Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


Green Sand
£51K total, £36K in 2009 = big deal.

Sep 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I love the occasional and temporary inputs from the SW.

Sep 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

jamesp, when we in the Scillies earlier this summer, so unhelpful were the BBC predictions that we started calling them casts rather than forecasts. Incidentally, did not weather action forecast a heat wave in August?

Sep 2, 2014 at 7:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

Oh look, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has frantically stopped pretending to be a charity, the day before it's revealed that they're a lobby group who are funded by idealogical oil funded thinktanks.

Well there's a surprise. And aren't you all keeping quiet about oil funding for GWPF. What's the matter, have they not fed you the right line to use yet?

Sep 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"a web update to the BBC which will improve these forecasts"

I thought they'd just said that theirs and the Beeb's were the same, so how does updating the BBC website improve matters?

Sep 2, 2014 at 1:25 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Jack Savage -
The 500 Gt/year mentioned in the Guardian article comes from the recent paper by Helm et al. While I haven't read the paper yet, the ice loss rate is in the same ballpark as a previous estimate from Velicogna in 2009, which, however, divided things a little differently: -286 Gt/year to Greenland and -246 Gt/yr for Antarctica. And it's somewhat less than that given by Rignot et al. in 2011.

I agree that the Guardian coverage is rather breathless, but that's hardly surprising, is it? One item they omitted, is that it takes about 360 Gt of ice melt to cause 1 mm of sea level rise. Hence 500 Gt/yr implies a contribution of 1.4 mm/yr to sea level rise from the ice caps. By itself, around 5.5 inches per century, although naturally the concern is acceleration. The article refrained from speculating on future melt rates, thankfully.

Sep 2, 2014 at 1:22 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

The Grauniad piece on Lawson has a promotional ad on it...

Naomi Klein's new book.

You don't have to be Marvin to find it depressing.

Sep 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp


The MO forecast isn't much better closer to home. Yesterday was forecast as wet here (Isle of Wight) right up until the previous night, but all the raindrop symbols then disappeared and the day dawned bright and sunny. We are having some exterior painting done, so it would have been nice to know...

Sep 2, 2014 at 1:10 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

My wife and I visited Whistler, Canada in early August for a wedding. Whilst checking the weather forecasts before departure it became apparent that the BBC/Met Office forecasts provided for my iPad were wildly in error – the friends who live in Whistler were reporting locally forecast temperatures in the 30s Celsius whilst the BBC/Met Office were forecasting temperatures below 20 Celsius. Needless to say the BBC/Met Office were wrong. The temperatures were in the 30s.

I wrote to the Met Office on our return home. Here is an extract from the reply: “In the case of our World Forecast for Whistler, the forecast is the same whether taken from the Met Office or the BBC website. Symbol forecasts are auto-generated directly from our models of the atmosphere, and given the thousands of site specific forecasts we produce, there is no manual intervention to edit them.

The Whistler forecast is a “known issue” which will be addressed on or just after the 9th September when we will be delivering a web update to the BBC which will improve these forecasts…...”

The thought occurs to me that since the failure of the world to warm for 17 years whilst CO₂ continues to rise is also a “known issue”, perhaps the Met Office is going to change its position on or around 9th September!

It is interesting that the Met Office’s atmospheric models used to forecast temperatures a few days ahead apparently require manual editing for accuracy – is that the equivalent of homeganisation?!

Sep 2, 2014 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

Jack - as you say, 126km3 of ice-loss is insignificant. It is roughly equivalent to an iceberg 3 miles wide, 3 miles long and 3 miles high. Okay there are not many icebergs 3 miles high but even so this is a tiny fraction compared with the total volume of ice covering Antarctica. This is just more alarmist scare-mongering for the Guardian faithful, and the scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

Sep 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>