Perhaps, this blog spends too much time talking about the atmosphere, so to make amends today, let’s see what is happening to the temperature of the ocean surface. And see whether anything unusual is going on. Let’s start with yesterday’s sea surface temperatures around North America (below). Sorry, it is all in °C. Keep in mind that 10°C is roughly 50F, 20°C is around 68F, and 30°C is approximately 86F.
The eastern Pacific near the West Coast is cold (about 50F), with central California’s waters a bit cooler than ours. You must head to the southern tip of the Baja Peninsula to find the water warm enough for comfortable swimming.
The East Coast is a study in contrasts. The water off of New England is crazy cold (dropping below 7C), while the uber-warm Gulf Stream is found along the west coast of Florida, moves past the Carolinas, and then heads northeastward into the Atlantic.
There is a HUGE temperate contrast between the Gulf Stream current and the cold water of the Northeast. A blow-up of the sea surface temperatures off the Northwest really shows the amazing horizontal temperature changes north of the Gulf Stream
Look closely and you will waves in the interface between warm and cold water in the Atlantic and a fascinating loop in the warm water over the Gulf of Mexico (first image above). Very warm water over the Caribbean and west of Central America
Your next question is probably: is the current pattern of sea surface temperature unusual?
To evaluate this, the next map shows the difference between yesterday’s sea surface temperature and normal conditions (also called the SST anomaly).
Pretty close to normal off the Northwest coast. A few degrees colder than normal for California’s coastal waters. And near normal on Mexico’s west coast. Most of the Gulf and Atlantic coast is slightly above normal. Temperature is cooler than normal north of the Gulf Stream, which suggests that the Gulf Stream is south of its normal position by a hundred miles or so.
The biggest sea surface temperature story is what is happening in the tropical Pacific. Last year, a strong El Nino brought MUCH warmer than normal sea surface temperatures from South America, westward into the central Pacific.
But something major has happened. The tropical Pacific surface waters are rapidly cooling, resulting in cooler than normal waters in many locations (see map, with arrows showing you some of the coolest spots).
El Nino is dead. Long live La Nina, its frigid cousin!
The entire character of this winter has been characterized by a strong El Nino.
El Nino impacts have included low snowpack over Washington State, huge snowpack and heavy precipitation over California, and warm temperatures over the Upper Plains states.
However, El Nino’s days are numbered and its decline is proceeding rapidly right now.
First, consider the critical measure of El Nino: the sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific (the Nino 3.4 area). The warmth of this El Nino peaked in late November (about 2.1°C above normal) and is now declining fairly rapidly (currently at roughly 1.3°C above normal).
But the cooling is really more dramatic than that: a LOT of cooling has been happening beneath the surface!
To demonstrate this, take a look at subsurface temperatures (the difference from normal) for the lowest 300 m under the surface for a vertical cross-section across the Pacific (below).
On 8 January, there was a substantial warm layer extending about 100 m beneath the surface.
But look at the same cross-section on 27 February.
Wow–what a difference! The warm water has dramatically cooled, with only a thin veneer of warmth evident for much of the Pacific.
Rapidly cooling has occurred beneath the surface and this cool water is about to spread to the surface.
If you really want to appreciate the profound cooling take a look at the amount of heat in the upper ocean for the western tropical Pacific (below, the difference from normal is being shown).
A very, very dramatic change has occurred. The heat content of the upper ocean peaked in late November and then plummeted. Declined so much that the water below the surface is now COOLER than normal.
El Nino fans will be further dismayed to learn that models are going for a continuous decline….so much so that they predict a La Nina next year!
So why should folks care about this major decline in El Nino here on the West Coast?
El Nino results in a trough of low pressure centered to our south and west, something evident in the upper-level maps (for 500 hPa, about 18,000 ft) for February hown below. The blue colors indicate lower-than-normal heights/pressures.
But with El Nino weakening, a major pattern change is possible, and the latest model forecast is for a major change, with a huge ridge (red color) over our region for March 13-20th.
FINALLY, we may experience some real springtime weather. Like highs in the mid-60s! I can’t wait. Tired of one frosty morning after another!
Well, I decided to take a shot at publishing my views on the cloud feedback response to increases in surface warming. I wrote it up and sent it for peer review to the Journal of Climate.
The reviewers said that it seemed like I was looking at changes in location, not changes over time. So I re-wrote it and sent it back in.
They wrote back and said ok, changes helped, and oh, by the way …
… it’ll cost you $1,546 to get it published.
I can assure you that I harnessed the awesome power that comes from splitting the infinitive. In a far-too-loud voice, I uttered various speculations regarding the ancestry, sexual habits, and personal hygiene of the Owners, Editors, and Reviewers. I fear I went so far as to encourage them to engage in auto-fornication … for all of which I’m truly sorry. It’s just what goes on in 2023, and I’m still not used to it.
So instead, I figured I’d start by publishing it here, and invite people to suggest changes, to point out inconsistencies, and to generally be some combination of Editors and Reviewers of the paper. Please be kind in your comments, I’m just a fool whose intentions are good.
With that as a prologue, here’s the current state of the paper.
Independent Climate Researcher, Occidental, California
Corresponding author: Willis Eschenbach
ABSTRACT
Cloud radiative response to a change in surface temperatures is a key component in accurately estimating future temperature changes. Changes in surface temperature lead to different cloud responses in different parts of the planet. However, the overall effect of these changes has been very poorly constrained. (Boucher 2013) Using data from satellite observations, I develop two independent methods to estimate how the clouds in different areas respond to a surface temperature increase. Both methods show a global net surface cloud radiative cooling effect. The size of the cooling obtained in this manner is a minimum value of total cloud cooling, because more cloud-related cooling occurs as a result of a temperature-related increase in thermally-driven tropical and extra-tropical thunderstorms which cool the surface in a variety of non-radiative ways. In addition, using theoretical arguments, I show that it is unlikely that the cloud response amplifies global warming.
1. Introduction
Clouds have a central role in modulating the global energy balance. They have long been recognized as being the major source of uncertainty in climate projections. Although a variety of evidence has been presented, a narrow constraint on how clouds respond to projected warming has remained elusive. Indeed, there is still no widespread agreement even on the sign of the cloud response to warming. Part of the challenge is that net cloud radiative effect involves cloud effects on both solar (shortwave [SW]) and terrestrial (longwave [LW]) radiative fluxes. (Ceppi et al. 2017, Gettleman and Sherwood 2016)
A most unusual yet generally unremarked feature of the climate system is its thermal stability. Here is the trough-to-peak temperature range over a 22-year period for each 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell.
Fig. 1. Maximum variations in monthly average temperature (trough to peak) during the period Mar 2000 – Feb 2022.
Here, we see temperature swings of over 30°C in the poles, 29°C over the land, 9°C over the oceans, and 14.8 °C for the globe as a whole. But despite those large intra-annual swings, after 12 months the temperature always returns to nearly the same value. Over the same Mar 2000 – Feb 2022 period, the CERES data reveals annual average global surface temperature changes of only about 0.5°C, which is only three percent of the intra-annual variation.
And as another example, over the entire 20th Century the temperature only increased by 0.8°C, which is a 0.3% temperature rise in 100 years.
Figure 2. Annual temperature ranges for the globe (red line) and monthly temperature ranges for parts of the globe. Red line shows range of 20th Century global average annual temperatures, around 0.3%.
As Figure 2 above shows, this surprising longer-term stability cannot be from thermal inertia, given the far larger monthly intra-annual swings. This overall steady-state condition argues strongly for the existence of natural thermoregulatory phenomena opposing any change in the overall steady-state temperature.
This is supported by Le Chatelier’s Principle. Le Chatelier enunciated a simple principle that governs systems that are in a steady-state condition. Le Chatelier’s principle asserts that a disturbance applied to a system at a steady state may drive the system away from its equilibrium state, but will invoke a countervailing influence that will counteract the effect of the disturbance. (Gorshkov et al. 1990) This principle strongly suggests that if the global average temperature changes, the clouds and other phenomena will act to counteract the temperature change, not to reinforce it.
The net cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface is composed of the clouds’ effect on two different types of radiation. The first is solar (shortwave) radiation, which is both reflected and absorbed by clouds. The second is thermal (longwave) radiation, which is both radiated and absorbed by clouds. The net surface CRE, which I’ll call “CRE” for simplicity, is the total of the two effects at the surface where we live. In other words, the CRE is the difference between downwelling radiation in clear-sky and cloudy-sky conditions. If the CRE is negative, it means clouds are cooling the surface.
In general, clouds cool the surface. Figure 3 shows the global variations in the CRE. In Fig. 3 we see that the clouds warm the poles and the deserts, and cool everywhere else.
Fig. 3. Surface cloud radiative effect, on a 1° latitude x 1° longitude basis.
The short-term change in surface CRE with temperature is easily calculated using the CERES data. Figure 4 shows that result.
Figure 4. Short-term trends in surface cloud radiative effect as a function of temperature. Trends are ordinary least squares linear regression slopes.
However, that doesn’t tell us what we need to know, which is how the clouds respond to a long-term change in surface temperature. Despite that, there are two ways that we can use observational data to measure that response.
Both of them depend on a simple idea—as a long-term average for each gridcell, over thousands of years, the temperature and the corresponding cloud radiative effect have reached a steady state condition. All of the various phenomena affecting the CRE, such as relative humidity, boundary-layer inversion strength, CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), oceanic subsidence and upwelling, and other factors now oscillate around long-term average values for each given gridcell. Thus, the average relationship between temperature and CRE for each gridcell represents the long-term steady-state relationship.
The first way to see what will happen if the surface temperature warms is a gridcell-based scatterplot of CRE and temperature.
Fig. 5. Scatterplot, 22-year averages of CRE versus surface temperature. Each dot is a 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell.
Despite this scatterplot including both land and ocean and covering from the tropics to both poles, there is a clear pattern. Looking from the left to the right in the scatterplot, the slope of the black/white line shows the direction and amount of change in the CRE as the temperature increases. There are four different zones.
The coldest zone encompasses the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Where the average monthly gridcell temperature is below -20°C, you are in one of those two locations. There, increasing temperatures lead to increasing cloud warming. This represents less than 4% of the planetary surface.
The next zone is from -20°C to 10-15°C. In this zone, increasing warming results in increasing cloud cooling. The third zone is from 10-15°C to about 25°C. In this zone, increasing temperature leads to increasing cloud warming.
Finally, in the warmest parts, increased surface warming leads to greatly increased cloud cooling. At its greatest, an increase of 1°C leads to up to 40 W/m2 of increased cloud cooling (reduction in downwelling surface radiation).
Now, this shows us the overall pattern of the relationship between temperature and CRE. It is extremely non-linear. But it is a general indication, with lots of scatter around the trend line. It also shows areas from all around the world combined.
What this method doesn’t show is either the detailed spatial pattern or the area-weighted global average response of the CRE to increasing temperature. For this I use a second method.
The second method looks only at the average values of the gridcells in the area immediately around each gridcell. Consider a gridcell in the ocean as an example. Nearby gridcells to the north, south, east, and west of that chosen gridcell will have different long-time average values for temperature and CRE. So we can determine the long-term effect by looking at the local relationship between average temperature and average CRE. For each gridcell, I have used a box that is 9° latitude by 9° longitude, centered on the chosen gridcell. This gives me 81 temperature values and a corresponding 81 CRE values. I do a linear regression of the 81 CRE values as a function of the 81 temperature values. The resulting slope shows the change in CRE corresponding to a 1° change in temperature. I’ve analyzed the land and the ocean separately, to avoid mixing different regimes. However, this seems to make little difference. The result is shown in the following Pacific- and Atlantic-centered graphics.
Fig. 6. Changes in surface cloud radiative effect per 1°C change in surface warming. The lower panel is the same as the upper but with an Atlantic-centered view. All values used in the calculation are the average of the full 22 years of the CERES record.
This shows two views, one Pacific and one Atlantic centered, of the detailed location and size of changes in CRE from 1°C surface warming. Globally, there is an area-averaged net cooling of -1.7 W/m2. The main cooling occurs over the ocean, with an area-averaged cooling of -2.4 W/m2. The land is the only area which is even slightly positive, with an area-averaged warming of +0.3 W/m2
These results are in good agreement with those of Ramanathan and Collins (Ramanathan, V., & Collins, W. (1991)), although the proposed mechanisms are different, and these results are for the planet while Ramanathan and Collins only looked at the Pacific Warm Pool.
3. Stability And Uncertainty
If this metric is indeed a measure of the long-term change in CRE with warming, it should change very little from year to year. The boxplot below shows 22 CRE feedback values for each geographical area listed in Figure 6, one for each year of the CERES record.
Figure 7. Boxplot, change in CRE from 1°C surface warming. Data for each of the 22 years in the CERES record.
As expected, there is very little variation in the results despite the shortness (one year) of each dataset. This indicates that even a 22-year average will give accurate values for the change in surface CRE per 1°C warming. As in Figure 6, the only large area that shows positive feedback is the land, and the feedback is quite small.
4. Data Details
I used monthly gridded Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled Edition 4.1 data (Loeb et al. 2018). The CERES record is quite stable (Loeb et al. 2016), which makes it an excellent record for this type of analysis. All of the CERES data used covers the 22-year period from March 2000 to February 2022.
For surface temperature, I have used the CERES surface upwelling longwave dataset, converted to temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. For verification of the calculated CERES surface temperature data, I have compared it with the results using the Berkeley Earth gridded land/ocean data record (Rohde and Hausfather 2020). The area-weighted average difference between the two is only 0.43°C. This difference is not surprising because the Berkeley Earth dataset is a combination of air temperature over land and sea surface temperature. On the other hand, the CERES data is surface temperature everywhere. Below is the same calculation shown in Figure 5 but using the Mar 2000 – Feb 2022 Berkeley Earth Data in place of CERES data for that same period. Note that there is very little difference between this and Figure 5 above which uses CERES data.
Figure 8. As in Figure 5, but using Berkeley Earth surface temperature data in place of CERES data.
5. Final Thoughts
As mentioned above, the cloud radiative effect is only one of the ways that the clouds affect the surface temperature. In addition, thunderstorms cool the surface by means of:
• Increased surface albedo over the ocean due to the white surface foam, spume (foam driven aloft by the wind), and spray. Increased cloud albedo due to the vertical extent of thunderstorm towers.
• A thunderstorm operates on the same refrigeration cycle as a household refrigerator or air conditioner. It evaporates a working fluid (in this case water) in the area to be cooled. It moves the resulting vapor to a separate physical location (the thunderstorm cloud base) where the working fluid is condensed and then returned to the area to be cooled, in the form of cold rain. This natural refrigeration-cycle heat engine greatly cools the surface quite independently of any radiation considerations.
• There is increased evaporative cooling due to the thunderstorm-generated winds at the base, as well as from the provision of dry air to the surface.
• A large thunderstorm typically generates on the order of 20,000 tonnes of rainfall over its existence. This means it is moving on the order of 40 terajoules of energy from the surface to high up in the troposphere. There, because it is above most greenhouse gases, it is much freer to radiate to space.
• Increased evaporation from the increase in surface area due to the creation of millions of spray droplets.
• Increased radiation to space due to the lack of water vapor in the dry descending air between the thunderstorms.
Tropical thermally driven thunderstorms increase with increasing temperatures. As a result, the cloud radiative cooling (CRE) is enhanced by increased thunderstorm production, and the CRE cooling estimates represent a minimum value.
Acknowledgments.
All of this work is my own. However, I owe immense thanks to all of the outstanding scientists who have preceded me. I have no conflicts of interest.
Boucher, O. et al., 2013: Clouds and aerosols, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013), pp. 571–657.
Ceppi, P, F. Brient, M. D. Zelinka, D. L. Hartmann, 2017: Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. : Clim. Change8, e465.
Gorshkov, V.G., Sherman, S.G. & Kondratyev, K.Y., 1990: The global carbon cycle change: Le Chatelier principle in the response of biota to changing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Il Nuovo Cimento C13, 801–816 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02511997
Loeb, N. G. et al., 2018: Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 data product. J. Clim.31, 895–918.
Loeb, N., N. Manalo-Smith, W. Su, M. Shankar, S. Thomas, 2016: CERES top-of-atmosphere Earth radiation budget climate data record: Accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration. Rem. Sens.8, 182.
Ramanathan, V., & Collins, W. (1991). Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Niño. Nature, 351(6321), 27–32. doi:10.1038/351027a0 https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/351027a0
Rohde, R. A. and Hausfather, Z., 2020: The Berkeley Earth Land/Ocean Temperature Record, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3469–3479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3469-2020.
So, there it is. All comments, criticisms, and improvements gladly considered. This site provides one of the best peer-review processes on the planet.
Please remember that when you comment, you need to quote the exact words you are discussing. That way, we can all be clear about your subject.
Finally, a couple of requests.
First, I’d still like to get this sucker published. Does anyone know of a reasonably high-impact-factor journal that does NOT charge $1,546 to publish a paper?
And second, does anyone want to take this paper over and shepherd it through the review process? This method worked out very well for Craig Loehle and me. With some assistance from me, he rewrote parts of my post on extinctions entitled Where are the Corpses?, he arm-wrestled the journals, and we got it published as Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes, with him as the Lead Author. So far, about 150 citations, with more each month.
Anyone interested? Any “publish or perish” folks out there not interested in perishing? Because I truly hate dealing with the journals …
My very best wishes to all, enjoy this marvelous world where we are given so little time.
The Power and Impact scale rates the storm intensity during the highest impact (they do not have to make “landfall”, just cause the conditions). That has been increased to 9 from 8 (see Power and Impact scale). In cases like Ian, two different impact numbers that were added together – 4 for Florida and 1.75 for the Carolinas. The ultimate impact is Donna in 1960 (4 in Florida, 3 in the Carolinas, and 2 in New England) for a total of 9. A whole season was wrapped into one storm. Note that Canada is not included in this forecast.
These numbers have been upped slightly. I am saying six tropical storm impacts because I believe that when the season is done, the feature that was un-named on Memorial Day weekend off the Southeast Coast that caused a wipe out the holiday weekend in the Carolinas, hurricane-force winds to a Carnival Cruise Ship, and storm force winds on the coast, will get classified. You can’t classify that January system and then let that one go. We do realize this is somewhat of a numbers game and is totally subjective.
So far, NHC has classified five storms. The two African waves set off much hype as they were so early on, but they fell apart. Since Cindy, nothing has developed outside of Africa. That is how it is normally until August. What is interesting is that the pattern is doing it with record-warm water comparable to the busiest of seasons. This further buttresses my argument about how the distortion of the warming can bring down activity if you boil it down to the old Texas A & M rule: Hurricanes are ways to redistribute heat out of the Tropics. If it’s already being done horizontally and vertically (i.e., warm all over), what’s the need for them?
So with five storms already classified and 16 ACE points, we are ahead of that. One of the storms, Don, became a hurricane. Because it was around so long, it had 7 of the 16 ACE points. The January system had 1.4 ACE points. Don did not originate in the Tropics (nor did the January system or what became Arlene). Essentially the African wave season has produced only 7 of the 16 points. If we were only at 7, we would be below normal for the date.
The big fear here is a spray gun season that all comes in a few weeks. 2008 was classic with seven named impact storms in a row, and then none:
1985:
Herein lies the problem. The congregation of tracks may wind up similarly, and the September Sea Level Pressure forecast by the Euro alludes to that. In the same manner, its precipitation forecast from mid-September to November last year hinted at the late-season activity well before the storms that hit were named.
Globally the western Pacific is doing what were saying it was going to do. The El Niño, of course, is raging full scale and is heading to what we said from early in the season:
This is in line with the preseason analogs, which were way, way under our totals. However, the warm Atlantic and the Multivariate Enso index are other factors. The MEI is not responding like the ONI because it incorporates atmospheric aspects, so it means that there is a big disconnect between the observed El Niño (Sea surface temperature-wise SST) and other similar years, likely due to the distortion of the entire global pattern brought about by distorted warming. So we can’t just rely on those analogs. We did not in the preseason, and the MEI gives us reason to believe that while El Niño will limit this season’s potential, it will not chop it down as much as the other strong ones did.
The old PSU rule was the real hurricane season starts August 15 and ends Oct 15. 75% of the ace is in that time span, and so it may be this year. I have made changes to the impact areas where we believe a higher-than-average ACE will occur.
The September ECMWF forecast looks a lot like the Septembers of 1954, 1985, 1989, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 & 2017, with the western trough and ridging up through eastern Canada. Scaling prevents the kind of definition that is seen in the actual analog:
The Sea Level Pressure pattern forecast certainly supports it:
The northward shift in the model makes sense compared to the analogs because of El Niño trying to limit features in the Caribbean. So our forecast map is assuming September is going to be a big month. Again the PSU rule of August 15-October 15 is unlike last year, centering the season in the middle. Last year we picked out analog/model correlations and nailed the late-season activity. It will be interesting to see if this is correct.
The spread of landfalling majors in these years ranges from Harvey on the western flank in 2007 to Carol and Edna in 1954 to the east (Juan, if you count 2003 in Canada).
It is interesting to note how the last three seasons have worked versus this one. 2020 was a wild start to finish. 2021 was early, and 2022 was late. This one is in the middle. So this turns into a “bang for the buck forecast”. I have upped the majors to 1-2 hits. If there is a spray of 5 or 6 storms impacting the U.S., three or four hurricanes, and 1-2 majors, it would mean the Power and Impact points would be higher, so I nudged that up.
The Verdict
The western Pacific is performing according to plan. I think 75% of the ACE may occur in September, and there may be a flurry of activity, depending on the MJO, similar to what we have seen before, where several storms impact the U.S. all at once. The Texas hurricane season should shut down in October, and I suspect after October 15, the rest of the U.S. will too, but who knows what will get named out in the middle of nowhere that may head for Europe?
This is actually a pretty threatening impact forecast. We need to watch the MJO. So far, we have been saved by western Pacific activity, as development there usually means the Atlantic is quiet. They are way ahead of the game this season. The quiet in the Atlantic is not likely to last, and there is a chance that the current quiet will turn into a riot for a few weeks; so far there is nothing on the horizon but rumors of storms, but later this month and especially in September, that should all change.
Note that next year may be a doozy of a season. I believe this is a bounce-back El Niño in response to the longest and strongest MEI El Niño on record, so we should collapse it and go back to a La Niña base state. SSTs will remain warm, and so that may be a season number-wise (at least for totals) two times higher than this year.
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.
His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
