• 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.

2008 temperature summaries and spin

16 Dec 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Italian)

The great thing about complex data is that one can basically come up with any number of headlines describing it – all of which can be literally true – but that give very different impressions. Thus we are sure that you will soon read that 2008 was warmer than any year in the 20th Century (with the exception of 1998), that is was the coolest year this century (starting from 2001), and that 7 or 8 of the 9 warmest years have occurred since 2000. There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren’t true; 2008 is not the coolest year this decade (that was 2000), global warming hasn’t ‘stopped’, CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas, and such variability is indeed predicted by climate models. Today’s post is therefore dedicated to cutting through the hype and looking at the bigger picture.

[Read more…] about 2008 temperature summaries and spin

Filed Under: Climate Science, Instrumental Record

Ozone holes and cosmic rays

14 Dec 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Italian)

ozone hole sept 2007Browsing through the blogosphere recently, I came across an interesting little story about the scientific method, scientific progress, and un-scientific spin (h/t Hank Roberts). The subject concerns the polar ozone hole in Antarctica and a possible role for cosmic rays in its variability on solar cycle timescales. The proponents of this link are a small research group at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada, who find themselves up against the mainstream stratospheric chemistry community and whose ideas are twisted out of all recognition by the more foolish of the usual suspects.

[Read more…] about Ozone holes and cosmic rays

Filed Under: Climate Science, Sun-earth connections

Contrarians and consensus: The case of the midwife toad

7 Dec 2008 by Gavin

I recently came across an old copy of Arthur Koestler’s “The Case of the Midwife Toad”. Originally published in 1971, it’s an exploration of a rather tragic footnote in the history of evolutionary science. Back in the early years of the 20th Century (prior to the understanding of DNA, but after Mendelian genetics had become well known), there was still a remnant of the biological community who preferred the Lamarckian idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics over the Darwinian idea of natural selection of random mutations. One of the vanguard for the Lamarckian idea was Paul Kammerer whose specialty was the breeding of amphibians that apparently few others could match. He claimed that he could get his toads and salamanders to acquire characteristics that were useful in the new environments in which he raised his specimens. This was touted loudly (in the New York Times for instance) as proof of Lamarckian inheritance and Kammerer was hailed as a ‘new Darwin’. It all ended very badly when one toad specimen was found to be faked (by who remains a mystery), and Kammerer killed himself shortly afterwards (though there may have been more involved than scientific disgrace).

The details of the experiments and controversy can be read online (with various slants) here and here, and a more modern non-replication of one of his experiments is described here. However, the reason I bring this up here is much more related to how the scientific community and Koestler dealt with this scientific maverick and the analogies that has for the climate science and its contrarians.
[Read more…] about Contrarians and consensus: The case of the midwife toad

Filed Under: Climate Science, skeptics

Why don’t op-eds get fact checked?

30 Nov 2008 by Gavin

Debra Saunders is a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle who has a history of writing misleading contrarian pieces on climate change. She contacted NASA Public Affairs recently for a comment on the initial glitch on the October GHCN numbers (see this earlier post for discussions of that). They forwarded the query to me and since her questions were straightforward, I answered them as best I could. Indeed in her subsequent column, she quotes me accurately and in context. However, the rest of her column shows none of the same appreciation for basic journalistic standards.
[Read more…] about Why don’t op-eds get fact checked?

Filed Under: Climate Science, Reporting on climate

Mountains and molehills

11 Nov 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Español)

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA’s collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).

[Read more…] about Mountains and molehills

Filed Under: Climate Science, Instrumental Record

Tropical tropospheric trends again (again)

12 Oct 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Italian)

Many readers will remember our critique of a paper by Douglass et al on tropical tropospheric temperature trends late last year, and the discussion of the ongoing revisions to the observational datasets. Some will recall that the Douglass et al paper was trumpeted around the blogosphere as the definitive proof that models had it all wrong.

At the time, our criticism was itself criticised because our counterpoints had not been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. However, this was a little unfair (and possibly a little disingenuous) because a group of us had in fact submitted a much better argued paper making the same principal points. Of course, the peer-review process takes much longer than writing a blog post and so it has taken until today to appear on the journal website.

[Read more…] about Tropical tropospheric trends again (again)

Filed Under: Climate modelling, Climate Science, Instrumental Record

A new survey of scientists

29 Sep 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Deutsch)

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have been making surveys of climate scientists for a number of years with the reasonable aim of seeing what the community thinks (about IPCC, climate change, attribution etc). They have unfortunately not always been as successful as one might like – problems have ranged from deciding who is qualified to respond; questions that were not specific enough or that could be interpreted in very different ways; to losing control of who answered the questionnaire (one time the password and website were broadcast on a mailing list of climate ‘sceptics’). These problems have meant that the results were less useful than they could have been and in fact have occasionally been used to spread disinformation. How these surveys are used obviously plays into how willing scientists are to participate, since if your answers are misinterpreted once, you will be less keen next time. Others have attempted similar surveys, with similar problems.

As people should know, designing truly objective surveys is very tricky. However, if you are after a specific response, it’s easy to craft questions that will favour your initial bias. We discussed an egregious example of that from Steven Milloy a while ago. A bigger problem is not overt bias, but more subtle kinds – such as assuming that respondents have exactly the same background as the questioners and know exactly what you are talking about, or simply using questions that don’t actually tell you want you really want to know. There are guides available to help in crafting such surveys which outline many of the inadvertent pitfalls.

Well, Bray and von Storch have sent out a new survey.

[Read more…] about A new survey of scientists

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate

The mpg confusion

23 Sep 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Español) (Français)

What reduces emissions more?
A. Someone swapping their old SUV (which gets 12 miles per gallon) for a hybrid version (18 mpg) or
B. someone upgrading their 25 mpg compact to a new 46 mpg Prius?
(ignore for a minute manufacturing issues or driving habits and assume the miles driven are the same).

[Read more…] about The mpg confusion

Filed Under: Climate Science, Communicating Climate

Progress in reconstructing climate in recent millennia

3 Sep 2008 by Gavin

Translations: (Español)

What makes science different from politics?

That’s not the start of a joke, but it is a good jumping off point for a discussion of the latest publication on paleo-reconstructions of the last couple of millennia. As has been relatively widely reported, Mike Mann and colleagues (including Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes) have a new paper out in PNAS with an update of their previous work. And this is where the question posed above comes in: the difference is that with time scientists can actually make progress on problems, they don’t just get stuck in an endless back and forth of the same talking points.

[Read more…] about Progress in reconstructing climate in recent millennia

Filed Under: Climate Science, Paleoclimate

Friday round-up

29 Aug 2008 by Gavin

Blogging has been a little light recently (apologies!), but here are a few pieces that have caught our eye this week.

First up, the Columbia Journalism Review has a two–parter on journalistic coverage of climate change inspired by comments from Jeff Huggins on the Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog. The key issues CJR addresses are familiar ones to readers here: how to communicate mainstream science in a way that doesn’t distort the reality of the consensus on many issues in favour of controversy on more cutting-edge topics. Definitely worth a read, and proof (if such were needed) that commenting on blogs can make a difference to coverage.

Next, the role of CO2 as a long-term climate forcing. The old CO2 lead/lag issue keeps making the rounds as a contrarian talking point (and made a brief resurgence here in comments this week) despite the fact that the existence of impact of climate on the carbon cycle in no way invalidates the impact of CO2 (as a greenhouse gas) on climate. However, there is a nice paper in Nature this week (Lunt et al, 2008) which looks at the various proposed triggers for the onset of the quaternary glaciations at the end of the Pliocene (~3 million years ago). These triggers involve, permanent El Nino events, the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, changes in orbital forcing, tectonic uplift of the Rocky mountains – and long-term decreases in CO2 as a function of very slow variations in sea floor spreading and chemical weathering. Lunt et al find that only the change in CO2 (400 ppm to 280 ppm) can explain the changes in the ice sheet. None of the other ideas come even close.

Thus, it looks very much like the climate changed radically due to this externally forced drift in CO2 (and tectonic is external for climate purposes on this timescale). As a corollary, this is an expansion of the idea we discussed a few months back, that the long term changes in the Earth system due to external forcings might be well be larger than the classical (Charney) sensitivity we often talk about.

Third. There has been a lot of discussion on energy futures in the comments – Nature had a good rundown of the scientific constraints on the different prospects. But this video is a quite entertaining discussion of why we just can’t get our heads around the issue from Dan Gilbert (h/t GH).

Finally, a commentary on the prospects for continued employment as an Arctic ice expert (h/t Climate Feedback).

Filed Under: Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, Reporting on climate

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 25
  • Page 26
  • Page 27
  • Page 28
  • Page 29
  • 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

  • High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Time and Tide Gauges wait for no Voortman
  • Lil’ NAS Express
  • DOE CWG Report “Moot”?

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

  • David on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • David on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Piotr on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Piotr on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Piotr on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Piotr on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Jaime Palter on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • David on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Susan Anderson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mal Adapted on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • MA Rodger on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barry E Finch on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Killian on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Keith Woollard on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Mo Yunus on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mo Yunus on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Keith Woollard on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • patrick o twentyseven on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Matthew R Marler on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Ken Towe on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Thomas W Fuller on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Mo Yunus on High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)
  • Mo Yunus on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”

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

1,384 posts

11 pages

247,754 comments

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