by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
News from the IPCC
The IPCC’s latest efforts to bolster credibility are to increase the use of gray literature, and to adhere to strict geographic quotas for participants. For commentary, see
The Science 2.0 article hits hard. My first reaction to the use of gray science is that it is a really dumb move by the IPCC; one of its main claims to credibility was the use of peer reviewed journal articles. My second thought is to wonder whether only gray articles from green advocacy groups are allowed here, or they will also allow blog science and commentary.
With regards to the geographical quotas for participants, I have a forthcoming post on Climate for Corruption, which will discuss this issue.
What to make of this? It seems that expectations were very low going on, and the expectations were then exceeded on the low side. A few reactions:
The Guardian: ”Protest erupted in the Rio+20 conference centre on Thursday as civil rights groups carried out a “ritual rip-up” of a negotiating text that they condemn as a betrayal of future generations.“
Financial Post: “The “failure” of Rio+20 is a cause for celebration, even if you can’t afford the champagne and foie gras that ecocrats served themselves as their hopes for “Sustainia” retreated into the policy fog.”
For background and context, Andy Revkin has a series of articles at dotearth.
Kudos to the Royal Society and Geoffrey Boulton’s committee for their recent released report Science as an Open Society. The whole report is well worth reading, there are many gems in it. The main recommendations are:
- Scientists need to be more open among themselves and with the public and media
- Greater recognition needs to be given to the value of data gathering, analysis and communication
- Common standards for sharing information are required to make it widely usable
- Publishing data in a reusable form to support findings must be mandatory
- More experts in managing and supporting the use of digital data are required
- New software tools need to be developed to analyse the growing amount of data being gathered.
New data from Siberia
NSF has a press release (reported at WUWT) entitled “Remote Siberian Lake Holds Clues to Arctic and Antarctic Climate Change,” on a paper published in Science this week. This is very interesting.
2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia
Melles, Brigham-Grette, et al.
Abstract. The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn (NE Russia) provides a continuous high-resolution record from the Arctic spanning the past 2.8 Ma. The core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary, with maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation during marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31 ~4-5°C and ~300 mm higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.
Published online by Science, link to [abstract]