Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 Next
Comments 37551 to 37600:
-
Tom Curtis at 14:41 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Albatross, Dana, Nic Lewis has been a co-author of two papers, and sole author of a third that I am aware of:
Energy budget constraints on climate response
On a side, note, as I was doing my google searches to find exact titles and links for the above, I came across a new paper by Craig Loehle also estimating low climate sensitivity (1.99 C per doubling). His trick appears to be to attribute much of the recent warming to the PDO, but I would need to buy a copy of the paper to determine the exact details. Publication date is March 24th, but now available online, so we can expect to see that cited a lot in the near future.
-
dana1981 at 13:32 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
'Few' is vague. I'm pretty sure it's 2, but I said 'few' in case I missed any. I think he's just got Lewis and Otto though.
The Curry Foreword is kind of interesting from a psychological perspective. First, why did GWPF invite her to write it? She has no publications and no expertise in sensitivity research, as her comments on the subject make crystal clear. I can only guess they wanted a 'climate scientist' to write something since neither of the authors is really a climate scientist. Basically to try and make it seem more credible. And I suppose they couldn't think of many climate scientists who would be willing to endorse that report, for obvious reasons.
And then why would Curry agree to write the Foreword? It totally undermines her claimed role as the 'bridge builder', as GWPF is an anti-science, anti-policy, politcal advocacy group. Perhaps it's naîveté about what GWPF is and does. Perhaps it's that she views her role as amplifying 'skeptic' voices. That's basically how she explained it on her blog. But it's pretty hard to maintain the perception of a bridge-building open-minded skeptic when you're writing material for a group like GWPF.
In any case, we shouldn't turn the comments into a psychoanalysis of Judith Curry. More important is that the report itself is a totally biased, cherry picked misrepresentation of the full body of climate sensitivity research.
-
Albatross at 13:23 PM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
Dana,
You say Lewis has published a "few" papers on climate sensitivity. I am aware of only two papers by him in the peer-reviewed literature, and on one of those he was a co-author on a paper temperatures over western Antarctica. Did I miss a couple? For now Lewis lies squarely in the climate "hobbyist" desgnation, and his fellow fake skeptics are bending over backwards to try and boost his impact.
Curry's foreward was entertaining to read, nothing more. That she is falling over herself to praise this report is hardly surprising given that she has declared that she supports the (ideological and political) objectives of the GWPF lobbyists.
This report though is also another example of how the fake skeptics fail to present a coherent and physically plausible alternative hypothesis to the theory of AGW. Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent ;)
-
Tom Curtis at 10:48 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @72, if you recall, what I originally indicated @47, and which you challenged, was:
"Fox & Gallant estimate the costs of transferring to renewables on the assumption that all gross costs of electricity generation are also net costs. That is, they assume that increased investment in renewable energy will not be partly offset by reduced investment in coal fired power plants. That fact alone means that their headline result does not follow from their analysis"
That should have been straightforward enough for you, but apparently not.
In simple terms, if Ontario had not embarked on a LTEP to switch to carbon reduced* power generation, costs of electricity to the consumer would still have risen. They would have risen with increased wages due to inflation. Potentially they would have risen due to increased costs of fossil fuels. They would have risen due to increased investment in fossil fuel power stations to meet demand. The real cost of the choice to go to carbon reduced electricity, therefore, is the difference between the cost of that decision, and the cost of the cheapest alternative energy plan that did not take a reduced carbon route, but which similarly increased generation capacity. In economic terms, that approximates to the opportunity cost.
The LTEP does not itemize that opportunity cost. It does not compare the cost of the LTEP to an alternative, high carbon plan that would have been pursued instead. Consequently referring back to the 2010 LTEP does not account for those opportunity costs. Nor does it show how their adjustments (even if considered legitimate) would effect alter the opportunity cost.
For what it is worth, the 2013 LTEP indicates that the total cost of coal use was 4.4 billion a year. That is 25% of the 2013 total cost of electricity generation, and 22% of 2030 costs. (These figures underestimate the cost of coal as they compare 2003 nominal values with 2030 nominal values.) Health costs alone could have risen above 3 billion per annum (2005 study cited by 2010 LTEP).
You introduced Fox and Gallant to show that projected costs of renewable energy programs underestimate actual costs. As has been pointed out, it only showed that one set of projected costs was higher than another. More to the point, it has now been shown that both the 2010 LTEP, and even more so, Fox and Gallant overestimated the increase in costs, at least over the first 3 years of the plan.
Finally, you, following Fox and Gallant, highlighted the discrepancy between the Geoge Smitherson's statement in parliament and the 2010 LTEP. Neither you nor they, however, have shown whether Smitherson's statement referred to real value, nominal value or oportunity cost. Of the three, the later is the far more likely, and as it would be absurd to promise the LTEP would keep energy rises below the inflation rate, nominal value is extremely unlikely. Yet despite this, you (and they) have been quite happy to compare projected nominal increases to that statement as though they refuted it. For the record, the 2010 projected real increases work out at 2.3% per annum over the 20 years to 2030, not 3.5% quoted by Fox and Gallant. And opportunity cost would have been way below that.
* not carbon free because they will still use gas power plants.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:49 AM on 10 March 2014GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded
There's a great point in one of Richard Alley's lectures where he talks about the CS graph Dana has included here. He says, when the study that is 5th from the bottom came out he spent two days answering phone calls from reporters. All the other CS studies, nothing.
http://youtu.be/Z_-8u86R3Yc?t=13m43s
Tells you a lot.
-
scaddenp at 08:25 AM on 10 March 2014Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
Actually, updating the article with this paper (Shindell 2014) looks like a good idea since this enhances our understanding of sensitivity and forcings so that differing estimation methods are reconciled.
-
Ben Lankamp at 07:08 AM on 10 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
#5 - the primary source was Jonathan Powell, whose name was already mentioned in #7.
-
DSL at 07:05 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Bobki, you realize that turning down the opportunity to argue your position makes your position look insecure, yes?
-
Russ R. at 05:53 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Tom Curtis@67,
"Finally, on a side note, I questioned Fox and Gallant's costings as not including savings from reduced investment in fossil fuel generation. Russ challenged that on the basis that those savings had been included in the LTEP. Perhaps Russ could quote the section of the plan that discusses how those savings were factored in?"
If you look at page 10 of the LTEP2010, it lays out the main drivers of the plan and associated cost estimates:
"Key features of the plan include:
• Demand will grow moderately (about 15 per cent) between 2010 and 2030.
• Ontario will be coal-free by 2014.
• The government is committed to clean, reliable nuclear power remaining at approximately 50 per cent of the province’s electricity supply.
• Ontario will continue to grow its hydroelectric capacity with a target of
9,000 MW.
• Ontario’s target for clean, renewable energy from wind, solar and bioenergy is 10,700 MW by 2018 ... (etc...)...
• Residential bills are expected to rise by 3.5 per cent per year over the next 20 years. Industrial prices are expected to rise by 2.7 per cent per year over the next 20 years.
• The government is proposing an Ontario Clean Energy Benefit to give Ontario families, farms and small businesses a 10 per cent benefit on their electricity bills for five years."Not only did they assume "reduced investment in coal fired power plants"; they projected zero future investment in coal-fired plants from 2014 on.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:32 AM on 10 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Bobki52... Then you can't complain that you were stifled in your discussions. You broke posted rules and your comments were deleted according to policy. You've been politely invited to present your comments in a way that is compliant with policy.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 10 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
I worked in fish culture research most of my working life so I know how tempting it is to go for exotic exciting solutions when simple solutions are right in front of you. In our case we were using all sorts of sophisticated hormone treatment to get fish to spawn out of season when just by selecting batches of eggs that from time to time were spawned a little out of season, the same result was obtained. The "Seampunk" is a case in point. All we have to do to solve the carbon crisis is to make it worthwhile to put solar panels on the roof while at the same time being fair to the power companies. The technology is adequate and the price is right. All that is missing is the correct relationship between the small solar owner, the power company and the government.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn how to do this properly. Using Sks to advertise your own blog while making work for moderators is poor form.
-
citizenschallenge at 02:11 AM on 10 March 2014Lindzen's Junk Science
Thanks for the plug Tom.
I've just finished another one that's worth mentioning here:
Saturday, March 8, 2014Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/hayden-disproves-global-warming-claims.html#more
-
michael sweet at 23:57 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
The Los Angeles Times had an article on Agnotology, the study of cultural ignorance. Most of this is funded currently by industry. Doubt is Our Product is a good documentation of this type of activity. There were some interesting points. They recommended a strong news industry to counter industry falsehoods (good luck on that!)
-
Jim Hunt at 23:53 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
I'm not having much luck getting things formatted properly on here! Perhaps it's simpler if I link to my own article on the subject?
http://econnexus.org/the-weather-report-from-soggy-south-west-england/
Note in particular the bit where David Cameron says "Man-made climate change is one of the greatest threats to the UK and the rest of the world".
My apologies for the politics. -
Bobki52 at 23:11 PM on 9 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
No thanks.
-
catamon at 22:27 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John @ 19:
The paper by Sewall is here:
Being from Oz there has been lots of "you cant attribute this (insert disaster here) to Climate Change. Floods, Droughts, Bushfires, whatever, its always something that everyone seems to keep away from. But now it seems to me that the California Drought, Rest of the US Freeze, and English Ridiculous Wet Winter of 13/14 may all be linked to a phenomenon that someone actualy predicted in 2005 in a narrower context.
So, if someone accepts that the proposition that this east Pacific persitent high is due to loss of Arctic ice, and Arctic ice loss is due to Anthropogenic Global Warming, i dont thnk its much of a stretch at all to attribute the California Drought, Rest of the US Freeze, and English Ridiculous Wet Winter of 13/14 to AGW.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
John Mason at 22:00 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
#18 - Thanks for that link. Plenty of good leads to follow there!
-
catamon at 20:43 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Had a read of this, and what struck me wa the image of the jetstream. Seems to me its actually all about the persitent high in the eastern Pacific??
Another (politics) blog i frequent had this link on it:
Which again is basically about that persistent high, why its there, its effects and that it was all modeled nback in 2004/05.
The Grumpy True Disbelivers are going to be a bit annoyed at this wot?? :)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Jim Hunt at 20:20 PM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
As one example of the damage to infrastructure, here's Network Rail's time lapse video of their attempts to repair the main Great Western railway line at Dawlish:
http://youtu.be/tWGxuPF7wNU
At around 28 secs you can see the impact of the next big storm that arrived on February 14/15. The current estimate for the trains to start running again is April 4th. According to the leader of Plymouth City Council "the rail disruption was costing the city £5 million a day".Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:43 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
chriskoz @2, 1 in 100 year floods happen frequently. That is becuase they have a return period of 100 years for a given location, but there are far more than 100 locations on Earth such that their precipitation events are effectively independant. I haven't looked carefully at the statistics, but there are probably 1 in 100 year floods every year, somewhere on Earth.
For comparison, the 2011 Brisbane flood came of the back of rainfall with a return period of about 100-200 years averaged over the Brisbane River catchment from Sun through Tues, with a follow rainfall for tuesday with a return period also about 100- 200 years. That is, we had two >100 year rainfall events in just one week. Some individual stations recorded rainfall with return periods of 1 in 2000, and the Wivenhoe release that triggered excess flooding came from a 1 in 2000 rainfall event directly onto the dam (ie, without any chance of buffering of the flow by forest, etc).
This is not to detract from the suffering of the people of Christchurch, who have copped an absolute hammering over the last few years. They certainly have my sympathy, and I agree that the floods in Christchurch should have wider reporting - certainly in Australia.
-
DSL at 15:29 PM on 9 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Bobki, general slaps-together of standard denial talking points usually get deleted. Take your strongest point to the appropriate thread (left menu).
-
John Hartz at 14:43 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
A follow-up article to the one linked to by chriskoz above:
Global warming warning after ChCh floods by Adrien Taylor, 3News, Mar 6, 2014
-
Bobki52 at 14:11 PM on 9 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Ouch... I've been crushed.
Moderator Response:[DB] You are welcome to use the Search function in the upper left portion of every page to find the most appropriate page to place your individual points of discussion on. Note that comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error. As constructed, your removed comments constitute Gish Gallops and do not merit inclusion in these discussion threads.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
chriskoz at 14:08 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
I'm surprised no media (in my country and in US) seem to care about:
1 in 100y flood in CHC(perhaps the Malaysian Air disaster prompted it but I still argue that "1 in 100y" events deserve far more global attention than airplane crashes)
People in CHC saying 0.5m SLR contributed to the event which may now be happening every few years or so. I wonder how come they're exagerating SLR to "0.5m"? The asnwer is that the recent earthquake that destrroyed the cathedral, among other things caused the city to "sink" a little bit, therefore increasing the effective local SLR.
Moderator Response:[JH] CHC = Christchurch, New Zealand
-
chriskoz at 12:40 PM on 9 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10B
Very interesting news about the link of California drought and loss of arctic ice, that cannot be missed:
Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be ‘Even More Dire’
the title sais it all. Interestingly, Jenifer Francis is not the only (or not even the first) person to have found how Arctic Ice melt contributes to extreme events at mid-latitudes.
-
Chris Snow at 09:03 AM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John (#5) and Magma (#7 and #8).
This amusing George Monbiot column has a bit more about Jonathan Powell.
-
scaddenp at 05:52 AM on 9 March 2014Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
jsmith, why do you think that it would be a good idea to expand the article with this particular article? (Especially in light of a critical comment follow-up and more recent papers also critical of methodology). Why do think that one is important rather than the deluge of more recent papers on the subject?
-
Paul D at 03:18 AM on 9 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
Bob forgot to mention that everyone contributes and helps for free.
-
Paul D at 03:08 AM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
I'll point out John that Hambledon has a 'history' of ground water flooding. However that doesn't detract from the fact that greater frequency of flood events and extreme weather will make things worse.
My understanding is that in Hambledon before WWII, the kerbs were raised higher than today, so that the roads acted like rivers/canals durring rainy times. The kerbs were lowered durring WWII to allow the passing through of large numbers of big military vehicles (eg. D Day preparations).
-
Paul D at 02:50 AM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John M and all that read this...
Was listening to Inside Science on the BBC iPlayer this week and there was a mention of the ClimatePrediction people doing a citizens science project to find out if there were any relationships between the recent UK flooding/extreme weather and climate change.If you want to participate, you download the climate model and do a run. The results are being collated and published live.
Here is the link to sign up for the project:
http://www.climateprediction.net/weatherathome/weatherhome-2014/
They say they need to run two large ensembles of weather simulations and that requires public help. -
Jim Hunt at 01:20 AM on 9 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
As a resident of Soggy South West England, I've been following this particular story with interest for quite some time. I'm not sure what I can usefully add to John's in depth article. Perhaps this (slightly cloudy) Landsat 8 image of the Somerset Levels?
For any other locals in here, the town of Bridgwater is visible top left.
Moderator Response:[DB] Reduced image width to 475.
-
Chris8616 at 20:51 PM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
UK storms caused ‘greatest tree loss in a generation’ (March 2014)
Video: UK Minister: Climate Change a National Security Crisis
Video: Ancient 5,000-Year-Old Forest Unearthed by UK Storms (They later discovered these tree stumps were 10.000 years of age).
UK: Wettest Winter In 250 Years (Infographic)
UK Floods 2014 Could Last for Months + 1.6M Homes at Risk for Flooding (Covers the unprecedented groundwater flooding and precipitation patterns)
-
Sapient Fridge at 19:49 PM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Today's BBC Science page is remarkable focussed on the recent floods, and climate change in general (archived here). I spot at least 10 flood or climate change related stories!
I think there is a dawning realisation in the UK that this winter's weather was simply not normal.
-
John Mason at 19:33 PM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
So it does did! I know the winter seemed to go on for a long time, but not that long! Thanks for spotting it :)
-
Leto at 13:25 PM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Typo: Graphic for Feb 2014 says "2015".
-
chriskoz at 09:08 AM on 8 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
For those down under BOM & CSIRO just released 2014 state of climate report
Of my particular interest is Monthly temperature anomaly (standardised) on page 5 (AKA Jim Hansen's climate dice). They show the frequency of 2-sigma hot events in OZ increased 5 times in 1999-2013, as opposed to Hansen's baseline 1950-1980.
So the OZ dice is loded about the same and Hansen's global dice. And more importantly, the warming "did not stop" over OZ land since 1998. The negative consequences from precipitation changes are looking to be higher than global average IMO.
-
grindupBaker at 08:55 AM on 8 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
Wol #6 I suppose it's on-topic because there's a non-science "How money..." posted. You don't say the venue but if it's comments against blogs & videos then IMO my comments aren't to educate or change the opinions of those specific persons, rather I am, you are, giving your opinions to the public who might see them, unless they get moderated like these two... Cheer up. Remember a geologic second ago fully state-sanctioned killing of persons doing science and giving their opinions sometimes existed, so this big money is comparatively trivial. The "deeper level" seems too deep for this venue. Future humans will do whatever. Each present human decides what makes a life, like fun learning stuff, or perhaps genetic imperative just pushes robots. Too deep for me so lets get back to integrating the atmosphere to quantify its LWR.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Composer 99 @63, the Ontario 2013 LTEP (page 6) states:
"• The 2013 LTEP cost and price forecasts are lower
than previously forecast in 2010.
• Significant ratepayer savings will be realized as a
result of reduced Feed-in Tariff (FIT) prices, the
ability to dispatch wind generation, the amended
Green Energy Investment Agreement, and the
decision to defer new nuclear."Later, they show a graph comparing current projections of the "total cost of the electricity service" to those from the 2010 LTEP (Fig 6, page 15), which shows the 2013 projection reduced from 21.4 to 17.6 Billion, a reduction equivalent to 6.7% per annum compounded over the last three years. In Fig 7, they then show the changes in the typical forecast residential bill:
The reduction from a forecast 154 to a forecast 125 dollars per month represents a compounded 7.2% per annum over three years.
The OCEB is the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit. The 2010 LTEP shows a forecast price for residential consumption of 800 kWh of $123 without the OCEB ($115.20 with) for 2011. The 2013 forecast respresents a compounded 6% increase without, and 4.2% with the OCEB. Those values overstate the real increase, as they are in nominal dollars. In any event, over the first three years of the plan, prices have increased slower than originally forecast by they 2010 LTEP, let alone by Fox and Gallant.
Speaking of Fox and Gallant, they quote the 2010 LTEP as saying:
"Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP), announced by the Liberal Party on November 23, 2010, states,
'Over the next 20 years, prices for Ontario families and small businesses will be relatively predictable. The consumer rate will increase by about 3.5% annually over the length of the long-term plan. Over the next five years, however, residential electricity prices are expected to rise by about 7.9% annually (or 46% over five years).'"
Figure 15 (page 60), however, shows a real increase of 61.4% from 2010-2030, ie, an increase at a compounding rate of 2.6% per annum. The 3.5% quoted is for the nominal rate, and therefore includes inflation. Because the increase is front loaded, and indeed, because real prices are projected fall in real terms over the last 9 years of the plan, compounded rates do not reflect the overall cost of the transition.
Finally, on a side note, I questioned Fox and Gallant's costings as not including savings from reduced investment in fossil fuel generation. Russ challenged that on the basis that those savings had been included in the LTEP. Perhaps Russ could quote the section of the plan that discusses how those savings were factored in?
-
Magma at 08:17 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Correction, Jonathan Powell, not John.
-
Magma at 08:16 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
John (comment #5), you can see a photo of the John Powell in question (who seems to be the source or conduit of much misinformation) in this four-year-old Express article:
Although some UK 'detective work' might uncover further information on Mr. Powell, I suspect it would be the same story we've seen before, just a hack for hire. His Vantage Weather Services website is astonishingly thin and uninformative:
-
Tom Curtis at 07:19 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
My apologies to Bob Lacatena. Obviously it was he rather than Dikran I intended to thank @2 above.
-
Leto at 07:18 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
"I don't plan to waste more time on it than I already have."
JH, I think Russ's "it" here means the "oversimplified cartoon", not this "relatively obscure blog."
Moderator Response:[JH] Whatever.
-
MA Rodger at 06:49 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Just considering the rainfall over SE England, as a 60-day period it was record-breaking and by quite a margin. (And bear in mind that winter is not the rainiest season, although it can contain the rainiest episode of the year).
I'm of the opinion that this 60-day rainfall is so unlikely that it consitiutes proof of climate change, coz otherwise I reckon a fair estimate of this event on its own would make it a one-in-20,000 year event. And look more closely - 3 of the 4 highest are in the last 14 years, as are 2 of the 4 lowest. Rainfall appears to be becoming more variable.
UK weather used to change by the week. For the last 3 or 4 years it seems to change by the season.
-
John Mason at 05:38 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Ben (comment #3) - I'd be interested to learn of the ultimate source of those 'forecasts' that appeared in The Netherlands. Did they come from a local source, or from farther afield?
-
Andy Skuce at 05:14 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Chriskoz@57 She likes to use the double-negation language
Just to nitpick, I counted three negations, in the cartoon quote, in eleven words.
I don't disagree with your main point, though, not eschewing double negation, isn't the worst way of confusing readers.
-
shoyemore at 04:50 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
BTW, as an inhabitant of the light green part of the above map of the "British Isles" (a name we seldom use around here), Ireland (as in Republic of) also had its wettest winter since records began.
One observatory on the west coast recorded 843mm of rain, 180% of its average. Being less densely populated than the UK, the impact of flooding and coastal erosion is less, but still financially significant.
-
Ben Lankamp at 04:00 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
In The Netherlands we had to endure the news reports on the approaching 'icy armageddon', or 'horror winter' as it was called here, as well. My response to these reports was published in several newspapers and also on my employers site (where it received 33k+ views). You can read it here in English through Google Translate.
-
jsmith at 03:45 AM on 8 March 2014Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
It might be a good idea to expand this article with information from this study. It starts out by saying that the earth has, in fact, not warmed as much as expected, and says that there are two reasons why:
1. the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high, and
2. the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols.
So aerosols explain some of the predictions-observations discrepancy, but not all of it.
-
KR at 03:32 AM on 8 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
r.pauli - I believe the aim was similar to that seen in the ClimateGate hack. To take private conversations, including the hyperbole and sarcasm seen in discussions among friends and colleagues, and to quote them out of context. And using those out of context lines to claim nefarious intent and ill will on the part of forum participants, a very basic ad hominem logical fallacy attack on the science presented by SkS.
This underhanded approach is hardly new:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
-
shoyemore at 03:29 AM on 8 March 2014The Extraordinary UK Winter of 2013-14: a Timeline of Watery Chaos
Here is a disquieting account of how the Daily Mail, possibly the most climate-denying media operation in these islands, in a heartbeat turns from climate denial to a homophobic smear of the Environmental Agency's Director (who happens to be openly gay). The rediculous claim is he spent more on "gay pride tea mugs" than on a few extra sandbags that would protect people's homes, yet it gets lurid headlines.
Longstanding denier Christopher Booker weighs in with a whine on behalf of the people of Somerset - how much did Mr Booker think about the people of Somerset when he was calling climate scientsts "fraudsters"?
A word to the wise - as matters worsen, do not expect those who deny the evidence to change heart - they will shift the goalposts, get more strident and angry, and demans heads on platters.
http://climatedenial.org/2014/03/04/how-climate-change-messengers-become-blamed-for-the-floods/
Prev 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 Next
