Climate links
Daily mean temperatures in the Arctic 1958-2008.
Arguing about models and energy flows.
No increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones discovered from examining 26 years of Australian data.
Nice discussion of how snow can induce warming.
Paper suggests that carbon feedback is 80% lower than expected. More.
Paper suggests the hole in the Ozone limited global warming.
The CSIRO says the evidence is not clear one way or another to attribute drought in Tasmania to climate change.
Accusation of manipulated temperature data air in the US. Further. Fun and games with which stations NASA uses in its aggregate series. (It has fallen a bit.) More on such (pdf).
The IPCC in a particularly ludicrous comedy of errors about a prediction of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035: it really has to be read to be believed. About all that: some of the comments are particularly informative. The Indian Environment Minister puts the boot in because he is feeling just a little vindicated. Further. A scientist claims he told them so. Another scientist wants an apology. The IPCC apologises. More errors are found in the glacier section of the IPCC report. Yet another use of the clip from Downfall: this time being funny and cruel on Glaciergate.
The money trail in the false glacier claims:
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI - and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
And more:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
The IPCC is further accused of having wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming:
THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate.
Nature thinks scientists need to become cleverer in presenting findings, including the uncertainties. Looking at the uncertainties. The UK Chief Scientist thinks more openness to sceptical views is desirable:
I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”
Suggesting the IPCC process is losing credibility. The Dutch environment minister finds the IPCC problems worrying. The Economist is unimpressed:
This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.
Calling for reform of the IPCC. Starting with the resignation of its current chair. Canadian climatologist suggests the IPCC has crossed the line into political advocacy and the Chair should resign.
China appears to be officially agnostic on AGW. More. Russian PM is also worried about global cooling.
A list of WWF reports cited in the latest IPCC report.
The CRU in East Anglia is found to be in breach of the UK Freedom of Informtion Act.
A local debate. Sceptics are often engineers, it seems.
Arguing about models and energy flows.
No increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones discovered from examining 26 years of Australian data.
Nice discussion of how snow can induce warming.
Paper suggests that carbon feedback is 80% lower than expected. More.
Paper suggests the hole in the Ozone limited global warming.
The CSIRO says the evidence is not clear one way or another to attribute drought in Tasmania to climate change.
Accusation of manipulated temperature data air in the US. Further. Fun and games with which stations NASA uses in its aggregate series. (It has fallen a bit.) More on such (pdf).
The IPCC in a particularly ludicrous comedy of errors about a prediction of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035: it really has to be read to be believed. About all that: some of the comments are particularly informative. The Indian Environment Minister puts the boot in because he is feeling just a little vindicated. Further. A scientist claims he told them so. Another scientist wants an apology. The IPCC apologises. More errors are found in the glacier section of the IPCC report. Yet another use of the clip from Downfall: this time being funny and cruel on Glaciergate.
The money trail in the false glacier claims:
Even more damaging now, however, will be the revelation that the source of that offending prediction was the man whom Dr Pachauri himself has been employing for two years as the head of his glaciology unit at TERI - and that TERI has won a share in two major research contracts based on a scare over the melting of Himalayan glaciers prominently promoted by the IPCC, using words drawn directly from Dr Hasnain.
And more:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
The IPCC is further accused of having wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming:
THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate.
Nature thinks scientists need to become cleverer in presenting findings, including the uncertainties. Looking at the uncertainties. The UK Chief Scientist thinks more openness to sceptical views is desirable:
I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”
Suggesting the IPCC process is losing credibility. The Dutch environment minister finds the IPCC problems worrying. The Economist is unimpressed:
This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.
Calling for reform of the IPCC. Starting with the resignation of its current chair. Canadian climatologist suggests the IPCC has crossed the line into political advocacy and the Chair should resign.
China appears to be officially agnostic on AGW. More. Russian PM is also worried about global cooling.
A list of WWF reports cited in the latest IPCC report.
The CRU in East Anglia is found to be in breach of the UK Freedom of Informtion Act.
A local debate. Sceptics are often engineers, it seems.