Bishop Hill New blogs on the block
Oct 2, 2013 Blogs Climate: sensitivity A couple of new blogs for readers to bookmark
Paul Matthews needs no introduction as a regular BH commenter and general scourge of the IPCC. His new blog is here.
Also new is Euan Mearns' blog. Euan was at the important, but now defunct Oil Drum blog for a long time but has just started up his own outlet. This extract from his first article sounds intriguing:
Together with fellow climate blogger Dr Clive Best, I have spent several months this year analysing the impact of cloud cover on variance of the surface temperature record and we have two papers under review on this topic [6,7]. The conclusion of both studies is that Earth’s climate can be simply modelled using combined cloud cover and CO2 variance (with no feedbacks) pointing to an equilibrium climate sensitivity close to 1.3˚C.
Reader Comments (13)
I've just reminded myself of what Peter Sissons said about the BBC climate change propaganda.
It is well worth reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Schrodinger's Cat
Just re-read that article. Fascinating.
Book marked Paul Mathews new blog.
One point three.
Climb up tree.
=========
More the merrier. Both have good posts to start them off.
Are you able to include them on your links, Andrew? Good to see number watch there.
Meanwhile one of the older blogs is in full denial
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-5th-assessment-report-in-the-news/#comment-1406
If we were ever in doubt that the met office is anything other than a political mouthpiece they end with this
So there you have it; CO2 - guilty as charged.
Quoting Sissons on corporate BBC climate bias is incomplete without the corroborating testimony...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372559/Left-wing-shallow-oh-politically-correct--verdict-BBC-Michael-Buerk.html
...and memorable quotes, of his colleague Michael Buerk on the subject.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/thought-provoking-words-for-the-bbc-and-the-guardian-from-a-podcast-by-the-bbcs-michael-buerk/
Nice comment from the UK in the SPM:
"Not sure what they are trying to say here - both definitions seem to include both natural climate variation and man-made causes of climate change. However, this paragraph seems to throw doubt at man-made causes & the IPCC definition, which is surely not helpful & a potential hostage to fortune? (UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND)"
And what looks suspiciously like a Betts comment:
"The meaning of confidence in this context is not defined and the levels of confidence are not defined; accepting that this is perhaps subjective, if they are derived by expert judgement, it would be beneficial to state this. A description of what academics mean by "confidence" would be beneficial, as there could be misunderstanding between confidence of a finding and likelihood of it happening. Similarly, there could be mis-interpretation that a low confidence finding is plain wrong and can therefore be discounted from future consideration. (UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND)"
Sorry, I'll take it back to the WGII thread. Quite fun to read though. I see a Tol in there....
What utter tosh !
There are hunfreds of variables which influence Earth's climate.
Really, are Mearns and Best serious, or is this a p.... take ?
"hunfreds" = The hundreds of variables discovered by Fred Singer ?
Oh well Roy Spencer et al can give up then, after all they have only been at this for over a decade. Still these guys (Mearns and Best) are Soooo knowledgeable, and probably have their own satellite that they solved the issue in "several months", oh what a farce, and you are promoting this ?????
Isn't The Oil Drum that peak oil blog? I think I'll pass on any writer associated with such folly.