a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment
(14) (1) (2) (6) (116) (10) (3) (1) (15) (2) (1970) (1) (2) (5) (7) (4) (9) (104) (9) (483) (1) (4) (15) (3) (1) (8) (1) (1)Methane Leak
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated. Read more here. (3)
NYT: Pachauri Faces Credibility Siege
The New York Times is reporting that: Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. More here. (1)
Phil Jones Guilty, But
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. B ut… Read more here. (0)
Banks Leave Carbon Market
Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure to make progress at Copenhagen on reaching new emissions targets after 2012. Read more here. (0)
UK Met Office Can't Forecast Weather
The UK Met Office is debating what to do with its long-term and seasonal forecasting after criticism for failing to predict extreme weather. It was predicted that this winter would be warmer than average – yet it has been unusually cold. Read more here. (3)
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.
Posted by jennifer, July 3rd, 2009 - under News.
Increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening the earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United States… With the recent downturn of both solar activity and global temperatures… Read more here.
Thanks Jen. There is also Svensmark’s latest GRL paper ‘in press’ here:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/new-paper-cosmic-ray-decreases-affect-atmospheric-aerosols-and-clouds/
Jennifer, do you have a complete copy of Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman’s paper on the connection of the nile water levels to Auroras in pdf format?
Cheers
Found it.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/40231/1/06-1989.pdf
It is a good read.
Brad
that link is a bit iffy – at least on the sat connection I am on – will try in 36 hours when I am back in Perth
Works fine here in Canada.
Here’s the reference:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D21114, doi:10.1029/2006JD007462, 2006
Can you people please make up your minds. This paper is based on the accepted temperature record, which you dispute. If you accept this paper, you accept the temperature record, if you don’t accept the temperature record, then you reject this paper. Let me know when you can decide on something.
They used 55 meteorological stations from Europe. It’s accepted that the world has warmed, but the the warming has flatlined and is now falling – this can be correlated with solar activity.
SJT: “Can you people please make up your minds. This paper is based on the accepted temperature record, which you dispute.”
You have not read the paper, have you SJT. It’s an analysis of Nile water levels, compared to Auroras, assigned as a proxy for solar activity, as recorded by our ancestors. There is no graph of temperature over the period of data supplied in the paper.
So how about quoting the specific part of the paper supporting your allegation that it is based on the accepted temperature record, especially when the study period was confined to 620-1470 AD during which NO ONE RECORDED TEMPERATURES.
Mea Culpa – I was referring to Brad Culver’s reference.
Apologies SJT, but such misshots happen when you, SJT, post comments here without citations. Since your comment came after Brad’s, any reasonable person would conclude that you were commenting on Brad’s comment.
You are quite the moron, no?