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. 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.

Climate change - wikipedia

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 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..

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.

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.

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

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 Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the .

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.

But I missed out the very final outcome which I should have been able to predict too: a report, commissioned from learned experts, who spent months poring over the details (including more than 600,000 emails!) and in the end, concluding there was nothing significantly wrong in anything Karl et al did. 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… Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA..

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. If not, it adds one more misrepresentation to the pile.

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.

Climate change - the telegraph

For many people, “climate” may seem to be an abstract concept I get a lot of questions about the connection between heatwaves and climate change these days. Particularly about the heatwave that has affected northern .

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?“Shall I bend low and in a bondman’s key, With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness…?”Shylock (Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3)As dark nights draw in, the venerable contrarians at the GWPF are still up late commissioning silly pseudo-rebuttals to mainstream science.

The latest, which no-one was awaiting with any kind of breath, is by Dr Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change Main article: Global warming. In the context of climate variation, up ^ Witze, Alexandra (11 July 2016). Clouds get high on climate change ..

Study of impact of climate change on temperatures suggests more

As Peter Thorne (an IPCC author) correctly noted, this report is a “cut-and-paste of long-debunked arguments”. I’ve grown a little weary of diving down to rebut every repetitive piece of nonsense, but this one has a few funny aspects that make it worthwhile to do so.

More »Guest commentary by Lauren KurtzThe Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) protects the scientific endeavor from anti-science attacks.

Since our founding in 2011, we’ve assisted hundreds of scientists with issues ranging from invasive open records requests to death threats. As part of this work, our staff will be at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting from December 10-14, offering free legal services to scientists and leading sessions on how to get involved in the policymaking process and how to be an expert witness.

For those who won’t be at the meeting — and with 2019 around the corner — we put together a list of suggested New Year’s resolutions for scientists.


In possibly the biggest “Friday night news dump” in climate report history, the long awaited 4th National Climate Assessment (#NCA4) was released today (roughly two weeks earlier than everyone had been expecting) 5 hours ago - ExxonMobil agrees to join oil and gas climate change alliance Leaked document shows BusinessEurope group would oppose more .

The summaries and FAQ (pdf) are good, and the ClimateNexus briefing is worth reading too.

The basic picture is utterly unsurprising, but the real interest in the NCA is the detailed work on vulnerabilities and sectorial impacts in 10 specific regions of the US. The writing teams for those sections include a whole raft of scientists and local stakeholders and so if you think climate reports are the same old, same old, it’s where you should go to read things you might not have seen before.