Изменение климата
- Автор темы FueGo
- Дата начала
Спасибо, а можно линк на источник?
Мне непонятно как предыдущий график площади льда в миллионах кв. км коррелирует с графиком обьема в тысячах куб. км, хоть бы и помесячно?
И вообще это морской лёд, а как же континентальный?
Источник графиков (откуда он инфу взял - пишет внизу каждого графика):
Antarctic: Sea-Ice Concentration/Extent/Thickness
My visualizations: Arctic Climate Seasonality and Variability Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentration Arctic Sea Ice Volume and Thickness Arctic Temperatures Antarctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentrat…
zacklabe.com
З.Ы. Вот, видишь, чо дееццо? Пришёл человек, сделал вброс, и удалился. Мы тут начинаем смотреть, сравнивать, сопоставить.
А где были эти люди, когда площадь и/или объём таки росли, причём это было совсем недавно?
#авоттак
Где вы были 8 лет.Источник графиков (откуда он инфу взял - пишет внизу каждого графика):
Antarctic: Sea-Ice Concentration/Extent/Thickness
My visualizations: Arctic Climate Seasonality and Variability Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentration Arctic Sea Ice Volume and Thickness Arctic Temperatures Antarctic Sea Ice Extent and Concentrat…
З.Ы. Вот, видишь, чо дееццо? Пришёл человек, сделал вброс, и удалился. Мы тут начинаем смотреть, сравнивать, сопоставить.
А где были эти люди, когда площадь и/или объём таки росли, причём это было совсем недавно.
Когда площадь и объем растут или уменьшаются по чуть-чуть, не выходя за 1-2 стандартных отклонения, то это не очень интересно. Но то, что произошло за последние несколько лет и происходит сейчас это другое.
У тебя нет этому объяснения. Верно же? Отчего же вдруг скачок? Пытаться объяснить - одно. Приходить и заявлять, что это всё антропогенное? Так и может рост - тоже антропогенный? Что, млйацць, изменилось за 8 лет?
Да ладно 8 лет. Почему в 1980-81 (?) не вопили про падение "надоев"? А ведь были очень близки к сегодняшним показателям?
Когда будет снова рост, а он, статистически, будет, то опять будет молчание?
Несерьёзно это.
З.Ы. Самое начало графика, очень похоже на сегодняшние показания.
New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice
Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.By Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, Ian Eisenman, Sally Zhang, Shantong Sun and Aaron Donohoe11 February 2022
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Sea ice covers the ocean surrounding Antarctica, forming a key component of the coupled ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere system in southern high latitudes that helps regulate climate, ocean circulation, and marine ecosystems. The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice.
The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent stands in stark contrast to conditions in the Arctic, where sea ice extent has declined significantly—by about 2 million square kilometers, or about 20%, over the past 40 years. Much of the observed loss of Arctic sea ice, which is in general agreement with expectations from climate models, has been attributed to anthropogenic global warming.
The trend in Antarctic sea ice, meanwhile, has confounded scientists—most climate models indicate that Antarctic sea ice extent should have decreased over the past several decades. Here we discuss results from three recent independent studies that all applied a “nudging” technique to the same climate model to study the influences of different processes on Antarctic sea ice extent.
Where Models and Observations Differ
The state of sea ice is usually described in terms of its aerial extent, which has been measured since 1979 by satellite platforms that detect differences in microwave emissivity of sea ice versus open ocean. The inability of climate models to simulate satellite-observed Antarctic sea ice trends adds uncertainty to our projections of how this sea ice will change through the 21st century.These model simulations, which are widely used to understand and predict climate change more broadly (e.g., for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports), are run using observed (for past time periods) or prescribed (for future time periods) conditions, called external forcings. These forcings include factors such as the concentrations and compositions of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere. However, these models are also “free-running” throughout their simulations—that is, they do not assimilate (incorporate) any new weather information as the model is running.
In the past decade or so, researchers have sought to unravel the mechanisms controlling Antarctic sea ice extent and to explain shortcomings in models. Many mechanisms have been proposed, some involving other environmental changes that have taken place in Antarctica. Examples of these changes include those in the size and shape of the stratospheric ozone hole, atmospheric circulation patterns (some of them as a result of the ozone hole), precipitation and temperature, surface ocean freshening, and poorly constrained land ice calving events.
One novel approach to identify the mechanisms behind observed trends is to use a nudging technique. In this technique, one or several variables in a climate model are relaxed, or nudged, toward an observed value (over either the whole model domain or a part of it) while the rest of the model is left unchanged (i.e., free-running). A comparison of three recent studies in which winds, ice drift, and sea surface temperatures were nudged individually or in combination yields valuable insights into the influence of these factors on Antarctic sea ice extent.
Winds and Ice Drift
Antarctic sea ice is strongly coupled to the overlying atmosphere through winds, air temperatures, and other factors. Because sea ice drift is strongly controlled by surface winds, trends in surface winds can create corresponding trends in sea ice drift [e.g., Holland and Kwok, 2012]. Wind can also indirectly affect sea ice across different seasons through its influence on the open ocean (e.g., by affecting mixing of the upper ocean layers and the heat fluxes between the ocean and atmosphere). For example, spring winds that lead to summer cooling of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) may enhance sea ice formation in the subsequent fall freeze-up.
Over the past 40 years, significant trends have been observed in atmospheric circulation over Antarctica. These trends, which are important for sea ice, include a strengthening of the westerlies and a deepening of the cyclonic Amundsen Low. The trends are a result of complex interactions between natural (internal) variability and external forcings such as changes in atmospheric ozone and greenhouse gases. Yet climate models tend to underestimate coupling between winds and sea ice as well as these decades-long atmospheric circulation trends [e.g., Holland et al., 2017].
To isolate and quantify the impact of winds on Antarctic sea ice, Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. [2021] recently simulated conditions in the region. We used the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System Model Version 1 Large Ensemble (CESM1-LENS), with standard historical and 21st century forcings from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5, which is the broad climate modeling effort that informed the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report). In this study, the modeled winds (speeds and directions) above the atmosphere’s boundary layer were nudged to match observations from 1979 to 2018 for latitudes above 45°.
Under this configuration, the model winds were constrained to follow the past observations over these high latitudes, but all other processes in the model, including the sea ice–atmosphere coupling at the surface, were left unconstrained. In this work, half of the discrepancy between the observed trend in total sea ice extent around Antarctica since 1979 and the projections of its extent from the CESM1-LENS was eliminated. This result suggests that winds play a major role in the observed trends but are not the only factor leading to Antarctic sea ice expansion. Trends in regional sea ice extent in this experiment showed spatial patterns similar to observations, yet as with the overall trend, the calculated regional trends were still biased toward smaller ice extents relative to observations.
To investigate the impact of wind-driven ice motion on sea ice expansion from another angle, Sun and Eisenman [2021] ran separate experiments with CESM1 that directly nudged sea ice drift in the model to match satellite-derived drift observations from 1992 to 2015. This approach eliminated possible model biases introduced by simulating the coupling between winds and sea ice drift and thus had the advantage of isolating the effects of ice motion alone. However, it had the disadvantage of not accounting for potential indirect effects of winds on sea ice (such as by summer winds over open ocean), thus omitting processes that could drive ice expansion. In their results, Sun and Eisenman show that their simulations reproduce a significant portion of the observed sea ice trend and also capture regional patterns.
Southern Ocean Surface Temperatures
Antarctic sea ice is bordered by the ice-free Southern Ocean, which itself has experienced cooling SSTs over recent decades. This cooling trend is partly due to natural variability and partly due to upwelling currents that bring to the surface deep waters that have not yet warmed because of anthropogenic climate change [e.g., Armour et al., 2016].Most climate models do not simulate the observed cooling of the Southern Ocean, and thus, this model bias may contribute to inaccurate simulation of Antarctic sea ice trends. If a model did reproduce the observed Southern Ocean SST cooling, would it also simulate observed sea ice trends?
Zhang et al. [2021] addressed this question through ensemble modeling with CESM1 that nudged Southern Ocean SST anomalies to match the observed anomalies from 1979 to 2013. In these experiments, the ensemble mean Antarctic sea ice trend over this period is near zero, meaning there was no change in extent. This trend compares with a calculated loss of 0.36 million square kilometers of sea ice per decade in the free-running CESM1-LENS model and an actual observed gain of 0.23 million square kilometers per decade. Thus, the SST nudging compensates for 60% of the model bias seen with CESM1-LENS (0.36 million out of 0.59 million square kilometers per decade).
However, regional sea ice trends seen in these SST-nudged experiments are rather different from observations, with the model showing regional sea ice extent loss in some regions where increases were observed and vice versa. This difference hints that regional patterns of wind and ice drift, which the SST-nudged experiments did not constrain, are crucial for understanding regional trends in sea ice extent.
Winds and Sea Surface Temperatures Acting Together
To further assess the role of Southern Ocean SSTs, Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. [2021] ran another set of experiments in which both winds and Southern Ocean SST anomalies were nudged to match observations from 1979 to 2018. In these experiments, the overall sea ice trend was essentially zero, compared with the 0.4 million square kilometers lost per decade calculated in CESM1-LENS from 1979 to 2018 and with the observed trend of 0.1 million square kilometers added per decade. Thus, these experiments in which both winds and SSTs were nudged captured 80% of the discrepancy between the observed trend and that simulated by CESM1-LENS. The regional sea ice trends in these experiments were only slightly improved compared to the regional sea ice trends in the winds-only nudged experiments, indicating that winds are more important than remote SSTs for regional sea ice trends.Taken together and comparing a common 1992–2015 period, these three studies suggest that both Southern Ocean SST cooling and winds and sea ice drift have contributed to the growth of sea ice extent around Antarctica (Figure 1). There is certainly still more complexity to unravel, though. For example, simply adding the effects of the SST-nudged simulation to either the wind- or direct ice drift–nudged simulations appears to overshoot the observed trend, which is likely because Southern Ocean SSTs and winds are not independent of each other. Indeed, in the wind-nudged simulations by Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. [2021], the Southern Ocean shows weaker warming than in the free-running version of the model, hinting that these factors are coupled.
Still, these studies bring us closer to understanding the surprising behavior of Antarctic sea ice. They also highlight the potential of novel nudging experiments to quantify the effects of specific processes on climate change, and they pose new questions such as what drove Southern Ocean cooling and trends in winds. With continued observations and experiments, we may eventually solve a mystery that has long puzzled scientists, and we will be better positioned to forecast vital and interacting changes in sea ice and climate.
Acknowledgments
Funding for these projects was provided by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Antarctic Program (PLR1643436, Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. [2021]) and Office of Polar Programs (OPP-1643445, Sun and Eisenman [2021]). All authors acknowledge high-performance computing support from the Cheyenne supercomputer and NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, sponsored by NSF.References
Armour, K. C., et al. (2016), Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport, Nat. Geosci., 9(7), 549–554, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2731.Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., et al. (2021), Impact of winds and Southern Ocean SSTs on Antarctic sea ice trends and variability, J. Clim., 34(3), 949–965, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0386.1.
Holland, P. R., and R. Kwok (2012), Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift, Nat. Geosci., 5(12), 872–875, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1627.
Holland, M. M., et al. (2017), Springtime winds drive Ross Sea ice variability and change in the following autumn, Nat. Commun., 8(1), 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00820-0.
Sun, S., and I. Eisenman (2021), Observed Antarctic sea ice expansion reproduced in a climate model after correcting biases in sea ice drift velocity, Nat. Commun., 12(1), 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21412-z.
Zhang, X., C. Deser, and L. Sun (2021), Is there a tropical response to recent observed Southern Ocean cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48(5), e2020GL091235, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091235.
Author Information
Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth (edwardbw@uw.edu), University of Washington, Seattle; Ian Eisenman, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Sally Zhang, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo.; Shantong Sun, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena; and Aaron Donohoe, University of Washington, SeattleCitation: Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., I. Eisenman, S. Zhang, S. Sun, and A. Donohoe (2022), New perspectives on the enigma of expanding Antarctic sea ice, Eos, 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220076. Published on 11 February 2022.
New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice - Eos
Recent research offers new insights on Antarctic sea ice, which, despite global warming, has increased in overall extent over the past 40 years.
eos.org
Одно за другим, исследования "поведения" антарктических льдов, (некоторые прежние цитировались в теме несколько лет назад), указывают на то, что нихрена непонятно, но тут приходит @Chayok, вбрасывает амбивалентные фразы про "то, что происходит сейчас это другое...". Опять приводятся доводы, про то, что нихера не понятно, а оне - опять ... "это другое". Что другое-то?
И снова... Так и живём. Благо, не скучно 🙂.
То есть ответ на вопрос "почему у китайских ученых и правительства схожие с западными учеными и правительствами выводы насчет АГП" таков: у КНР нет своей науки, китайские ученые не умеют собирать и анализировать данные, и всё списывают у запада и друг у друга.
Ну, ок.
Китай прямо заинтересован в экономической экспансии, в т.ч. путём (поддержки) нагнетания АГП истерии.
Наука, как и всё прочее в КНР, сидит под КПК, как им скажут, так и раскорячатся.
Как всё это *может* быть связано и зачем?
Помимо того, что пр-ва, на фоне истерии, переводятся из ЕС в Китай, из-за орбитальной разницы в регуляциях, намёк на разгадку, ещё и тут - совсем свежак:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/33UPYNQ465JD3BGDW77WDVNVSY.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Простыми словами: из-за АГП истерии (подпитываемой в т.ч. Китаем), в краю полезных идиотов, читай - ЕС, вводят запреты на авто с ДВС, и мощные преференции на электроавтомобили. Европейская автопромышленность оказывается абсолютно неготова конкурировать с темпами пр-ва и стоимостью таких авто, заваливаемых на европейские рынки Китаем.
Вовсе недавнее:
Не, можно, конечно, предположить, что никаких задних мыслей у китайцев в этом вопросе нет, и они абсолютно не желают ни кем манипулировать, а всё лишь и исключительно по совести, ...и, кагриццо, "I could agree with you, but then we both will be wrong"
.
И никаких конЬспираций. Факты и формальная логика.
Наука, как и всё прочее в КНР, сидит под КПК, как им скажут, так и раскорячатся.
Как всё это *может* быть связано и зачем?
Помимо того, что пр-ва, на фоне истерии, переводятся из ЕС в Китай, из-за орбитальной разницы в регуляциях, намёк на разгадку, ещё и тут - совсем свежак:
EU to investigate 'flood' of Chinese electric cars, weigh tariffs
The European Commission launched an investigation on Wednesday into whether to impose punitive tariffs to protect European Union producers against cheaper Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports it says are benefiting from state subsidies.
www.reuters.com
Простыми словами: из-за АГП истерии (подпитываемой в т.ч. Китаем), в краю полезных идиотов, читай - ЕС, вводят запреты на авто с ДВС, и мощные преференции на электроавтомобили. Европейская автопромышленность оказывается абсолютно неготова конкурировать с темпами пр-ва и стоимостью таких авто, заваливаемых на европейские рынки Китаем.
Вовсе недавнее:
Не, можно, конечно, предположить, что никаких задних мыслей у китайцев в этом вопросе нет, и они абсолютно не желают ни кем манипулировать, а всё лишь и исключительно по совести, ...и, кагриццо, "I could agree with you, but then we both will be wrong"
.И никаких конЬспираций. Факты и формальная логика.
Графики такие, сделанные не пойми кем, всегда надо перепроверять. Захожу на ссылку, которую дают внизу этого графика:
Найти там данные по объему антарктического льда непросто, но так как я человек не ленивый -- нашел там в списке публикаций вот эту работу 2022 года:
Смотрим там на график аномалий по морскому антарктическому льду:
Всё хорошо, прекрасная маркиза!
---
И можем у того же мужика глянуть теперь, а что там с арктическим льдом:
Тоже все хорошо, прекрасная маркиза.
На это же есть уже выше ответ. Включая статью. Да, есть графики по годам. И? Уже известна причина?
Дыкк, гляди. Кто ж запрещает?---
И можем у того же мужика глянуть теперь, а что там с арктическим льдом:
Тоже все хорошо, прекрасная маркиза.
Это полезно. Когда говорим про Антарктику, перескакивать на Арктику.
.Как будто об этом не было речи ранее в теме. Не единожды. Поиск прекрасно работает.
Ты настолько неуклюжий демагог и подтасовщик, что от общения в подобном ключе начинает тошнить. (Выступлю в твоём стиле и в этом месте рекомендую посетовать на академическое табу на ad personam.)
Можешь продолжать придумывать за оппонента его слова и лихо их парировать из домашних заготовок.
Я в подобном не участвую.
Итак, другая версия: высшее политическое руководство Китая понимает неверность теории АГП, но было принято решение поддерживать видимость правильности этой теории в неких своих целях.
Обдумываем, что тут надо: политическое руководство страны обязано довести своё решение до китайских ученых (чтобы от них шли укладывающиеся в АГП данные и анализ оных) и до научных изданий (чтобы не дай бог не опубликовали какого-то правдоруба). Требуется проинформировать или промыть мозги и части бюрократии, чтобы та не возмущалась, зачем, например, Китай зарубил в последние пару лет почти половину своих проектов угольных электростанций в других странах.
Я всё правильно описываю?
"Скажут", да. Я помню как ты возмущался, когда я называл противников АГП сторонниками теории заговора. А сейчас сам говоришь, что считаешь, что КПК прямо приказывает китайским ученым фальсифицировать климатологические данные, дабы дурить голову кому-то на западе.
Пока что я пытаюсь понять как мои оппоненты объясняют схожесть выводов ученых и политических руководств весьма разных стран мира. Если после того как я обобщаю моё понимании позиции оппонентов они не пытаются что-то уточнить, а вместо этого гордо пытаются выйти из дискуссии -- ну что же, может это потому, что я такой вот ужасный демагог.
Но может и не потому.
Знал и раньше, и соглашусь с @Adam Sniper, демагог ты заправский. No integrity whatsoever.
Причина "перелома" в 2015? Мне не известна, я не специалист. И?
Почему? Потому что фразу "Наука, как и всё прочее в КНР, сидит под КПК, как им скажут" не надо воспринимать как указание на заговор? Ок.
И снова жир течет с экрана...
Так и хочется спросить - сколько тебе лет... нет, не так:
сколько тебе было лет, когда СССР развалился? При советской власти успел пожить? Известно ли тебе, как устроены и работают коммунистические диктатуры?
Не знакомы люди с принципом: дадим стране угля! мелкого, но доуя.
2023 год на дворе, а они удивлённые зенки строят (
China’s fake science industry: how ‘paper mills’ threaten progress
The country has become a prolific producer of academic research but fraudulent studies risk serious real-world consequences
www.ft.com
China’s fake science industry: how ‘paper mills’ threaten progress
The country has become a prolific producer of academic research but fraudulent studies risk serious real-world consequences.
Eleanor Olcott in Hong Kong and Clive Cookson and Alan Smith in London
MARCH 28 2023
As part of his job as fraud detector at biomedical publisher Spandidos, John Chesebro trawls through research papers, scrutinising near identical images of cells. For him, the tricks used by “paper mills” — the outfits paid to fabricate scientific studies — have become wearily familiar.They range from clear duplication — the same images of cell cultures on microscope slides copied across numerous, unrelated studies — to more subtle tinkering. Sometimes an image is rotated “to try to trick you to think it’s different”, Chesebro says. “At times you can detect where parts of an image were digitally manipulated to add or remove cells or other features to make the data look like the results you are expecting in the hypothesis.” He estimates he rejects 5 to 10 per cent of papers because of fraudulent data or ethical issues.Spandidos, based in Athens and London, accepts a large volume of papers from China, with around 90 per cent of its output coming from Chinese authors. In the mid-2010s, independent scientists accused Spandidos of publishing papers with results that recycled the same sets of data. As part of its response to the allegations, the publisher is using a team of in-house fraud detectors to weed out and retract fake research.Over the past two decades, Chinese researchers have become some of the world’s most prolific publishers of scientific papers. The Institute for Scientific Information, a US-based research analysis organisation, calculated that China produced 3.7mn papers in 2021 — 23 per cent of global output — and just behind the 4.4mn total from the US.At the same time, China has been climbing the ranks of the number of times a paper is cited by other authors, a metric used to judge output quality. Last year, China surpassed the US for the first time in the number of most cited papers, according to Japan’s National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, although that figure was flattered by multiple references to Chinese research that first sequenced the Covid-19 virus genome.The soaring output has sparked concern in western capitals. Chinese advances in high-profile fields such as quantum technology, genomics and space science, as well as Beijing’s surprise hypersonic missile test two years ago, have amplified the view that China is marching towards its goal of achieving global hegemony in science and technology.That concern is a part of a wider breakdown of trust in some quarters between western institutions and Chinese ones, with some universities introducing background checks on Chinese academics amid fears of intellectual property theft.But experts say that China’s impressive output masks systemic inefficiencies and an underbelly of low-quality and fraudulent research. Academics complain about the crushing pressure to publish to gain prized positions at research universities.“To survive in Chinese academia, we have many KPIs [key performance indicators] to hit. So when we publish, we focus on quantity over quality,” says a physics lecturer from a prominent Beijing university. “When prospective employers look at our CVs, it is much easier for them to judge the quantity of our output over the quality of the research,” he adds.The world’s scientific publishers are becoming increasingly alarmed by the scale of fraud. An investigation last year by their joint Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) concluded: “The submission of suspected fake research papers . . . is growing and threatens to overwhelm the editorial processes of a significant number of journals.”The problem is that no publisher — even the most vigilant — has the capacity to weed out all the frauds. Retractions are rare and can take years. In the meantime scientists may be building on a fake paper’s findings. In the biomedical sphere this is all the more worrying when the aim of a lot of research is the development of treatments for serious diseases.Bernhard Sabel, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, is one of many journal editors calling for “swift global action to restore the health of the scientific record and to prevent the erosion of trust in science”.“Science and ‘true love’ have two things in common: both are infatuated by passion, and both rely on trust,” Sabel says. “If trust is lost, it is very hard to go back.
”Brokers and ‘busybodies’
The proliferation of dubious research that has accompanied China’s emergence as a scientific and technological powerhouse has caught the attention of a number of independent scholars who are policing the country’s output.One of them is David Bimler, a psychologist formerly at Massey University in New Zealand. He identified 150 biomedical papers from Jilin University that used the same few data sets and concluded that the institution had an internal paper mill. Jilin University was cited by two other experts who spoke to the Financial Times as a top offender for generating fake research. Jilin University did not respond to a request for comment.“They probably never thought that busybodies would start paying attention to their papers, because they didn’t try to hide the mass production very well,” Bimler says.The publishers’ organisation Cope describes paper mills as “profit oriented, unofficial and potentially illegal organisations that produce and sell fraudulent manuscripts that seem to resemble genuine research”.Botanist Cathie Martin says the Chinese researchers who work in her UK plant science lab are under pressure to publish if they want to progress back homeEstimates of the extent of fake scientific output vary enormously, from 2 per cent to 20 per cent or more of published papers. Extrapolating from his own research, Sabel puts paper mills’ global revenues at a minimum of €1bn a year and probably much more. There is general agreement that China is one of the world’s worst offenders, Sabel says, though Cope points out the paper mills are “by no means confined to China”.Online brokers selling written-to-order papers proliferate on Chinese ecommerce sites such as Taobao. One broker advertising recently on Taobao charged clients $800 for a submission to a middle-tier domestic medical publication.“Scientific misconduct is an organised practice and has been run as a business almost always half openly,” says a Chinese medical researcher based in the US. She explains that fraudulent papers from low-tier universities, which use cheaper paper mills, are easier to spot. They tend to recycle the same fraudulent data sets multiple times, while academics at more prestigious universities may purchase “leftover” experimental data from other researchers.Beijing has introduced penalties on the use of paper mills, including banning offending researchers from applying for government funding. But weak enforcement means the practice is still rife.Chesebro says that a typical red flag is when authors refuse to share the underlying data that supports their hypothesis. “I’ve seen every excuse. Two dozen times, researchers have said their computer was broken. I have heard of five author deaths, a dozen or so authors that left the institute and are no longer contactable,” he says.Microbiologist Elisabeth Bik found in a study of 20,000 biomedical papers that those from China had a higher than average chance of containing inappropriately duplicated images © Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty ImagesWhile academics around the world have to publish to advance their careers, the pressure in China is exacerbated by the scale of competition fighting for limited resources. The ISI estimates that there are more than 2mn researchers in China competing for funds from central and local governments. The physics lecturer says this creates an “institutionalised incentive to cheat” to hit targets for citations and publication output. Academics that publish in top journals are awarded cash bonuses at some universities, although this practice is increasingly frowned on.Cathie Martin, a botanist at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, who runs exchanges and joint programmes with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is enthusiastic about the abilities of the Chinese researchers who work in her plant science lab. But she is well aware of the pressures on them.“All aspects of scientific research in China are based on publications — not only the positions that you are offered but the grade of position,” she says. “If one of my guys is looking for a position back in China, very often they’ll be told: ‘You can apply to our institution if you get one more paper’, and then they’ll tell you the level of the journal you have to publish in.”The medical sphere has a particularly bad reputation for producing fake research because clinicians are required to publish to climb the hospital hierarchy, forcing time-poor doctors to outsource to paper mills.Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist in California who highlights cases of bad science, was part of a team that examined 20,000 biomedical papers from authors around the world and found that 800 had instances of “inappropriately duplicated images”. “Papers from China had a higher than average chance of containing problematic images,” she says.Prominent scientists have been found to produce dodgy research, too. Bik says she uncovered 50 papers by a well-known immunologist working in China “with varying problems from small to heavily manipulated images”. The Chinese government decided after an official review that “he was not responsible for any of these manipulated images”, Bik adds. “He got a little slap on the wrist but nothing serious. He is still publishing.” Can you spot the image manipulation?© © Source: Retracted paper: Overexpression of NTRK1 Promotes Differentiation of Neural Stem Cells into Cholinergic Neurons by Limin Wang, Feng He, Zhuoyuan Zhong, Ruiyan L , Songhua Xiao , Zhonglin Liu via PubPeer/Elisabeth Bik (doi: 10.1155/2015/857202)Info© © Source: Retracted paper: Overexpression of NTRK1 Promotes Differentiation of Neural Stem Cells into Cholinergic Neurons by Limin Wang, Feng He, Zhuoyuan Zhong, Ruiyan L, Songhua Xiao, Zhonglin Liu via PubPeer/Elisabeth Bik (doi: 10.1155/2015/857202)InfoTwo fluorescent microscopy images in a paper authored by Chinese academics purport to show the results of different experiments . . . . . . but they share a lot of features that have simply been mirrored‘Sea turtle’ backlashThe scrutiny of fake Chinese research has exacerbated the mistrust between western and Chinese academic institutions, which was already growing as a consequence of fraying geopolitical relations — and allegations that researchers from China are using their time in overseas labs to steal intellectual property.“In view of the increasing geopolitical tensions, we are conducting background checks [of applicants from China] in relation to our grants and other activities, whenever and wherever this is relevant,” says Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, chief executive of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of Denmark’s largest funders of academic research. “We do this based on recommendations from the authorities and in collaboration with our grant recipients.”China has swiftly and indisputably become the world leader in the commercialisation of research as measured by patents. The World Intellectual Property Organization says the country’s patent office received 1.6mn applications in 2021, compared with 600,000 for its US counterpart.Such activity has unsettled western governments, who have erected barriers for many Chinese science and tech researchers coming to their universities, fearing that these academic exchanges have contributed to the country’s rapid global ascension. Several Chinese researchers in the US have been arrested under suspicion of leaking intellectual property to China under a Donald Trump-era programme to root out economic espionage.“Some of the growing hostility and suspicion [in the west] is around legitimate areas of concern, some of it is paranoid and daft,” says James Wilsdon, professor of research policy at University College London. “But there are now many examples of Chinese science and technology espionage and dodgy practices.”As countries that have been “big contributors to the growth of collaborative science” decelerate their engagement, the prospects for China’s research output “are far more uncertain” than they have been in the recent past, Wilsdon adds.In China, academics with international training are most likely to be published in leading publications. Qingnan Xie, an intellectual property expert at Harvard University, found that 76 per cent of articles published in the Nature and Science journals from Chinese addresses had an author who had studied overseas before returning to the mainland.The culture [in China] is more one of systematic thinking building on other research, whereas the west tends to applaud individualismBeijing has bankrolled the massive outbound movement of science graduates to study in universities from Tokyo to San Francisco and London through scholarships and grants, providing incentives to return to the mainland once they’ve completed their education.This so-called “sea turtle” strategy is one pillar in a broader policy to develop an indigenous scientific and technological power base. It has “fostered international collaboration and lifted standards in China”, says Steven Inchcoombe, president for research at Springer Nature. As geopolitical tensions erode the trust needed to keep collaborative ventures alive, scientists say both sides are set to lose out. For many labs worldwide, Chinese researchers are a crucial source of labour to participate in large-scale experiments. Western researchers benefit from access to cheap and well-educated Chinese PhD students who can help bolster their findings by running experiments.“China is very good at application and refinement,” says Inchcoombe. “But the culture is more one of systematic thinking building on other research, whereas the west tends to applaud individualism. China doesn’t seem to see the need for standout heroes in the same way.”The physics lecturer in Beijing makes a similar point. “American or British scientists tend to have breakthrough ideas and do truly innovative research,” he says. “Chinese are quick learners. They help to find evidence and make the framework more solid.” Carsten Fink, chief economist at the World Intellectual Property Organization, says Chinese innovation is strikingly successful when researchers are able to “leapfrog” over existing technology into a new field. One example is Beijing’s strategy of focusing investment on electric vehicle production rather than the already saturated combustion engine market. Another is the country’s domination of global solar panel production.Jonathan Adams, chief scientist at ISI, points out that China’s international collaborations are “strongly biased towards physical sciences: information and communication sciences, materials and areas like that — and particularly so in the US. In some areas of US research, 80 per cent of publications have a China address for a co-author.”Discovering the extent of Chinese involvement in US research had come as “a complete surprise” to some American policymakers, Adams says. “They were quite unaware of how far Chinese research had moved to underpin what they were doing. The most highly cited US-authored research in a lot of these technology areas is co-authored with China.”Advocates for science in the US are working to ensure that collaboration with China does not collapse completely. “Our culture of science is a beacon for Chinese scientists,” says Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “They help to enrich our economy and our labs. These intellectual relationships matter and it is important that we don’t lose the big picture of the benefits of international collaboration.”If scientific ties with the west break down, the individuals who will suffer most are diligent Chinese academics, as an atmosphere of distrust and the country’s reputation for fraudulent research make it more difficult for them to gain international recognition.“The worst impact is on sincere Chinese researchers,” says Bimler. “There is enough junk coming from China that researchers privately admit that they don’t read papers if they’re from a Chinese source . . . Scientists don’t have time to determine what is junk and what isn’t.” Additional reporting by Wang Xueqiao in Shanghai
The country has become a prolific producer of academic research but fraudulent studies risk serious real-world consequences.
Eleanor Olcott in Hong Kong and Clive Cookson and Alan Smith in London
MARCH 28 2023
As part of his job as fraud detector at biomedical publisher Spandidos, John Chesebro trawls through research papers, scrutinising near identical images of cells. For him, the tricks used by “paper mills” — the outfits paid to fabricate scientific studies — have become wearily familiar.They range from clear duplication — the same images of cell cultures on microscope slides copied across numerous, unrelated studies — to more subtle tinkering. Sometimes an image is rotated “to try to trick you to think it’s different”, Chesebro says. “At times you can detect where parts of an image were digitally manipulated to add or remove cells or other features to make the data look like the results you are expecting in the hypothesis.” He estimates he rejects 5 to 10 per cent of papers because of fraudulent data or ethical issues.Spandidos, based in Athens and London, accepts a large volume of papers from China, with around 90 per cent of its output coming from Chinese authors. In the mid-2010s, independent scientists accused Spandidos of publishing papers with results that recycled the same sets of data. As part of its response to the allegations, the publisher is using a team of in-house fraud detectors to weed out and retract fake research.Over the past two decades, Chinese researchers have become some of the world’s most prolific publishers of scientific papers. The Institute for Scientific Information, a US-based research analysis organisation, calculated that China produced 3.7mn papers in 2021 — 23 per cent of global output — and just behind the 4.4mn total from the US.At the same time, China has been climbing the ranks of the number of times a paper is cited by other authors, a metric used to judge output quality. Last year, China surpassed the US for the first time in the number of most cited papers, according to Japan’s National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, although that figure was flattered by multiple references to Chinese research that first sequenced the Covid-19 virus genome.The soaring output has sparked concern in western capitals. Chinese advances in high-profile fields such as quantum technology, genomics and space science, as well as Beijing’s surprise hypersonic missile test two years ago, have amplified the view that China is marching towards its goal of achieving global hegemony in science and technology.That concern is a part of a wider breakdown of trust in some quarters between western institutions and Chinese ones, with some universities introducing background checks on Chinese academics amid fears of intellectual property theft.But experts say that China’s impressive output masks systemic inefficiencies and an underbelly of low-quality and fraudulent research. Academics complain about the crushing pressure to publish to gain prized positions at research universities.“To survive in Chinese academia, we have many KPIs [key performance indicators] to hit. So when we publish, we focus on quantity over quality,” says a physics lecturer from a prominent Beijing university. “When prospective employers look at our CVs, it is much easier for them to judge the quantity of our output over the quality of the research,” he adds.The world’s scientific publishers are becoming increasingly alarmed by the scale of fraud. An investigation last year by their joint Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) concluded: “The submission of suspected fake research papers . . . is growing and threatens to overwhelm the editorial processes of a significant number of journals.”The problem is that no publisher — even the most vigilant — has the capacity to weed out all the frauds. Retractions are rare and can take years. In the meantime scientists may be building on a fake paper’s findings. In the biomedical sphere this is all the more worrying when the aim of a lot of research is the development of treatments for serious diseases.Bernhard Sabel, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, is one of many journal editors calling for “swift global action to restore the health of the scientific record and to prevent the erosion of trust in science”.“Science and ‘true love’ have two things in common: both are infatuated by passion, and both rely on trust,” Sabel says. “If trust is lost, it is very hard to go back.
”Brokers and ‘busybodies’
The proliferation of dubious research that has accompanied China’s emergence as a scientific and technological powerhouse has caught the attention of a number of independent scholars who are policing the country’s output.One of them is David Bimler, a psychologist formerly at Massey University in New Zealand. He identified 150 biomedical papers from Jilin University that used the same few data sets and concluded that the institution had an internal paper mill. Jilin University was cited by two other experts who spoke to the Financial Times as a top offender for generating fake research. Jilin University did not respond to a request for comment.“They probably never thought that busybodies would start paying attention to their papers, because they didn’t try to hide the mass production very well,” Bimler says.The publishers’ organisation Cope describes paper mills as “profit oriented, unofficial and potentially illegal organisations that produce and sell fraudulent manuscripts that seem to resemble genuine research”.Botanist Cathie Martin says the Chinese researchers who work in her UK plant science lab are under pressure to publish if they want to progress back homeEstimates of the extent of fake scientific output vary enormously, from 2 per cent to 20 per cent or more of published papers. Extrapolating from his own research, Sabel puts paper mills’ global revenues at a minimum of €1bn a year and probably much more. There is general agreement that China is one of the world’s worst offenders, Sabel says, though Cope points out the paper mills are “by no means confined to China”.Online brokers selling written-to-order papers proliferate on Chinese ecommerce sites such as Taobao. One broker advertising recently on Taobao charged clients $800 for a submission to a middle-tier domestic medical publication.“Scientific misconduct is an organised practice and has been run as a business almost always half openly,” says a Chinese medical researcher based in the US. She explains that fraudulent papers from low-tier universities, which use cheaper paper mills, are easier to spot. They tend to recycle the same fraudulent data sets multiple times, while academics at more prestigious universities may purchase “leftover” experimental data from other researchers.Beijing has introduced penalties on the use of paper mills, including banning offending researchers from applying for government funding. But weak enforcement means the practice is still rife.Chesebro says that a typical red flag is when authors refuse to share the underlying data that supports their hypothesis. “I’ve seen every excuse. Two dozen times, researchers have said their computer was broken. I have heard of five author deaths, a dozen or so authors that left the institute and are no longer contactable,” he says.Microbiologist Elisabeth Bik found in a study of 20,000 biomedical papers that those from China had a higher than average chance of containing inappropriately duplicated images © Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty ImagesWhile academics around the world have to publish to advance their careers, the pressure in China is exacerbated by the scale of competition fighting for limited resources. The ISI estimates that there are more than 2mn researchers in China competing for funds from central and local governments. The physics lecturer says this creates an “institutionalised incentive to cheat” to hit targets for citations and publication output. Academics that publish in top journals are awarded cash bonuses at some universities, although this practice is increasingly frowned on.Cathie Martin, a botanist at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK, who runs exchanges and joint programmes with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is enthusiastic about the abilities of the Chinese researchers who work in her plant science lab. But she is well aware of the pressures on them.“All aspects of scientific research in China are based on publications — not only the positions that you are offered but the grade of position,” she says. “If one of my guys is looking for a position back in China, very often they’ll be told: ‘You can apply to our institution if you get one more paper’, and then they’ll tell you the level of the journal you have to publish in.”The medical sphere has a particularly bad reputation for producing fake research because clinicians are required to publish to climb the hospital hierarchy, forcing time-poor doctors to outsource to paper mills.Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist in California who highlights cases of bad science, was part of a team that examined 20,000 biomedical papers from authors around the world and found that 800 had instances of “inappropriately duplicated images”. “Papers from China had a higher than average chance of containing problematic images,” she says.Prominent scientists have been found to produce dodgy research, too. Bik says she uncovered 50 papers by a well-known immunologist working in China “with varying problems from small to heavily manipulated images”. The Chinese government decided after an official review that “he was not responsible for any of these manipulated images”, Bik adds. “He got a little slap on the wrist but nothing serious. He is still publishing.” Can you spot the image manipulation?© © Source: Retracted paper: Overexpression of NTRK1 Promotes Differentiation of Neural Stem Cells into Cholinergic Neurons by Limin Wang, Feng He, Zhuoyuan Zhong, Ruiyan L , Songhua Xiao , Zhonglin Liu via PubPeer/Elisabeth Bik (doi: 10.1155/2015/857202)Info© © Source: Retracted paper: Overexpression of NTRK1 Promotes Differentiation of Neural Stem Cells into Cholinergic Neurons by Limin Wang, Feng He, Zhuoyuan Zhong, Ruiyan L, Songhua Xiao, Zhonglin Liu via PubPeer/Elisabeth Bik (doi: 10.1155/2015/857202)InfoTwo fluorescent microscopy images in a paper authored by Chinese academics purport to show the results of different experiments . . . . . . but they share a lot of features that have simply been mirrored‘Sea turtle’ backlashThe scrutiny of fake Chinese research has exacerbated the mistrust between western and Chinese academic institutions, which was already growing as a consequence of fraying geopolitical relations — and allegations that researchers from China are using their time in overseas labs to steal intellectual property.“In view of the increasing geopolitical tensions, we are conducting background checks [of applicants from China] in relation to our grants and other activities, whenever and wherever this is relevant,” says Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, chief executive of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of Denmark’s largest funders of academic research. “We do this based on recommendations from the authorities and in collaboration with our grant recipients.”China has swiftly and indisputably become the world leader in the commercialisation of research as measured by patents. The World Intellectual Property Organization says the country’s patent office received 1.6mn applications in 2021, compared with 600,000 for its US counterpart.Such activity has unsettled western governments, who have erected barriers for many Chinese science and tech researchers coming to their universities, fearing that these academic exchanges have contributed to the country’s rapid global ascension. Several Chinese researchers in the US have been arrested under suspicion of leaking intellectual property to China under a Donald Trump-era programme to root out economic espionage.“Some of the growing hostility and suspicion [in the west] is around legitimate areas of concern, some of it is paranoid and daft,” says James Wilsdon, professor of research policy at University College London. “But there are now many examples of Chinese science and technology espionage and dodgy practices.”As countries that have been “big contributors to the growth of collaborative science” decelerate their engagement, the prospects for China’s research output “are far more uncertain” than they have been in the recent past, Wilsdon adds.In China, academics with international training are most likely to be published in leading publications. Qingnan Xie, an intellectual property expert at Harvard University, found that 76 per cent of articles published in the Nature and Science journals from Chinese addresses had an author who had studied overseas before returning to the mainland.The culture [in China] is more one of systematic thinking building on other research, whereas the west tends to applaud individualismBeijing has bankrolled the massive outbound movement of science graduates to study in universities from Tokyo to San Francisco and London through scholarships and grants, providing incentives to return to the mainland once they’ve completed their education.This so-called “sea turtle” strategy is one pillar in a broader policy to develop an indigenous scientific and technological power base. It has “fostered international collaboration and lifted standards in China”, says Steven Inchcoombe, president for research at Springer Nature. As geopolitical tensions erode the trust needed to keep collaborative ventures alive, scientists say both sides are set to lose out. For many labs worldwide, Chinese researchers are a crucial source of labour to participate in large-scale experiments. Western researchers benefit from access to cheap and well-educated Chinese PhD students who can help bolster their findings by running experiments.“China is very good at application and refinement,” says Inchcoombe. “But the culture is more one of systematic thinking building on other research, whereas the west tends to applaud individualism. China doesn’t seem to see the need for standout heroes in the same way.”The physics lecturer in Beijing makes a similar point. “American or British scientists tend to have breakthrough ideas and do truly innovative research,” he says. “Chinese are quick learners. They help to find evidence and make the framework more solid.” Carsten Fink, chief economist at the World Intellectual Property Organization, says Chinese innovation is strikingly successful when researchers are able to “leapfrog” over existing technology into a new field. One example is Beijing’s strategy of focusing investment on electric vehicle production rather than the already saturated combustion engine market. Another is the country’s domination of global solar panel production.Jonathan Adams, chief scientist at ISI, points out that China’s international collaborations are “strongly biased towards physical sciences: information and communication sciences, materials and areas like that — and particularly so in the US. In some areas of US research, 80 per cent of publications have a China address for a co-author.”Discovering the extent of Chinese involvement in US research had come as “a complete surprise” to some American policymakers, Adams says. “They were quite unaware of how far Chinese research had moved to underpin what they were doing. The most highly cited US-authored research in a lot of these technology areas is co-authored with China.”Advocates for science in the US are working to ensure that collaboration with China does not collapse completely. “Our culture of science is a beacon for Chinese scientists,” says Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “They help to enrich our economy and our labs. These intellectual relationships matter and it is important that we don’t lose the big picture of the benefits of international collaboration.”If scientific ties with the west break down, the individuals who will suffer most are diligent Chinese academics, as an atmosphere of distrust and the country’s reputation for fraudulent research make it more difficult for them to gain international recognition.“The worst impact is on sincere Chinese researchers,” says Bimler. “There is enough junk coming from China that researchers privately admit that they don’t read papers if they’re from a Chinese source . . . Scientists don’t have time to determine what is junk and what isn’t.” Additional reporting by Wang Xueqiao in Shanghai
Более-менее. А как именно это знание должно объяснить то, что в китайской коммунистической диктатуре у ученых получаются примерно такие же качественные выводы как и у западных или там индийских, но при этом не используя слово "заговор"? А то последнее слово по какой-то причине некоторых противников теории АГП не устраивает -- хотя очевидно, что выбор-то у них невелик:
- Либо верить в то, что ученые-климатологи из самых разных стран мира тотально некомпетентны en masse уже много-много лет;
- Либо верить в то, что как минимум часть ученых-климатологов сговорились, и много-много лет масштабно фальсифицируют данные, ну или хотя бы анализ/модели (что является заговором оных ученых, ну и видимо нужно ещё участие некоторых политиков).
Плюс возможна комбинация этих двух пунктов. Всё. Третья версия, "ученые в массе своей более-менее компетенты, многодесятилетнего всемирного заговора с масштабнейшими фальсификациями не существует, АГП лучше всего описывает имеющиеся явления" -- скептиков не устраивает.
Последнее редактирование: