• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Archives for Gavin

about Gavin Schmidt

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler, working for NASA and with Columbia University.

IPCC Communication handbook

31 Jan 2018 by Gavin

A new handbook on science communication came out from IPCC this week. Nominally it’s for climate science related communications, but it has a wider application as well. This arose mainly out of an “Expert meeting on Communication” that IPCC held in 2016.

6 principles to help IPCC scientists better communicate their work

There was a Guardian article on it as well.

The six principles are pretty straightforward:

  1. Be a confident communicator
  2. Talk about the real world, not abstract ideas
  3. Connect with what matters to your audience
  4. Tell a human story
  5. Lead with what you know
  6. Use the most effective visual communication

Each is supported with references to the relevant literature and with climate-related (“real world”) examples that are themselves confidently communicated with effective visuals.

But what do people think? Is this a useful addition to the literature on communication? Anything you think doesn’t work? or that perhaps surprises you?

PS. I’m perhaps a little biased because they use a Peter Essick photo for their cover art that was also in my book.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate, IPCC

2017 temperature summary

19 Jan 2018 by Gavin

This is a thread to discuss the surface temperature records that were all released yesterday (Jan 18). There is far too much data-vizualization on this to link to, but feel free to do so in the comments. Bottom line? It’s still getting warmer.

[Update: the page of model/observational data comparisons has now been updated too.]

Filed Under: Climate Science, Instrumental Record

What did NASA know? and when did they know it?

24 Dec 2017 by Gavin

If you think you know why NASA did not report the discovery of the Antarctic polar ozone hole in 1984 before the publication of Farman et al in May 1985, you might well be wrong.

One of the most fun things in research is what happens when you try and find a reference to a commonly-known fact and slowly discover that your “fact” is not actually that factual, and that the real story is more interesting than you imagined…

[Read more…] about What did NASA know? and when did they know it?

References

  1. J.C. Farman, B.G. Gardiner, and J.D. Shanklin, "Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction", Nature, vol. 315, pp. 207-210, 1985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/315207a0

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Climate Science, Scientific practice

O Say can you See Ice…

6 Nov 2017 by Gavin

Some concerns about continued monitoring of sea ice by remote sensing were raised this week in Nature News an article in the (UK) Observer: Donald Trump accused of obstructing satellite research into climate change. The last headline is not really correct, but the underlying issues are real.

[Read more…] about O Say can you See Ice…

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Climate Science, Instrumental Record

…the Harde they fall.

4 Oct 2017 by Gavin

Back in February we highlighted an obviously wrong paper by Harde which purported to scrutinize the carbon cycle. Well, thanks to a crowd sourced effort which we helped instigate, a comprehensive scrutiny of those claims has just been published. Lead by Peter Köhler, this included scientists from multiple disciplines working together to clearly report on the mistaken assumptions in the Harde paper.

The comment is excellent, and so should be well regarded, but the fact that it is a comment means that the effort will likely be sorely underappreciated. Part of problem is the long time for the process (almost 8 months) which means that the nonsense is mostly forgotten about by the time the comments are published. We’ve discussed trying to speed up and improve the process by having a specialized journal for comments and replications but really the problem here is the low quality of peer review and editorial supervision that allows these pre-rebunked papers to appear in the first place.

GPC is not the only (nor the worst) culprit for this kind of nonsense – indeed we just noticed a bunch of astrology papers in the International Journal of Heat and Technology (by Nicola Scatetta [natch]). It does seem to demonstrate that truly you can indeed publish anything somewhere.

References

  1. P. Köhler, J. Hauck, C. Völker, D.A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J.B. Halpern, K. Rice, and R.E. Zeebe, "Comment on “ Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO 2 residence time in the atmosphere ” by H. Harde", Global and Planetary Change, vol. 164, pp. 67-71, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015

Filed Under: Carbon cycle, Climate Science

Data rescue projects

17 Aug 2017 by Gavin

It’s often been said that while we can only gather new data about the planet at the rate of one year per year, rescuing old data can add far more data more quickly. Data rescue is however extremely labor intensive. Nonetheless there are multiple data rescue projects and citizen science efforts ongoing, some of which we have highlighted here before. For those looking for an intro into the subject, this 2014 article is an great introduction.



Weather diary from the the Observatoire de Paris, written by Giovanni Cassini on 18th January 1789.

I was asked this week whether there was a list of these projects, and with a bit of help from Twitter, we came up with the following:

  • Old Weather (@oldweather)
  • Weather Detective (closing soon)
  • Weather Rescue
  • NOAA Climate Database Modernization Program
  • New Zealand (@DeepSouth_NZ)
  • The International Environmental Data Rescue Organization (IEDRO)
  • Atmospheric Circulation Reconstruction over the Earth (@met_acre)
  • The International Data Rescue Portal (i-Dare)
  • Met Éirann (poster)
  • Historical Climatology (list of more databases)
  • Data Rescue at home
  • Historical Canadian data
  • SE Australia Recent Climate History (no longer active?)
  • Congo basin eco-climatological data recovery and valorisation (COBECORE)
  • The climate and environmental history collaborative research environment (Tambora)

(If you know of any more, please add them in the comments, and I’ll try and keep this list up to date).

Filed Under: Climate Science, Instrumental Record, Scientific practice

Observations, Reanalyses and the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Temperature

10 Aug 2017 by Gavin

One of the most common questions that arises from analyses of the global surface temperature data sets is why they are almost always plotted as anomalies and not as absolute temperatures.

There are two very basic answers: First, looking at changes in data gets rid of biases at individual stations that don’t change in time (such as station location), and second, for surface temperatures at least, the correlation scale for anomalies is much larger (100’s km) than for absolute temperatures. The combination of these factors means it’s much easier to interpolate anomalies and estimate the global mean, than it would be if you were averaging absolute temperatures. This was explained many years ago (and again here).

Of course, the absolute temperature does matter in many situations (the freezing point of ice, emitted radiation, convection, health and ecosystem impacts, etc.) and so it’s worth calculating as well – even at the global scale. However, and this is important, because of the biases and the difficulty in interpolating, the estimates of the global mean absolute temperature are not as accurate as the year to year changes.

This means we need to very careful in combining these two analyses – and unfortunately, historically, we haven’t been and that is a continuing problem.

[Read more…] about Observations, Reanalyses and the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Temperature

Filed Under: Climate modelling, Climate Science, Instrumental Record, Scientific practice, statistics

Joy plots for climate change

22 Jul 2017 by Gavin

This is joy as in ‘Joy Division’, not as in actual fun.

Many of you will be familiar with the iconic cover of Joy Division’s Unknown Pleasures album, but maybe fewer will know that it’s a plot of signals from a pulsar (check out this Scientific American article on the history). The length of the line is matched to the frequency of the pulsing so that successive pulses are plotted almost on top of each other. For many years this kind of plot did not have a well-known designation until, in fact, April this year:

I hereby propose that we call these "joy plots" #rstats https://t.co/uuLGpQLAwY

— Jenny Bryan (@JennyBryan) April 25, 2017

So “joy plots” it is.

[Read more…] about Joy plots for climate change

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate, Instrumental Record

Climate Sensitivity Estimates and Corrections

12 Jul 2017 by Gavin

You need to be careful in inferring climate sensitivity from observations.

Two climate sensitivity stories this week – both related to how careful you need to be before you can infer constraints from observational data. (You can brush up on the background and definitions here). Both cases – a “Brief Comment Arising” in Nature (that I led) and a new paper from Proistosescu and Huybers (2017) – examine basic assumptions underlying previously published estimates of climate sensitivity and find them wanting.

[Read more…] about Climate Sensitivity Estimates and Corrections

References

  1. C. Proistosescu, and P.J. Huybers, "Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity", Science Advances, vol. 3, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602821

Filed Under: Carbon cycle, Climate modelling, Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, Instrumental Record, Paleoclimate

Nenana Ice Classic 2017

2 May 2017 by Gavin

Translations: (Español)

As I’ve done for a few years, here is the updated graph for the Nenana Ice Classic competition, which tracks the break up of ice on the Tanana River near Nenana in Alaska. It is now a 101-year time series tracking the winter/spring conditions in that part of Alaska, and shows clearly the long term trend towards earlier break up, and overall warming.

2017 was almost exactly on trend – roughly one week earlier than the average break up date a century ago. There was a short NPR piece on the significance again this week, but most of the commentary from last year and earlier is of course still valid.

My shadow bet on whether any climate contrarian site will mention this dataset remains in play (none have since 2013 which was an record late year).

Filed Under: Climate impacts, Climate Science, Instrumental Record

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 40
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • Unforced Variations: Aug 2025
  • Are direct water vapor emissions endangering anyone?

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Nick Palmer on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Silvia Leahu-Aluas on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • Susan Anderson on Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’
  • Karsten V. Johansen on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Susan Anderson on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Susan Anderson on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Joseph O'Sullivan on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Kevin McKinney on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Kevin McKinney on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Ken Towe on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Kevin McKinney on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Kevin McKinney on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • JCM on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Rory Allen on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • MA Rodger on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • David on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Piotr on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • David on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • MA Rodger on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Olbers on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Mr. Know It All on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Nick Palmer on Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Russell Seitz on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Ron R. on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,378 posts

11 pages

246,351 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.