Scientistor in the Comments section of journals.However,this takes time to put together,and by the time it's out,mainstream attention has often moved elsewhere.Since these rebuttals appear in the peer-reviewed literature,these efforts (in the long run) are useful.However,a faster response would sometimes be helpful in ensuring that the context of breaking stories is more widely distributed at the time.

Journalists with deadlines and scant knowledge of the field quite often do not know where to go for this context on papers that are being pushed by some of the partisan think-tanks or other interested parties.This can lead to some quite mainstream outlets inadvertently publishing some very dubious and misleading ideas.

RealClimate是一个由气候科学家为感兴趣的公众和记者提供的气候科学评论网站。We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.

In order to limit the scope to those issues where we can claim some competence,the discussion here is restricted to scientific topics.Thus we will not get involved in political or economic issues that arise when discussing climate change.The validity of scientific information is completely independent of what society decides to do (or not) betway体育手机版about that information.欢迎提出建设性意见和问题,as are guest articles from other scientists who may choose to contribute on an occasional basis.

42 Responses to "Welcome to RealClimate"

  1. 1
    Mark Goede 说:

    Question: Regarding the current trends of arctic melting,what is the chance that we will see an effect in the North Atlantic current anytime soon?What are the predictors that a result of a change to the NAC will bring (0%
    i.e,no real effect or "The Day After Tommorrow" effect?) Any thoughts?

    Response:We are working on a piece precisely on this subject.很快。– gavin

  2. 2
    Aaron 说:

    Finally!

    Someone's needed to do this for years.

    Well,for a while I thought something like theTalk.Origins网站将非常有用,but these days blogs (likeThe Panda's Thumb) are great,too.

    So,thanx very much for doing this.

  3. 3
    KC 说:

    Great to see a site dedicated to this topic.

  4. 帕特里克 说:

    I have added your site to the permanent listings on my weblog.I am very glad to see you making this effort,祝你一切顺利。

  5. 5
    周日 说:

    My question is what betway体育手机版about the entrapped methane in the permafrost that is being released into the atmosphere.Will it make the climate changes occur at a more rapid pace?这是否会使计划在Arti国家野生动物保护区进行的钻探变得更加困难或不可能?How betway体育手机版about the increased melting of the glaciers in Antartica?The loss of significant portions of the ice shelf that retarded the seaward movement seems to be absent in certain areas and that might presage a more rapid deterioration of the glaciers there.What is the outlook for world sea level rise given the combined effects of these phenomena?

  6. 6
    Karl 说:

    Great idea

  7. 7

    RealClimate–气候科学
    RealClimate – Climate Science…

  8. 8
    杰弗里·戴维斯 说:

    Thanks for this much-needed blog.We've long needed a site where information like this is readily available and digestible for the lay person.

  9. 9
    osf 说:

    Great idea.我希望你们能够对如何在大众媒体上报道科学进行一些改革。I will be interested to see if you are able to help reduce the unintended bias you refer to in this paragraph:

    Journalists with deadlines and scant knowledge of the field quite often do not know where to go for this context on papers that are being pushed by some of the partisan think-tanks or other interested parties.This can lead to some quite mainstream outlets inadvertently publishing some very dubious and misleading ideas.

    I hope you are successful.People I talk with outside the climate community really feel ambivalent.I commonly receive the question "Is climate change really happening?" I am sure you do too.

  10. tom 说:

    You state you won't be discussing economic issues but your first post out of the box makes reference to economic issues.Frankly,I don't see how you can separate the two,but perhaps I don't understand what you mean by economic issues.

    Response:The subtle distinction is that we won't discuss the economicimplicationsof the science.Obviously most of man-made impacts on climate are related to economics (industrial development for the most part).Sorry if that wasn't clear.– gavin

  11. 11
    holly 说:

    Great idea and a great start.I look forward to future posts and will be recommending this site widely.

  12. 12
    RD Alward 说:

    It was wonderful to learn of this site.I have already informed my local newspaper of its existence.I suggest that if everyone who visits this page would also take the time to notify their local news outlets,we just might start getting some more accurate reporting (ok,my idealist side is being exposed!!).

    再一次,thank you,thank you,thank you.

  13. 13
    Garry Culhane 说:

    Wonderful idea and I hope your group will not be daunted by the sheer work that may develop.

    Response:< /b> Thanks for your support.We will try hard to keep up,though we may not be able to respond to all posts.-迈克

    现在,对像我这样的非专家来说,非常简单地解释一下冯·斯托奇在《关于噪音数据的科学》一文中所做的,以及曼恩组方法的任何错误都是非常有帮助的。

    Response:< /b>von Storch et alpurport to test statistical methods used to reconstruct past climate patterns from "noisy" proxy data by constructing false proxy records ( "pseudoproxy" records) based on adding noise to model gridbox temperature series taken from a climate simulation forced with estimated past radiative forcing changes.Several other researchers have published similar studies in the past.One thing that makes the von Storch analysis different is that they use a simulation that exhibits larger forcing,and more variability than most simulations,the very same "GKSS" simulation (Gonzalez-Rouco et al,2003) discussed here.In theircommentary on the paper,Briffa and Osborn note that the results may not generalize to the actual world,其中,强迫变异性可能比GKSS模拟中要小得多。While von Storch et al focus on the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction method,they argue that their results generalize to other proxy reconstructions methods as well.-迈克

    我一直在重读冯·斯托奇关于什么是气候模型的文章,and so on,but also keep on coming out with the idea that Mann did just what Von Storch says shold be done.So then I scratch my head wondering,well,if you kick the model hard enough (50%) why should you be surprised if it then produces increasing amplitudes,like a pinball machine will default into "tilt" if you hit it hard enough,and 50% sounds pretty hard.

    Response:< /b> The von Storch paper has appeared too recently for responses to have made their way through the appropriate peer-review process.While we are already aware of some recent work arriving at非常different conclusions from von Storch et al,it is premature at this time to comment on that work.We hope to be able to comment more fully on the matter when this other work has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.Respecting the peer-review process,however,we prefer not to post any further comments on this matter until it has played out more fully in the peer-reviewed literature -mike]

  14. 14
    Ian 说:

    我的观点是,媒体和政策制定者经常引用关于人为诱发的气候变化的争议而不是共识。In recent years,这个IPCC,AGU,NAS,andAAAShave all issued statements arguing for the existence of evidence for such change.In a recent Scienceessay,Naomi Oreskes provides a survey of scientific abstracts (fromisi) relevant to climate change and reveals that the overwhelming majority of scientific literature does not refute this position.I think that this disparateness between scientist's conclusions and people's interpretations of them is a worthy topic for this website,厄瑞斯克的文章是这些讨论的宝贵证据。

  15. 15
    david 说:

    Thanks for the site!

    I have a couple of questions off the top of my head which don't fit in anywhere nicely.

    1) The IPCC models don't seem to include possible future contributions from methane hydrates.Does this omission have a sound scientific basis (with respect to short term models)?If an anthropogenic thermal anomaly this century will eventually (and inexorably) propogate to and destabalize significant amounts of methane hydrates in future centuries — shouldn't this be a consideration for policy makers?

    Response:It's not the IPCC models that don't include this,rather it is the scenarios that are used to estimate future atmospheric composition.Methane hydrates are just one of the current unknowns that are missing,there are many others.Modellers are working on including at least some of the more important projected changes (such as emissions from wetlands,或气候对甲烷氧化的影响)。but we still have some way to go before these are all pinned down.– gavin

    2) How well accepted and understood are astronomical forcing models and mechanisms.In particular,are the frequencies of these cycles sensitive to the discovery of new planetoids beyond Pluto?Is the paleoclimate record long enough and precise enough to convince scientists that astronomic forcing is real?Are the mechanisms by which astronomic forcing acts understood and has it been modeled?怪癖在我看来是最软弱的。It's period is relatively long relative to the climate record and theoretically it shouldn't really have that big of an impact on insolation.Are there alternative explanations for the 100,000 year cycle?In particular — something that explains why it is the dominant period in the last million years and is absent from many or most climate records that cover the previous million years?

    [Response:Orbital forcing is among the best known and understood features of climate forcing.We have accurate calculations for these changes going back or forward millions of years.After that,the degree of chaos in the solar system precludes accurate estimates.However,we still have some way to go before we fully understand how the climate reacts to this forcing,and in particular why 100,000 yrs has dominated for the last 8 cycles,but before that it was more like 40,000 years.Other ideas have been suggested,but current thinking is still that it is related to the orbital parameters in some way.– gavin]

  16. 16

    RealClimate: A Climate Site by Climate Scientists
    RealClimate is a new commentary site on climate science created by a number of working climate scientists for the public and working journalists.Climate science is one of those fields where anyone,regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding,

  17. 17
    miguel 说:

    伟大的网站。One question,do you have any insight into the phrase "global warming" vs."climate change".It seems to me like "climate change" has only started being used relatively recently.I wonder if this is an atempt by the disinformation types to make global warming sound less sinister,a la "estate tax" vs."death tax".

  18. 18
    Jim Norton 说:

    非常感谢你把这个博客放在一起。

  19. 19
    schlep 说:

    Thank you for bringing these topics to the masses!

  20. 20
    Salamander 说:

    To all involved in this project: THANK YOU so much.I have been wishing for just such a venue as this where serious dialog can take place between climate research scientists and a genuinely interested public.I can assure you that this is a much-needed and greatly-appreciated service you are offering.This URL has been added to my "short list" of reference sites.

  21. 二十一
    brahn 说:

    米盖尔-你对“气候变化”的猜测是正确的。betway体育手机版"global warming."

    Fromhttp://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/:
    [Republican communications guru Frank] Luntz advises that,"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming."… While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it,climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge" (p.142).

    This leads nicely into my questions for the site authors: While I understand your interest in avoiding "political or economic implications",will you be willing to call politicians on the carpet when they take stances that contradict well-understood science?

    Response:Yes.

  22. 22
    Reptile Rants 说:

    Real Climate
    Climate science is one of those fields where anyone,regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding,feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies.This can be frustrating for scientists like ourselves who see agenda-driv…

  23. 二十三
    alex 说:

    In response to post 17,I think using the phrase climate change may be a more accurate way of describing what we are observing.For one,the warming may not necessarily be global such that some regions may not face appreciable change in seasonal temperatures while others may be significantly warmer.Another reason to favor "climate change" is that it does not have the shelf-life that "global warming" does.By this,I imply that some sort of negative feedback may prevent the planet from persistent warming,thus making "global warming" innacurate.As we cannot be certain of continued warming,yet we are certain that our climate is changing,"climate change" versus "global warming" is a more accurately description.我不认为任何一个短语的使用会加强或削弱更大辩论的任何一方,rather we are trying to say exactly what we mean.

  24. 24
    Janne Sinkkonen 说:

    This site is great news.Just do not let it become a battleground between lobbyists and scientists.Expert commentary of popular (and arising) misconceptions is most important – responding to every comment is not and may even turn counterproductive.

  25. 25
    Emil Briggs 说:

    I would like to offer a suggestion for a discussion topic.Specifically an overview of climate models and simulation techniques.

    Regards
    Emil

  26. 26
    Adam Terando 说:

    In response to post 23:

    I agree and disagree with alex.On the one hand,climate change is a more accurate term.But it is also a sort of ‘cop-out',in the sense that climate is always changing,一直拥有,and always will.全球变暖是由人类引起的。At least that's how it's perceived in the public lexicon.是的,可能存在负反馈,温盐循环可能会停止,导致欧洲陷入深度冻结,但它仍然是由“全球变暖”造成的,主要是由人类造成的。However,I find myself using the term climate change and if people ask me,‘is the climate changing?'.I reply ‘yes and it's getting warmer and it's because of people.' Global warming has become a political term,so I feel hesitant to use it in a scientific context,but it is still an accurate term that does well to getting the public to think betway体育手机版about the consequences of our society.

  27. 27
    狼墨里森 说:

    恭喜来到一个伟大的地方,important function and content.

    Keep it up…

  28. 28

    Weblog zur Klimaforschung
    Das Weblog Real Climate ist am Freitag online gegangen.Renommierte Klimaforscher stellen
    dort aktuelle Themen zur Diskussion und liefern Hintergr � nde,die in der Berichterstattung
    h � ufig fehlen.Allersch � rfstes Willkommen![Industrial Technolowe…

  29. 29

    Das wird ein hei�er Sommer
    Climate science is one of those fields where anyone,regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding,feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies.This can be

  30. 三十

    Neues Klima博客von Experten
    Themenbezogene Blogs sind im Kommen,was mich besonders freut.;-) Nun haben sich weltweit neun teils sehr renommierte Klima-Wissenschaftler in dem rein pers�nlichen Gemeinschafts-Blog Real Climate organisiert.

  31. 31
    Donald L.安德森 说:

    Hurray!

    这个网站需要很长一段时间。Thanks to all you climate scientists for taking the time to respond quickly to the naysayer misinformation.

    Your site is already a gem!

  32. 32
    oliver 说:

    I wouldn't be surprised if you guys already had in mind what I want to suggest,but just in case,let me suggest that you write and collect a bunch of "explainers" that you provide as links from the home page,plus in particular an explainer betway体育手机版about modeling.Not climate modeling.Just modeling.我认为普通人很容易将带有参数值或“设置”的模型与特定设置下运行的精确预测以及与一系列设置(这些设置,may or may not encompass the universe of plausibility or "reasonability" and can be its own source of controversy),etc.我也认为大多数人并不真正欣赏建造模型的各种动机,running models,the process of testing and validating models and hence in the end why some models and some predictions are more worthy or credible than others.I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful,and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling,but I wanted to describe it in the abstract,just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas betway体育手机版about not just "the scientific process" but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

  33. 33
    Tim Jones 说:

    Thank you!

    你填补了一个空白,这让我很担心。

    Would you please explain radiative forcing and how existing atmospheric CO2 infrared opacity _will not_ substantially limit global warming caused by the additional emissions of CO2?

    Gerald Marsh offered this opinion in "A Global Warming Primer"
    (page 4 -excerpt)
    “辐射强迫被定义为对流层顶净向下辐射通量的变化,它是由对气候系统起外部作用的任何过程造成的;it is generally measured in W/m2.Examples are variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth and changes in the concentrations of infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere.Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by,for example,a factor of two does not double the amount of infrared radiation
    absorbed by this gas.其原因是:二氧化碳在波长为4.26时有三个吸收带。7.52,以及14.99微米(微米)。13地球的发射光谱,treated as a black body (no atmospheric
    absorption),山峰在15至20微米,并且随着波长的减小而迅速脱落。As a result,the carbon dioxide absorption bands at 4.26 and 7.52 microns contribute little to the absorption of thermal radiation compared to the
    band at 14.99 microns.Natural concentrations of carbon dioxide are great enough that the atmosphere is opaque even
    over short distances in the center of the 14.99 micron band.As a result,at this wavelength,the radiation reaching the tropopause from above and below the tropopause is such that the net flux is close to zero.

    If this were the whole story,adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would contribute nothing to the greenhouse effect and consequently could not cause a rise in the Earth's temperature.However,additional carbon dioxide does have an influence at the edges of the 14.99 micron band.Because of this marginal effect,the change in forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide concentration is proportional to the natural logarithm of the fractional change in concentration of this gas.Specifically,the IPCC gives

    dF = 6.3 ln (C/C0) W/m2

    where dF is the change in forcing,and C0 and C are the initial and final carbon dioxide concentrations.This approximation breaks down for very low concentrations and for concentrations greater than 1,000 ppmv,but is valid in the range of practical interest.The Earth's temperature is therefore relatively insensitive to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations,a doubling leading to a dF of only 4.4 W/m2."

    A clear explanation of radiative forcing,CO2 infrared opacity and how additional atmospheric CO2 will contribute to significant warming would be important to many of trying to explain the physics of global warming.

    Please seeGround Truth Investigationsto see a list of references and that I've added your site to my list of climate change resources.

  34. 34
    Jon Isham 说:

    I am thrilled betway体育手机版about this website: kudos,and keep it up.

    I have just sent the URL to many people in my own network,including folks who helped to run the Howard Dean campaign.Not to add a partisan edge;rather to suggest that — as Dean's campiagn showed in the realm of politics — you all may be able show in the realm of science the power of building networks and sharing infromation on the web.

    GOOD LUCK,and thanks.

  35. 35

    Very interesting.I hope that you can keep those of us who are well informed amateurs abreast of the facts.I would be interested in hearing your opinions on the effects of the natural climate change cycles vs.manmade factors.I have recently attended a lecture by Dr.David Dallmeyer of the U.of Ga.concerning data availble from ice cores concerning the natural patterns of 必威官网heating and cooling.

  36. 36
    ed_finerty 说:

    Very interesting site

    I am intrigued by the satellite timperature data.Do you plan on explaining why the sat temps and surface temps are not consistent

    Response: You can find a discussion of these issues in our"glossary"entry on the"MSU Temperature Record"and the associated links includingthis discussion in "Wikipedia".-迈克

  37. 37
    James B.Shearer 说:

    Currently RealClimate appears to be correcting errors by rewriting.The blogosphere frowns upon this,最好通过更新来进行更正,使原始材质保持可见。See for example Rebecca Blood'sWeblog Ethics.Is there a good reason RealClimate is not following standard blogging conventions?

    [Response: Fair point.We're thinking betway体育手机版about it – William]

  38. 38
    Ad van der Ven 说:

    You write: "… the discussion here is restricted to scientific topics.Thus we will not get involved in political or economic issues that arise when discussing climate change." Please,could you give on your website some addresses on "political or economic issues that arise when discussing climate change."

  39. 39
    Mark Asch 说:

    A skeptic of global warming recently pointed me toward an article by Richard S.Lindzen,the Alfred P.麻省理工学院斯隆气象学教授。这家伙显然有点态度问题,and I am not particularly enamored with the Cato Institute to begin with,but as layperson I am unqualified to refute him.He certainly does not agree with the majority of climate experts.Would any of you wizzes do me (and my bulletin board buddies) the fine service of assessing Lindzen's haughty assertions?The article is here:http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

    Many thanks for this interesting board,and any comments you care to provide on the article.

  40. 40
    Alex Rau 说:

    This is a fantastic development,每个人。Best wishes and I look forward to a lively,active series of discussions.

  41. 41
    Mike Doran 说:

    Lindzen has failed to appreciate the electrical and biological aspects of CO2 on cloud behaviors.

  42. 42
    Spencer Weart 说:

    Congratulations on the great idea for this blog,and what a pity I only learned betway体育手机版about you through Science magazine and not on,say,CNN.I'll try to help publicize you by posting a link on my links page网址:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm
    (it gets 200 or so visitors a month,every bit helps).

    If you need help in answering any historical question,please feel free to call on me or to add a link to the most appropriate essay(s) at my "Discovery of Global Warming" sitehttp://www.aip.org/history/climate.