Category: Climate science

The home front

[youtube]G8IozVfph7I[/youtube]

This is the trailer for Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s new movie Home, to be released worldwide on World Environment Day (June 5th) – on YouTube, DVD, and in cinemas and special screenings in 50 countries round the world. Arthus-Bertrand is best known for his aerial photography and the 3-million selling book Earth From Above. He describes Home thus:

We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth’s climate. The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and Home has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.

A good cause, and to judge from some of the “making of” clips at the YouTube site, a spectacular movie. The Alliance Francaise is organising a showing in Wellington, and there are related events in Dunedin, Christchurch and Auckland (I can’t find details of those at the time of writing — if someone knows more, please post in comments…).

[Update: See comments for full list of NZ showings, organised by AF.]

[Billy Bragg]

The twain must meet

richard-holmesSpeaking recently at the Hay Festival in the UK, biographer Richard Holmes attacked the “dangerous” division between the arts and the sciences, warning that the split could be fatal in the face of global warming. Fifty years ago the British novelist and scientist C P Snow gave a famous lecture, The Two Cultures, which pointed to a breakdown of communication between the sciences and the humanities. I was a young man at the time and can remember thinking it characterised my position adequately enough.  I was reasonably well informed in literature, history and theology but had very sparse knowledge when it came to the sciences. I’ve tried over the years since to get better acquainted with the major themes of science, but it’s pretty well in the nature of things that there’s no easy path from the humanities to the sciences. Traffic the other way flows much more readily and many scientists are very much at home in both worlds.

Continue reading “The twain must meet”

This year’s model

[youtube]5tRiZG-yR24[/youtube]

Take MIT’s global ocean model, assimilate data from NASA’s fleet of satellites, and run the whole thing through two of the world’s most powerful supercomputers on a much more detailed grid than used before, and you get this stunning animation of ocean currents from 1994 to 2002. It makes fascinating viewing: look for the complex whorls of currents to the southwest of NZ, or the loops of the Gulf Stream (red/white is fastest moving water).

This sort of detailed ocean modelling is important for capturing the interactions between atmosphere and ocean: useful for improving weather forecasting on short and medium term timescales, as well as improving climate projections on regional scales. NASA JPL press release here.

Bear necessities

Polarbear.jpgScientific papers are often dull, worthy screeds, difficult to read and hard to understand without considerable effort, but sometimes they are an absolute pleasure. I can heartily recommend Amstrup et al. Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”, Interfaces (2009) pp. 1-17 [PDF, Woods Hole press release] as a fine example of clarity and concision — and a classic slap down of “researchers” who haven’t taken the trouble to understand what they’re writing about. The rebuttal is of a paper by Armstrong, Green and Soon (AGS) (Armstrong et al. Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, Interfaces (2008) pp. 382-405 [PDF]) in the same journal last year. AGS was highly critical of two US Geological Survey papers that were instrumental in persuading the authorities to list polar bears as an endangered species. The AGS “audit” paper is extensively quoted in Ian Wishart’s Air Con, in the chapter where he explains why the bears aren’t in trouble, so by way of correction (because you won’t be getting one from him), here’s what Amstrup et al have to say…

Continue reading “Bear necessities”

Spinning wheel…

MITroulettebig.jpg

Feeling lucky? Spin these roulette wheels and see where the future lies: on the left, if the world takes decisive action to reduce emissions over the next 100 years, and on the right if we don’t. If we do: most likely an increase of 2 – 2.5ºC. If we don’t: most likely is 5 – 6ºC. Produced by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the wheels are a novel way to express the uncertainties associated with projections of future climate and the way they interact with policy decisions. The message for policy makers is clear, according to study co-author Ronald Prinn:

“There’s no way the world can or should take these risks,” Prinn says. And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going to make it worse,” Prinn says.

For a reminder of just what six degrees means, I recommend Mark Lynas. George Monbiot suggests that climate cranks will object to model projections like these:

Climate change deniers hate these models. Why, they say, should we base current policy on scenarios and computer programmes rather than observable facts? But that’s the trouble with the future: you can’t observe it. If you reject the world’s most sophisticated models as a means of forecasting likely climate trends, you must suggest an alternative. What do they propose? Gut feelings? Seaweed? Chicken entrails?

Tea leaves, obviously…

[Blood, Sweat & Tears]