• 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 Climate Science

Climate Science

Open Climate 101 Online

16 Jan 2012 by david

Almost 3000 non-science major undergraduates at the University of Chicago have taken PHSC13400, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, since Ray Pierrehumbert and I (David Archer) first developed it back in 1995. Since the publication of the textbook for the class in 2005 (and a much-cleaned-up 2nd edition now shipping), enrollment has gone through the roof, it’s all I’ve been able to teach the last few years, trying to keep up with demand. I hear it is the largest class on campus, with 4-500 students a year out of an annual class of only around 1400. Now the content of this class is being served to the internet world at large: Open Climate 101.

[Read more…] about Open Climate 101 Online

Filed Under: Climate Science

An online model of methane in the atmosphere

11 Jan 2012 by david

I’ve put together an easy-to-play-with online model of methane in the atmosphere. I’m going to use it for teaching along with the rest of the Understanding the Forecast webmodels, but it was designed to be relevant to the issue of abrupt new methane burps as we’ve been ruminating about lately on Realclimate. [Read more…] about An online model of methane in the atmosphere

Filed Under: Climate Science

An Arctic methane worst-case scenario

7 Jan 2012 by david

Let’s suppose that the Arctic started to degas methane 100 times faster than it is today. I just made that number up trying to come up with a blow-the-doors-off surprise, something like the ozone hole. We ran the numbers to get an idea of how the climate impact of an Arctic Methane Nasty Surprise would stack up to that from Business-as-Usual rising CO2

[Read more…] about An Arctic methane worst-case scenario

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Carbon cycle, Climate Science, Greenhouse gases

Much ado about methane

4 Jan 2012 by david

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it also has an awesome power to really get people worked up, compared to other equally frightening pieces of the climate story. [Read more…] about Much ado about methane

Filed Under: Climate Science

Unforced variations: Jan 2012

2 Jan 2012 by group

First open thread of 2012, so perhaps some discussion of the highlights and lowlights of 2011 are in order? Top 5 lists welcome…

Filed Under: Climate Science, Open thread

Recycling

24 Dec 2011 by Gavin

Two slightly off-center topics that Realclimate has covered in the past have recently come up again. The first is an analysis of Freakonomics by statisticians Andrew Gelman and Kaiser Fung in American Scientist, while the second is a recent reimagining of Washington crossing the Delaware.
[Read more…] about Recycling

Filed Under: Climate Science

Copernicus and Arrhenius: Physics Then and Physics Today

21 Dec 2011 by eric

There was a really interesting article in Physics Today this past October on the parallels between the slow acceptance of the idea of anthropogenic climate change and of the idea that the earth circles the sun.
[Read more…] about Copernicus and Arrhenius: Physics Then and Physics Today

Filed Under: Climate Science, Greenhouse gases, Scientific practice, skeptics

Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference

19 Dec 2011 by group

Guest commentary by Mark Boslough*

The Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change was held during Halloween week. It was most notable for the breadth of opinion — and the span of credibility — of its speakers. I have long complained about the lack of willingness of most contrarians to attend and present their arguments at mainstream scientific conferences. After three years of convening climate-related sessions at AGU, I have yet to receive an abstract that argues against anthropogenic global warming. Such presentations can usually only be seen at conferences held by the Heartland Institute. There isn’t much chance of a mainstream scientist attending a meeting organized by a political think tank known for its anti-science activism, so opportunities for interaction between the groups are rare.
[Read more…] about Climate cynicism at the Santa Fe conference

Filed Under: Climate Science

Curve-fitting and natural cycles: The best part

15 Dec 2011 by rasmus


It is not every day that I come across a scientific publication that so totally goes against my perception of what science is all about. Humlum et al., 2011 present a study in the journal Global and Planetary Change, claiming that most of the temperature changes that we have seen so far are due to natural cycles.

They claim to present a new technique to identify the character of natural climate variations, and from this, to produce a testable forecast of future climate. They project that

the observed late 20th century warming in Svalbard is not going to continue for the next 20–25 years. Instead the period of warming may be followed by variable, but generally not higher temperatures for at least the next 20–25 years.

However, their claims of novelty are overblown, and their projection is demonstrably unsound.

[Read more…] about Curve-fitting and natural cycles: The best part

References

  1. O. Humlum, J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl, "Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change", Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.09.005

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Climate Science, Instrumental Record, Scientific practice, skeptics, Sun-earth connections, Tutorials

AGU 2011: Day 5 and wrap-up

11 Dec 2011 by group

(Day 1)(Day 2)(Days 3&4)

After 5 days, there is a definite slowdown in energy, desire to ask questions and attendance. But there were still a lot of good talks to be seen. Perhaps most relevant here were a few sessions talking about initial results from the CMIP5 models and the data with which they are being assessed. Overall, most comparisons to the CMIP3 models showed that despite substantial improvements in resolution, completeness, and scope, the CMIP5 models do not show any dramatic differences at the broad-scale diagnostics (global means etc.).

This is not particularly surprising, since it is expected that the importance of the new simulations will be seen in the differences between model types (i.e. including carbon cycles, atmospheric chemistry etc.), or in new kinds of diagnostics from say, the initialized decadal predictions, that weren’t available before.

Looking back at the whole meeting (20,000+ scientists, dozens of simultaneous sessions), it is perhaps worth noting the reasons why such meetings are so important. Obviously, no-one can see everything that is relevant to their research, or talk to everyone they might want to, but there is a lot that can be seen and absorbed much more efficiently than would be possible at home. The social aspect of conferences is also important – beer is an essential lubricant for geophysicists it seems. More important than the sessions are often the chance encounters on the escalators or corridors. Many people get to meet in person who only ever emailed – and this includes other bloggers as well as scientists. We met Eli Rabett, John Cook (Skeptical Science), Zeke Hausfather, Kate @ ClimateSight, Steve Easterbrook, and many others who are only known by their screen names and comments. Many of the scientists whose work has been discussed here recently were also present – Andreas Schmittner, Robert Rohde (of BEST), Jim Hansen, Ben Santer, Roy Spencer, along with many, many first timers whose work will become more prominent. The palpable sense of excitement at the directions the science is taking is very much driven by the bright ideas and new approaches being generated by the younger scientists – including undergraduates and graduate students. And it is the serendipitous encounters with these new voices that are the most unanticipated (and unplanned) benefits of these meetings. This doesn’t happen with Skype unfortunately.

We know that we didn’t see everything we wanted to, so if any other attendees are reading this, we encourage them to point out in the comments any particular highpoints they came across – especially if the talks were part of those broadcast, or if the poster is available on-line.

Filed Under: Climate Science, Scientific practice

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 61
  • Page 62
  • Page 63
  • Page 64
  • Page 65
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 128
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • 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”?
  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report

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

  • Julian on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • b fagan on Time and Tide Gauges wait for no Voortman
  • Susan Anderson on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Susan Anderson on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Matthew MARLER on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mal Adapted on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Mal Adapted on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Atomsk's Sanakan on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mr. Know It All on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Pete best 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!”
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Geoff Miell on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Geoff Miell on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Geoff Miell on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Piotr on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • nigelj on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Ron R. on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • Piotr on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Pete Best on “But you said the ice was going to disappear in 10 years!”
  • MA Rodger on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced variations: Oct 2025
  • Pete Best 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

1,383 posts

11 pages

247,295 comments

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