Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4”) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science. Time for us to sort the wheat from the chaff: which of these putative errors are real, and which not? And what does it all mean, for the IPCC in particular, and for climate science more broadly?
Search Results for: rahmstorf
Data Sources
This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.
- Climate data (raw)
- Climate data (processed)
- Paleo-data
- Auxiliary data
- Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
- Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
- Large-scale model (GCM) output
- Model codes (GCMs)
- Model codes (other)
- Data Visualisation and Analysis
- Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
- GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
- USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
- World Monthly Surface Station Climatology UCAR
- Antarctic weather stations
- European weather stations (ECA)
- Italian Meterological Society IMS
- Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train, Ocean Color)
- Tide Gauges (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level)
- World Glacier Monitoring Service
- Argo float data
- International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
- AERONET Aerosol information
- Arctic data from the Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (CADIS)
Climate data (processed)
- Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU, NOAA NCDC, JMA, Berkeley Earth)
- Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS, Zou et al)
- Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
- Stratospheric temperature
- Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
- Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
- Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
- Sea level (U. Colorado, NOAA)
- Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
- Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
- AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
- Snow Cover (Rutgers)
- GLIMS glacier database
- Ocean Heat Content: NODC, PMEL
- Ocean CO2 (CDIAC)
- GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
- NOAA Climate Indicators BAMS State of the Climate
- Climate Data Factory
Paleo-data
- NOAA Paleoclimate
- Pangaea
- GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
- GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
- National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
- Insolation (i.e. Milankovitch cycles): Lasker (2004), Berger and Loutre (1991), Huybers (2006)
Auxiliary data
- Solar System Calculations (JPL Horizons)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
- Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
- Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
- Kaufmann et al (2009)
- Wahl and Ammann (2006)
- Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
- ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
- ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
- NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
- MERRA NASA GSFC
- JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
- North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)
- 20th Century Reanalysis (1871-2008)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.
- CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
- GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
- GFDL Model output
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
- GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
- NCAR CESM; NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
- EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
- Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
- NEMO Ocean Model
- GFDL Models
- MIT GCM
- DOE E3SM
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.
- Radiative Transfer models (AER RRTM)
- Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
- Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) Sea Level Rise Code and Data
- ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
- Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
- Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
- CliMT (also here) a Python-based software component toolkit
- Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
- CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
- RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
- Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
- MAGICC
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.
- ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
- Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
- Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
- Giovanni (GSFC)
- Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
- IPCC Data Visualisations
- Regional IPCC model output
- Climate Wizard
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
- Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
- PAGES data portal
- NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
- IPCC Data
- NCAR’s ClimateDataGuide
- Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
- CRU Data holdings
- Hadley Centre Observational holdings
- UCAR Climate Data Guide
Ups and downs of sea level projections
By Stefan Rahmstorf and Martin Vermeer
The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007 (see our post back then). The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″. New Scientist last month ran a nice article on the state of the science, very much in the same vein. But now Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark have countered this trend in an article in Nature Geoscience, projecting a global rise of only 7 to 82 cm from 2000 to the end of this century.
Coastal erosion: Like the Dominican Republic, many island nations are
particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. (Photo: S.R.)
More bubkes
Roger Pielke Sr. has raised very strong allegations against RealClimate in a recent blog post. Since they come from a scientific colleague, we consider it worthwhile responding directly.
The statement Pielke considers “misinformation” is a single sentence from a recent posting:
Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.
First of all, we are surprised that Pielke levelled such strong allegations against RealClimate, since the statement above merely summarises some key findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress, which we discussed last month. This is a peer-reviewed document authored by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80 chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at the Congress.” If Pielke disagrees with the findings of these scientists, you’d have thought he’d take it up with them rather than aiming shrill accusations at us. But in any case let us look at the three items of alleged misinformation:
Sea will rise ‘to levels of last Ice Age’
The British tabloid Daily Mirror recently headlined that “Sea will rise ‘to levels of last Ice Age’”. No doubt many of our readers will appreciate just how scary this prospect is: sea level during the last Ice Age was up to 120 meters lower than today. Our favourite swimming beaches – be it Coogee in Sydney or the Darß on the German Baltic coast – would then all be high and dry, and ports like Rotterdam or Tokyo would be far from the sea. Imagine it.
[Read more…] about Sea will rise ‘to levels of last Ice Age’
How much will sea level rise?
… is the question people have been putting a lot of thought into since the IPCC AR4 report came out. We analysed what was in the report quite carefully at the time and pointed out that the allowance for dynamic ice sheet processes was very uncertain, and actually precluded setting a upper limit on what might be expected. The numbers that appeared in some headlines (up to 59 cm by 2100) did not take that uncertainty into account.
The Global Cooling Bet – Part 2
Last week we proposed a bet against the “pause in global warming” forecast in Nature by Keenlyside et al. and we promised to present our scientific case later – so here it is.
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann
Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a rather misguided media discussion erupted on whether global warming had stopped, based on the observed temperatures of the past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion is capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from Germany predicting a pause in global warming last week in the journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
Specifically, they make two forecasts for global temperature, as discussed in the last paragraphs of their paper and shown in their Figure 4 (see below). The first forecast concerns the time interval 2000-2010, while the second concerns the interval 2005-2015 (*). For these two 10-year averages, the authors make the following prediction:
“… the initialised prediction indicates a slight cooling relative to 1994-2004 conditions”
Their graph shows this: temperatures in the two forecast intervals (green points shown at 2005 and 2010) are almost the same and are both lower than observed in 1994-2004 (the end of the red line in their graph).
New York Times, BBC News, Reuters, Bloomberg and so on), because of its seeming contradiction with global warming. The authors emphasise this aspect in their own media release, which was titled: Will Global Warming Take a Short Break?
That this cooling would just be a temporary blip and would change nothing about global warming goes without saying and has been amply discussed elsewhere (e.g. here). But another question has been rarely discussed: will this forecast turn out to be correct?
We think not – and we are prepared to bet serious money on this. We have double-checked with the authors: they say they really mean this as a serious forecast, not just as a methodological experiment. If the authors of the paper really believe that their forecast has a greater than 50% chance of being correct, then they should accept our offer of a bet; it should be easy money for them. If they do not accept our bet, then we must question how much faith they really have in their own forecast.
The bet we propose is very simple and concerns the specific global prediction in their Nature article. If the average temperature 2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or equal to the average temperature 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet will be decided by the end of 2010. We offer the same for their second forecast: If 2005-2015 (*) turns out to be colder or equal compared to 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500 – if it turns out to be warmer, they pay us the same. The basis for the temperature comparison will be the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set used by the authors in their paper.
To be fair, the bet needs an escape clause in case a big volcano erupts or a big meteorite hits the Earth and causes cooling below the 1994-2004 level. In this eventuality, the forecast of Keenlyside et al. could not be verified any more, and the bet is off.
The bet would also need a neutral arbiter – we propose, for example, the director of the Hadley Centre, home of the data used by Keenlyside et al., or a committee of neutral colleagues. This neutral arbiter would also decide whether a volcano or meteorite impact event is large enough as to make the bet obsolete.
We will discuss the scientific reasons for our assessment here another time – first we want to hear from Keenlyside et al. whether they accept our bet. Our friendly challenge is out – we hope they will accept it in good sportsmanship.
(*) We adopt here the definition of the 10-year intervals as in their paper, which is from 1 November of the first year to 31 October of the last year. I.e.: 2000-2010 means 1 November 2000 until 31 October 2010.
Update: We have now published part 2 of this bet with our scientific arguments.
_______________________
Update: Andy Revkin has weighed in at “dot earth”.
Update 5/11/08: so has Anna Barnett at Nature’s ‘climate feedback’ blog
Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2
In January, we presented Lesson 1 in model-data comparison: if you are comparing noisy data to a model trend, make sure you have enough data for them to show a statistically significant trend. This was in response to a graph by Roger Pielke Jr. presented in the New York Times Tierney Lab Blog that compared observations to IPCC projections over an 8-year period. We showed that this period is too short for a meaningful trend comparison.
This week, the story has taken a curious new twist. In a letter published in Nature Geoscience, Pielke presents such a comparison for a longer period, 1990-2007 (see Figure). Lesson 1 learned – 17 years is sufficient. In fact, the very first figure of last year’s IPCC report presents almost the same comparison (see second Figure).
[Read more…] about Model-data-comparison, Lesson 2
A Galactic glitch
Knud Jahnke and Rasmus Benestad
After having watched a new documentary called the ‘Cloud Mystery’ – and especially the bit about the galaxy (approximately 2 – 4 minutes into the linked video clip) – we realised that a very interesting point has been missed in earlier discussions about ‘climate, galactic cosmic rays and the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy.
It is claimed in ‘The Cloud Mystery’, the book ‘The Chilling Stars’, and related articles that our solar system takes about 250 million years to circle the Milky Way galaxy and that our solar system crosses one of the spiral arms about every ~150 million years (Shaviv 2003).
But is this true? Most likely not. As we will discuss below, this claim is seriously at odds with astrophysical data.
[Read more…] about A Galactic glitch