A Saharan low and trough headed for the prime generation spot (Cape Verde) for Atlantic hurricanes off the West Coast of Africa is something worth watching over the next week. (h/t to Ed)
Another blow to the “heat waves and extreme weather are on the increase” alarm meme:
Scientists assert there is less weather variability, globally, than most people believe
Henry Gass, E&E reporter
Climate change is a broad and complicated topic, often too complicated for the average person. Instead, most of us get our grasp of climate change by looking out the window or stepping out the front door.
It explains why many people in North America and Europe — recent victims of sweltering heat waves, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events — believe climate change is causing ever more drastic weather extremes (ClimateWire, July 24).
That may not be the case around the world, however, according to a recent study by a team of British scientists published in the journal Nature. While regions like North America and Europe have been experiencing greater temperature variability, wild shifts from extreme heat to extreme cold, some parts of the world have been seeing more consistent temperatures.
When taken as a whole, global temperature variability has been nearly constant over the last 50 years, according to Chris Huntingford, lead author of the study and a climate modeler at the U.K. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, part of Britain’s government-funded Natural Environment Research Council.
International climate talks could fail without more national actions — report
Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter
There will be no new climate change treaty in 2015 unless more nations develop domestic legislation to address rising greenhouse gas levels, a new study concludes.
“I don’t see a deal in 2015 unless more countries move down the national legislative path, and those who are keen to see an agreement that is high in ambition are of the same view,” said Adam C.T. Matthews, secretary-general of GLOBE and author of the report.
Arctic ice area has increased by almost 20,000 Manhattans from this date last year, making it the second largest increase on record. The only year which gained more ice was 1996.
In a few days, it is likely that 2013 will move into the #1 spot.
Dr. Judith Curry: Conflicts between climate and energy priorities
Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now? How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted? What is the ‘morality’ here?
To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)? This is one of the issues that makes the climate change problem so wicked.
Zoologist Susan Crockford on the “the polar bear who died of climate change”
I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they simply waited, with a photographer on hand, until he died. It was an orchestrated photo-op…How is it possible that this bear was healthy in April but dead by starvation less than 3 months later? Why was he even on land in April? Why was global warming photographer Ashley Cooper in Svalbard for 12 days in July, fortuitously available to take the bear’s picture?
The fact that the bear was onshore in April, available for capture by polar bear biologists, is a red flag. He should not have left the ice this early. He should have been out on the ice hunting seals. The ice may have pulled away from the shore but there was no compelling reason for him to go onshore if he was healthy and still successfully hunting – he just had to stay on the ice. He must have [been] sick or dying of old age.
This bear was doomed back in April by the simple act of leaving the ice so early and the biologists working the region (putting radio collars on bear) had to have known it: leaving the ice in April was not normal behavior. I suggest they alerted their colleagues and then kept track of him until he died, so they could get a useful picture of his dead carcass.
U.K. Grants Offshore Wind Triple Market Electricity Price
The U.K. will pay offshore wind developers triple the market price for electricity they generate under a subsidy program to boost renewable energy that by 2020 will cost consumers 7.6 billion pounds ($11.6 billion) a year. (h/t to WUWT reader John)
Larry Ledwick writes:
Interesting study coming out that ties personal choices of conservative media to lack of trust in scientists.
They totally ignore the possibility that people can have a very high trust in scientists (ie Richard P. Feynman) but simply do not find that researchers in global warming adhere to basic tenants of scientific research and are thus “not scientists” but propagandists.
They are drawing a causal relationship from a casual association. The inverse of their hypothesis is equally likely, ie people who are educated enough in the principles of science to identify shoddy science when it is offered up by global warming adherents are more likely to be conservatives. It also supports the assertion that liberals are more inclined to be followers of causes and not critical thinkers but prefer to defer to authority rather than critically judge issues after examining them in detail, or actively researching the available information.