Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  Next

Comments 100501 to 100550:

  1. Comparing all the temperature records
    Re: muoncounter (24) In actuality, Norman's use of 1998 as his start year is such a blatant-cherry pick it constitutes use of the two-headed coin to determine field position for the extra period... ...so much so that there's no need to bother discussing the issue of statistical significance or weather vs climate (the 30-years thingy). In your parlance from 21, Norman squibbed the kick... The Yooper
  2. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    And very sound advice in your concluding paragraph!
  3. Comparing all the temperature records
    #22: "mythbusted" I don't want to be repetitive, so I ask you to please re-read #21. Or else its double overtime for sure. Your graph shows a similar 'cooling phase' between 1986-1989 and '93-94 (although that was Pinatubo-related). If we are to put any stock in these tiny wobbles within an obvious overall up-trend, then why did these two 'cooling phases' not 'bust' the myth already? Do you notice that after each one, the up-trend just kept on going? And why don't you declare the 'myth' unbusted by the distinct 'warming trend' from 2004-2006? Especially after you just said that "a decade is not long enough"!!! If you choose to believe 2-3 year blips over a 30 year trend, that's your right to have an opinion. But as they say, 'everybody gets an opinion, but they don't get their own facts.' Myth busted? Jamie and Adam wouldn't agree: "Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat absorbed by air -- confirmed."
  4. Comparing all the temperature records
    Re: Norman (22) Really, Norman, you missed your calling in life! You make the cardinal mistake of climate cherry-picking: picking one of the warmest years in the instrumental record as your starting point. That is cherry-picking of the highest order! Try moving your start point back to 1997 & see what happens. Or forward to 1999. We'll wait. ( - taps foot, whistles - ) Told you so. The Yooper
  5. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: 191), KR: "Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected." Forget about the gain for a minute. Do you notice that 161 + 78 = 239W/m^2 and not the 396 W/m^2 power at the surface? Using Trenberth's diagram and numbers, tell me where the 396 W/m^2 of power at the surface is coming from? Do you see what I mean about the diagram being very ambiguous and hard to follow? This can't be derived from information provided in the diagram. Do you also notice that 239 W/m^2 (161 + 78) is the albedo adjusted energy coming in from the Sun?
  6. Comparing all the temperature records
    #21 muoncounter, Thanks for explaining how the graph works. I did a trend line from 1998 to 2010 and it is actually negative so mythbusted. The satellite data does show a recent cooling trend. If this works here is the link to the graph I plotted. From 1998 to 2010 the temp trend is negative...cooling phase.
    Response: I know this is a somewhat futile exercise as we're talking about a short period with a very noisy signal (satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show strong variability from year to year). Nevertheless, I couldn't help noticing you had plotted the linear trend from 1998 to the start of 2010 (the purple line below):



    But why exclude all the temperature data throughout 2010? The 2010 temperatures are shown above - the green line. When we plot the linear trend from 1998 through to the end of 2010 (well, to very late 2010, we're not quite there yet), we get a positive trend (the red line).

    It bears mentioning that neither trend are statistically significant. It's a very noisy signal and we're looking at a short period. The lesson here is the danger of drawing solid conclusions from short periods. You assume a cooling phase when you plot the trend to December 2009. But you find a warming trend if you extend it to November 2010. You need to look at longer periods to get a result that is statistically significant.
  7. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    More news of the weird in Texas; 80+F yesterday and today (and its winter). Perry Issues Disaster Proclamation Over Wildfires The proclamation covers 244 of the state's 254 counties. Perry says lack of precipitation has dried grass and other vegetation across the state. He says the "significant fire danger" is expected to continue. And the reason 244/254 counties are in drought conditions is ... fill in the blank or see comment #5.
  8. The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
    Hugo Franzen Your mathematical work is very detailed. Thanks.
  9. Comparing all the temperature records
    #19: "to just plot 1998 to 2010" When the graph page opens, to the right of the graph are series 1-4. If you click under 'processing steps', you can choose how you'd like to slice and dice the data. Be aware that most of the datasets are monthly averages, so that a mean of 132 samples represents 11 years. "I agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present... " The kick is up... "but in the decade of the 2000's... " Ohh. Wide to the right. Guess we go into overtime, folks. If, as you say in the immediate parenthetical, "a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change", what do you expect that looking at only the most recent decade will tell you?
  10. Comparing all the temperature records
    The graphic looks very similar to the one in Hansen et al 2010 page 23 where 60 month and 132 month running averages are expressed using two different data sets.
  11. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: 191), KR: "Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise." Again, the diagram is confusing. In his diagram he is denoting that 40 W/m^2 is the amount passing through the clear sky unabsorbed and 30 W/m^2 is passing through cloudy sky unabsorbed for a total atmospheric window of 70 W/m^2.
  12. Comparing all the temperature records
    #16 muoncounter In your link, how do you get the graph to just plot 1998 to 2010? I will agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present (and a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change) but in the decade of the 2000's I still do not see a warming signal.
  13. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    muoncounter (RE: 192), I used Trenberth's number of 70 W/m^2 for the transparent portion of the atmosphere and got 52.5% up and 47.5% down for the absorbed portion of the atmosphere. That's pretty close to 50/50. That it's over 50% going up with his 70 W/m^2 suggests the actual transparency number is higher (more like a little over 80 W/m^2 for 50/50 up/down). If you missed it, here it is again: At a temperature of 288K, the surface emits 390 W/m^2. With a gain of 1.6 at the surface, the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and sent back toward the surface is 152 W/m^2 (238 W/m^2 from the Sun + 152 W/m^2 from atmosphere = 390 W/m^2 at the surface). To calculate the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and directed up out to space, we need to know how much of the surface power passes through the transparent window of the atmosphere totally unabsorbed. If we use Trenberth's 70 W/m^2, we get a total of 320 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere (390 - 70 = 320 W/m^2). 320 W/m^2 total absorbed - 152 W/m^2 directed downward back toward the surface = 168 W/m^2 upward out to space, which using Trenberth's numbers at least, is actually about 52.5% up and 47.5% down. 168 W/m^2 + 70 W/m^2 going up = 238 W/m^2 leaving and 238 W/m^2 arriving. Do you see how that for power in = power out, half of what the atmosphere absorbs has to be directed out to space?
  14. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #189: "I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half ..." No, you didn't show it, you decreed it. Refer to comment #7 for the first time someone said 'not'. We are going in circles over this. You've made your point to the best of your ability. As others have made theirs. Perhaps you could contact Dr. Trenberth directly and demonstrate to him exactly how he is incorrect.
  15. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - First, I'm glad you're responding. You did not to the last 2-3 posts I made on this thread. - Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise... - Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected. - 3.7 W/m^2 change in top of atmosphere (TOA) forcing per doubling of CO2. Yes, in a single layer model (not realistic) that's 7.4 watts absorbed in surface layers. If you want details, follow the multiple links to MODTRAN models folks have pointed you towards - which you have apparently not followed. If you won't, and haven't done the work, well then, don't argue with it. - You have repeatedly asserted that cyclic variations (orbital distances, seasons) somehow affect the global energy balance differently than CO2 forcings. You are incorrect - they all affect the global energy in the same fashion. It's just that long term trends in averages will change global climate, whereas balanced cycles will not. - muoncounter - Thanks, a sinusoid does average to 0.707 peak to peak values. I'm not sure that it's a pure sinusoid; given that perihelion orbital velocities are higher than aphelion, but that sounds about right. It's certainly not the peak-to-peak values RW1 asserts. - If you know that lower atmosphere absorption is ~twice what gets blocked at TOA, why are you claiming that the 3.7 gets halved?!? That's halving twice!
  16. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric (RE: 182), Disregard the "I know" at the end of post 189 - it was leftover from 188.
  17. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." OK, show me the power in = power out radiative budget calculations that prove this. I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half the the power absorbed by the atmosphere (for GHGs and clouds) is radiated up out to space and the other half is radiated down. I know.
  18. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Tom Dayton (RE: 186), Tom: "Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics." I know.
  19. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations." No, the gain of 1.6 is a global average calculation. It is simply the global average emitted surface power divided by the global average albedo adjusted solar power.
  20. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I think Eric (skeptic) has hit dead-on one of the problems with your approach, though other commentators I think have mentioned it: "but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics. David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" devotes its Chapter 3 to such a simple layer model, but only as an introduction to the concepts. Even that single-layer model shows heating of the surface. One of the "Projects" at the end of that chapter is to have the student extend that one-layer model to two layers (page 27), which still is far simpler than the real models that climatologists use. I think that chapter is your best way of understanding this topic.
  21. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I can't answer all your specific questions tonight, but I would note that the comparison between the paper you linked in #150 and the Collins paper I linked in #175 is quite dramatic. The author in your link has no representation of atmosphere except the flux-derived "gain" and the borrowed 3.7 number. It appears to be a case partly of misinterpretation and partly oversimplification, but I obviously need to figure out exactly what is wrong.
  22. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Evaporation and convection in the Trenberth numbers count; very much so. The Trenberth 2009 energy budget is essentially a 3-layer layout: 3-way exchanges between outer space, the surface of the Earth (water and soil), and the atmosphere. All numbers are important. You've indicated that you feel Trenberth was just presenting ad hoc numbers, as I indicated in this post, you're going to have to demonstrate your objections to specific numbers in those budgets to be taken seriously." No, I think some of Trenberth's numbers were determined ad hoc, but the diagram is confusing. Also, I did point out that his 70 W/m^2 for the transparent part of the atmosphere was likely too low. It's probably more like 80 W/m^2, because that yields 50/50 up/down for the portion of the atmosphere that is absorbed and re-radiated. What would like to know specifically?
  23. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    #181: "~50-60% of the peak-peak values" Surely you are aware that the rms average of a pure sinusoid is .707 of the peak. Some asymmetry may produce an rms average that is somewhat less. The objections to your calculations have been made clear. It is useless to continue insisting that they have not and to pick one point for each posting and ask for details. You need to review this entire thread from post #2 on, as a whole, without asking for line-by-line explanations. We are far off the topic of this thread; IMHO its time to move on.
  24. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 and KR, the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations. By comparing incoming and outgoing solar, for example, the albedo is determined linearly. The 1.6 would appear to also be linear, but it is not. For example if we only had a very small quantity of unreflected solar forcing (say 10 W/m^2), the surface would have no water vapor and no gaseous CO2 and the gain would pretty much be zero.
  25. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your peak-to-peak insolation numbers are meaningless without averaging them over the season; they should be ~50-60% of the peak-peak values (off the top of my head) for seasonal averages." What do you mean by "50-60% of the peak-peak values"?
  26. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your raw number calculations for insolation do not include sun angle; that will change those raw numbers considerably." Please explain and give specifics. I'm using global average numbers for insolation. I'm well aware that the angle of the sun varies dramatically dependent on latitude.
  27. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1, I don't think you are going to find a calculation of 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed, because like 3.7 radiative equivalent, it is not a physical quantity. The 3.7 is an effective forcing that can be used for comparison purposes with other forcings. The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer).
  28. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your 1.6 gain makes absolutely no sense to me, nor to any number of other posters. You appear to be dividing apples by oranges." In what way, specifically? How am I dividing apples by oranges? What are you referring to exactly?
  29. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Seasonal changes are cyclic, which means they average out to a trend of zero (0°C) over time. Seasonal variability is quite large - but the trend over time (30 years for statistical significance) is non-zero, indicating global warming." I totally know all of this. How are you interpreting what I've said as being in conflict with this?
  30. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1.2°C warming without considering feedbacks. That means 3.7 W/m^2 less IR radiation leaves the atmosphere. That number is the result of a considerable amount of computation, more than I can fit on the back of an envelope, working from basic physics to find how much energy is retained by GHG's." I want to see the details and computations, or at least point me to a source that lays them out. The "basic physics" dictate it should be half up and half down. For a 3.7 W/m^2 net toward the surface, that means a total of 7.4 W/m^2 has to be the amount additional infrared power absorbed and re-radiated from a doubling of CO2. BTW, I'm well aware that the calculation of 3.7 W/m^2 involves the things you're mentioning and it not a simple straightforward calculation.
  31. Comparing all the temperature records
    Norman wrote "I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data. Using a 133 month moving average shows a trend but the actual data do not." The 133 month moving average is "actual data." The whole point of computing a moving average is to make more visible the trend that is in the actual data. It's not magic. It's not cheating. It's not artificial. It's not non-actual.
  32. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Hi RW1, sorry I haven't answered your 172 post yet. I am looking at the paper you linked that said "According to HITRAN based simulations, the atmosphere captures 3.6 W/m² of additional power when the CO2 is increased from 280ppm to 560ppm. Of this, the atmosphere radiates half of this up and half down." and looking at the Collins paper http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/rtmip.pdf and others linked from Judith Curry's site http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/ So far I have not found a complete derivation of such a quantity as "captured additional power" for the atmosphere but a changes in LW forcing at various levels in the atmosphere. Hopefully I can reconcile those and determine whether the "divide by 2" idea is valid or not.
  33. Comparing all the temperature records
    Norman - Seasonal variation can be quite large. But if you look at long term trends, there is a statistically significant and easily seen warming. That takes 25-30 years of data, given the 'noise' of seasonal and yearly variations. But it's quite, quite clear.
  34. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    RW1 - Quite frankly, it's difficult to know where to start. - The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1.2°C warming without considering feedbacks. That means 3.7 W/m^2 less IR radiation leaves the atmosphere. That number is the result of a considerable amount of computation, more than I can fit on the back of an envelope, working from basic physics to find how much energy is retained by GHG's. That's equivalent to a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from solar changes (1.2°C for each 3.7 W/m^2 change), a 3.7 W/m^2 change in volcanic aerosols (1.2°C for each 3.7 W/m^2 change), etc. - Your 'halving' of the 3.7 radiative forcing is nonsense. You've been told that repeatedly, and have not responded. CO2 absorbs all the IR within it's emissivity/absorptivity bands within a matter of meters at ground level pressures. And emits based on it's temperature, somewhere near dynamic equilibrium. It's not just a single-layer atmosphere (where 7.4 W/m^2 absorption of surface IR would account for that); you would have to look at the integrated spectra of surface level IR absorption, the numeric calculations of each layer of atmosphere, etc. But it's 3.7 W/m^2 not making it out of the atmosphere for each CO2 doubling. - Your 1.6 gain makes absolutely no sense to me, nor to any number of other posters. You appear to be dividing apples by oranges. - Your peak-to-peak insolation numbers are meaningless without averaging them over the season; they should be ~50-60% of the peak-peak values (off the top of my head) for seasonal averages. - Climate sensitivity amplifies (to some extent) that change, with the current estimates being ~3°C for a doubling of CO2. - Your raw number calculations for insolation do not include sun angle; that will change those raw numbers considerably. - Seasonal changes are cyclic, which means they average out to a trend of zero (0°C) over time. Seasonal variability is quite large - but the trend over time (30 years for statistical significance) is non-zero, indicating global warming. - The difference between seasonal heating/cooling and long term trends is, quite simply, the trend. Seasonal effects cancel out, trends on baselines do not. - Evaporation and convection in the Trenberth numbers count; very much so. The Trenberth 2009 energy budget is essentially a 3-layer layout: 3-way exchanges between outer space, the surface of the Earth (water and soil), and the atmosphere. All numbers are important. You've indicated that you feel Trenberth was just presenting ad hoc numbers, as I indicated in this post, you're going to have to demonstrate your objections to specific numbers in those budgets to be taken seriously. Given the large number of incorrect or unsourced assertions in your postings, I would find it very difficult to discuss anything with you. You really appear to be focusing on details (bean-counting) without a good view of what's happening on a larger scale, and are getting tied up in the (incorrectly summed) numbers.
  35. Comparing all the temperature records
    #15: "I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data" Look here and you will see. The trend is up at the familiar 0.15 degC per decade. If you do NH separately (with the data download; WfT doesn't show separate satellite data sets), the trend is higher.
  36. Comparing all the temperature records
    #6 dansat "That is a great graphic. The myth that satellite temps. show cooling is widespread. (Especially here in Huntsville with UAH down the road!)" Satellite temps. From the satellite graph I would agree that it is a myth that satellite temps show cooling is widespread. But they also do not show a clear warming trend. After 1998 the temps flatlined in the 2000's and only went up in 2010 which was an El Nino year. I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data. Using a 133 month moving average shows a trend but the actual data do not.
  37. Comparing all the temperature records
    Just one point John. Should the graph not read "133 Month Moving Average"?
  38. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    Moderators - Excellent questions in your comment here. The best minimum recommendation I could make would be (in the cases of blogs vs. rebuttals, or rewrites vs. BIA pages) to include a link between them - the blog including a link to the more formal rebuttal, the rebuttal including a link to the initial blog. That way we could tell the other version actually exists. As an addendum (yes, I know, additional requirements - never fun, always late in the project, very Dilbertian) it would be great to add to the HTML for the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced with the link tabs for them indicating how many comments are on each version, thus indicating where the real conversations are taking place.
    Response: "it would be great to add to the HTML for the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced with the link tabs for them indicating how many comments are on each version"

    That might be appropriate if each level rebuttal had its own comments thread but currently there is one comments thread for all 3 levels. That decision isn't locked in stone, I *may* split it into 3 levels down the track.
  39. Comparing all the temperature records
    I wonder if the fact that the European and Japanese records are published in the obtuse GRIB format are part of the reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are much more widely published online.
    GRIB is very popular with meteorological agencies. However, end-users who are used to downloading the "end product" (ASCII files) don't find it very useful. I think one reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are so popular is because they were among the first to produce comprehensive homogenized gridded climate data sets. In other words, they got in on the ground floor.
  40. Comparing all the temperature records
    The link "single spreadsheet" in the paragraph under the graphic is broken John.
    Response: Fixed, thanks Ron.
  41. A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    #29: "the objective trend is unambiguous." It certainly is. Now you're watching!
  42. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    Eric (RE: Post 169), What numbers would you like to use for the yearly average albedo vs. the average albedo in January? I now realize 0.4 is too high, and it appears like it's more around 0.33-0.35. Do you see that the 3 C colder temperature at perihelion doesn't conflict with the increased solar power and the roughly 1.6 gain factor, and is actually in line with it?
  43. Comparing all the temperature records
    I would like to advertise Japanese reanalysis as well. It is called JRA25 which covers 1979 - 2004, and continues as "JCDAS". The web site is here. http://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-25/index_en.html You need registration (called "Application" in their menu). And they have conditions, essentially similar to ECMWF's. Near-surface air temperature in 2.5 degree grids is item "TMPsfc" in the group "anl_p25". As for data format, I remember that monthly data are in simple binary (raster) format while data of shorter time periods are in GRIB.
    Response: Thanks Kooiti, I did have in mind the JMA record as well. Does their record cover the entire globe? If so, how do they fill in the Arctic regions that HadCRUT exclude?

    I wonder if the fact that the European and Japanese records are published in the obtuse GRIB format are part of the reason why GISS, HadCRUT and NOAA are much more widely published online.

    UPDATE: Okay, this graph seems to indicate they exclude the Arctic regions similar to HadCRUT, as does the fact that their global average shows 1998 as the hottest on record.
  44. Comparing all the temperature records
    While it is true that we need to pay to get ECMWF data in full resolution, ECMWF makes their popular parts available on-line. They have some "conditions of use": http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/license/era40/ The essential point is "non-commercial". The document is written with academic institutions in mind, and I am not sure how it is applied to citizen engagements. Currently there are two major series of reanalysis: ERA 40: Sep 1957 - Aug 2002, finished. ERA Interim: Jan 1989 - Oct 2010, continuing. Data on a standard latitude-longitude grid are available. I remember that the grid interval is 2.5 degrees. If you want monthly mean values of near-surface air temperature, go to the pages ERA 40 Years Re-Analysis, Monthly Means of Daily Means Type of level: surface http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/era40_moda/levtype=sfc/ ERA Interim, Monthly Means of Daily Means Type of level: surface http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/interim_moda/levtype=sfc/ and select the item "2 metre temperature". The data format is called GRIB. It is complicated, but ECMWF provides a decoder software (C source program ) at a page linked to the above-mentioned ones.
  45. Comparing all the temperature records
    Maybe this is covered somewhere, but why 133 months?
  46. Conspiracy theories
    #2 meerkat… “The AGW debate is fascinating” What “debate”? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to debate. AGW is not a conspiracy, it is a fact – as are its consequences and the sooner this is accepted and dealt with, the better.
  47. Comparing all the temperature records
    #1 My understanding is that one of the reasons is that it helps to eliminate instrument variability. Just as a simple explanation, let's say we have two thermometers side by side. One reads correct temperature while the other reads the temperature 5 degrees higher. The average of those two instruments would be wrong. But if we only look at the change in temperature, the anomaly, they will both be the same.
  48. Comparing all the temperature records
    Great resourse John. Any idea why the satellite data starts in 1984? I thought data was available from 1979.
    Response: You're correct, satellites started in 1979. It's because this graph shows the 133 month average. Download the spreadsheet to check out all the sausage making that went into this graph.
  49. Comparing all the temperature records
    That is a great graphic. The myth that satellite temps. show cooling is widespread. (Especially here in Huntsville with UAH down the road!) Big thanks to John and Ben. I put that up on twitter and will post it on my AGU blog as well.
    Response: Thanks Dan. Don't forget to credit Kelly O'Day from Climate Charts & Graphs.

    Just a reminder to all, Dan's very cool AGU blog is Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal. BTW, the Twitter link on your blog doesn't work - do you still have a Twitter account?
  50. Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
    No one here has adequately debunked anything I've said. No one has yet to explain what is so special about each 1 W/m^2 of additional forcing from CO2 that the system is going to treat it as being 5 (or at least 2.5 times) as powerful as each 1 W/m^2 from the Sun. No one has yet to explain why the oceans will obey radically different physics globally than they do hemispherically to increases in radiative forcing. A few people have acknowledged that of the additional absorbed power from CO2, only half of it can affect the surface because the other half is radiate upward out to space. When asked for a source or some kind of documentation that for the total net forcing to be 3.7 W/m^2, the total absorbed actually need to be 7.4 W/m^2, no one has provided it. Now, I know must have missed answering some questions directed to me here, so please remind me of anything I failed to address to anyone's satisfaction.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You have been repeatedly corrected, most recently by KR at 174 below. Please read his comment carefully and review the previous comments others have made. Thank you.

Prev  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us