Seen elsewhere

 

Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

The Times has it now
"Catastrophic impacts of climate change can still be avoided, according to scientists who have admitted they were too pessimistic about the chances of limiting global warming.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found.

New forecasts suggest that the world has a better chance than claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the necessary changes.
Michael Grubb, professor…"

Sep 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@DavidS That Telegraph article contains magical thinking from both ends
We know one report doesn't make prove any science.

Claim 1 #1Met Office announced that a “slowdown” in the rate of global temperature rises reported over roughly the first decade of this century was now over.
The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.

Claim #2 Claire Perry, the climate change and industry minister, claimed Britain had already demonstrated that tackling climate change and running a strong economy could go “hand in hand”.

WTF is that ? from the outside it sounds like
'all those clever green programs we've done have cured our CC problem, and anyway it wasn't as bad we thought'

From the commenters
\\I wonder if the author read the quoted paper? From the abstract:
"Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation."//

Sep 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

NorthEast and Northwest "BBC inside out program has just made Lake District national parks and their local occupancy ruling look absolutely ridiculous!!"

' Hi I from outside the village I'm old and retired so I want to buy a flat in Keswick'
.... No you can't cos you come from 10 miles away

'Hi I'm a immigrant and have been working in the Keswick takeaway for 6 months'
.... Sure you are a Keswick resident

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:55 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

Hmmm. Had never heard of Claire Perry, latest Minister for Climate Change. Her comment doesn't inspire confidence.

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

Supertroll

Shall we agree to differ on this one? My main reason for drawing it to the attention of viewers of this site was the bizarre fact that the Headline says :"US denies U-turn on climate deal" and the tagline says: "Reports say the US will no longer withdraw from the Paris deal or will change its approach."

But having clicked on the article, the headline becomes "Paris climate deal: US denies it will stay in accord", which of course completely contradicts the first headline and tagline. I still think the BBC has simply seized on a non-story to try to make something out of very little, but you see it differently, which is fair enough. Time to move on?

Sep 18, 2017 at 8:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Times weird article on wind ..ah by Little Emily
"Wind farm protest by RSPB may backfire"
Developer had already secured £114.39MWh.
"Onshore wind farm costs have since plunged..with a CfD last week being awarded for £57.50"
Rubbish just cos the shop gives me a sell by date loaf of bread for 50% off that doesn't mean "bread costs have fallen"

The price I pay on a particular occasion doesn't define the costs of the bread industry.
as we discussed last week the price for Horsea2 is a lossleader cross-subsidised by the massive £140 it gets for Hornsea1
The costs that the windfarm corp incurr haven't really changed

To me prices are what the buyer pays
Cost is what the producer incurs.

Little Emily is somehow trying to say that without RSPBs protests we would have paid £57.50
tosh cos the company already had it's contract.

Sep 18, 2017 at 4:31 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@ST meant
Mark, Gwen. I still disagree. The statement by the EU climate commissioner is of and in itself newsworthy, as was the White House rebuttal.
I can imagine the fuss here if the BBC had spiked this item.

Sep 18, 2017 at 4:27 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Add imagine

Sep 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Mark, Gwen. I still disagree. The statement by the EU climate commissioner is of and in itself newsworthy, as was the White House rebuttal. I can the fuss here if the BBC had spiked this item.

Sep 18, 2017 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Times : Oliver Moody writes, so obsessed are science people with putting on a consensus front that "It looks like Stepford Wives"
being afraid to argue against anybody except soft targets "creationists, homeopaths, CC deniers, Trump"
Result is that the public are tuned out of important arguments.

(He's describing his experience of the British Science Festival ..last week)
My experience is that the it's also audience members and fellow scientist living in the new era where "we are not allowed to say certain things" so self censor too much

Sep 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

PostCreate a New Post

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