Last year, twentythousand peer reviewed studies on ‘climate change’ were published. No single personcan keep track of all those – you’d have to read 55 papers every single day.

(And, by the way, that huge mass of publications is why climate deniers willalways find something to cherry-pick that suits their agenda.

Scientific consensus | facts – climate change: vital signs of the planet

So let us have a quick look what last year’s climate assessments say about the much-discussed topic of whether the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC, a 15 Oct 2015 - What is your position on the climate-change debate? you a platform for investigating the other side of the debate, so you can form your own opinion. Academics need to get their work published; an IPCC paper is a career .

Gulf Stream System) has already slowed down, as predicted by climate models in response to global warming.

(2019) (hereafter ZKGIH19) and Gebbie & Huybers (2019) (hereafter GH19), independently reconstructed ocean heat content (OHC) changes prior to the instrumentally-based records (which start ~1950). The goals (and methodologies) of the two papers were quite different – ZKGIH19 investigated regional patterns of ocean warming and thermal sea level rise, while GH19 analyzed the long-term memory of the deep ocean – but they both touch on the same key questions of climate forcing and »References L.

Heimbach, "Global reconstruction of historical ocean heat storage and transport", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.

Huybers, "The Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific cooling", Given some unexpected down time this month (and maybe next month too!), I’ve been trying to go through key old posts on this site Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the .

The basic idea is to update links to other sites, references and figures that over the years have died (site domains that were abandoned, site redesigns, deliberate deletions etc. Most notably, the IPCC website recently broke all the existing links to elements of the reports which we had referenced in hundreds of places. Thanks guys!Some folk have been notifying us of issues they found (thanks Marcus!) and I’ve been fixing those as they come up, but obviously there are more. Links to old blog posts from Deltoid, Scienceblogs, Pielke Sr.

or Prometheus generally don’t work anymore though they can sometimes be found on the wayback machine.

It turns out a lot has changed since 2004 and many hotlinked images in particular have disappeared 5 hours ago - ExxonMobil agrees to join oil and gas climate change alliance Leaked document shows BusinessEurope group would oppose more .

It’s obviously not worth finding replacements for every dead link, but digital uncluttering and fixing up is useful. So, please use this thread to notify us of any useful fixes we can make (and if you have an updated link,, that’d be perfect).

Additionally, please let us know if any of the old content is still useful or interesting to you. We know there is still substantial traffic to the back catalog, so maybe it should be highlighted in some way?To those of you who might ask whether blogging still brings me joy… of course it does!Back in February 2017, I wrote about the tediously predictable arc of criticisms of the Karl et al (2015) paper, and in particular the comments of John Bates at Judith Curry’s blog.

an initial claim of imperfection spiced up with insinuations of misconduct, coordination with a breathless hyping of the initial claim with ridiculous supposed implications, some sensibleresponses refuting the initial specific claims and demolishingthe wilderextrapolations. Unable to defend the nonsense clarifications are made that the initial claim wasn’t about misconduct but merely about ‘process’ (for who can argue against better processes?). Meanwhile the misconduct and data falsification claims escape into the wild, get more exaggerated and lose all connection to any actual substance.

The outcome was easy to predict:the issues of ‘process’ will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis-statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper-partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the ‘process’ complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it’s associated with such obvious nonsense I get a lot of questions about the connection between heatwaves and climate change these days. Particularly about the heatwave that has affected northern .

Climate change - the telegraph

Update: apparently this happened in December In it the authors make some sensible recommendations to clean up the thicket of conflicting requirements at NOAA for publishing science papers, they spot one mistake made by Karl et al (submitting to Science the day before the NOAA internal review was officially completed), but overall find no substance to the allegations of “thumbs on the scale”, no improper interference by politicians, no rush to publish to influence political discussions, no data tampering, no missing archives.

It turns out that the person in charge of the NOAA internal review about which John Bates was so concerned was…. John Bates!And even more curiously: “The MITRE Committee learned that the internal review, later criticized by Bates, was conducted and approved under his own authority. The MITRE Committee found no evidence that Bates ever mentioned this fact in his blog, email, or anywhere else in his discussion of the matter in public.

”Did he mention this to David Rose or Judith Curry in private perhaps? If so, you’d think that they would have publically said so Overview. 5. SECTION I. Climate Change in the Context of SIDS and LDCs. 6. SECTION II. effects of climate change. Article 4, paragraph 9 of the Convention..

Effects of climate change relevant to the pacific islands - gov.uk

What a colossal and counter-productive waste of everyone’s time. Zhang, "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus", The underlying mission of my job is to safeguard lives and property through climate change adaptation based on science.


For many people, “climate” may seem to be an abstract concept. I have had many conversations about climate, and then realised that people often have different interpretations.

In my mind, climate is the same as weather statistics (which I realise can be quite abstract to many). To avoid miscommunication, I want to make sure that we are on the same page when I discuss climate.

Maybe it helps if I talk about more familiar and specific aspects, such as the temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind?