Feeds

back to article Climate models need revising: Droughts, heat waves not such a big deal

So, the world's climate is changing - that's one thing most scientists are indeed agreed on. But what does that actually mean for the future? Could hotter summer temperatures kill off growing plants, leading to runaway atmospheric carbon increases and turning the Earth into a lifeless baking hell? Not so much, according to US …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Re: Re: Re: "So, the world's climate is changing.."

Medieval warm period?

Oh sorry , that was cut from the models as it doesn't fit with the warmists needs.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Re: Re: Re: "So, the world's climate is changing.."

The Medieval warm period wasn't a global event, it was weather not climate.

0
2
FAIL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "So, the world's climate is changing.."

Umm no...

The MWP did not appear in the heavily cherry picked and massaged data used from Siberia/Urals (one area).

However there is evidence supporting the MWP for Europe, North America, Africa, Middle East, Asia Pacific.......

So not global at all huh?

1
0

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "So, the world's climate is changing.."

Climate: When weather events back my bias and predictions.

Weather: When weather events don't back my bias and predictions.

Sorry, some people don't know the meaning you're using for these words. other people use different meaning; but from context I've learned what AGW supporters mean when they use these words.

This will probably make your statement clearer for others.

1
0
Bronze badge

Suggest that people watch "How To Grow A Planet" on the BBC - the final part is on this week (Tuesday I think). Amazing stuff. I had never given flowers so much credit before. The evidence shows that not only did plants once rule the planet, plants also restored the planet after the mass extinction event caused by the asteroid. The way they do it is quite simple - seeds.

0
0
FAIL

Good grief.

"Not so much, according to US government boffins who have been looking into the matter."

Nothing in that press release or in the research can be usefully reduced to the phrase "not so much". That is absolutely piss weak journalism.

This is Good Science(tm). Examining preconceptions and adding nuance to earlier and simpler models. And you've reduced it to "lulz climate change int so bad rofl".

5
0
Happy

Re: Good grief.

This is Lewis Page. ALL his articles can be reduced to "lulz climate change int so bad rofl".

1
0
FAIL

Are they idiots?

So we only have to be concerned about two weeks in late July and it's of little concern because if we're having a heat wave, it's expected to magically cool down during the (usually) hottest month of the year. With logic like that, I'm sure the rest of their findings are flawless too...

0
1
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Grass Growing

This "climate change" is a total nonsense. On the (not that) rare occasions the grass in my garden goes yellow through a shortage of rain, 2 or 3 rainfalls later is is GROWING LIKE MAD and is as green as ever even in mid-summer.

"Climate Change" is all about screwing gullible governments and the public for money to boost big business owners' bonuses.

0
5
Thumb Down

Re: Grass Growing

Awesome.

My statistical sample of one garden proves that climate change is wrong.

5
0
Alien

Re: Grass Growing

Anecdotes trump science if they are stated in EXCITED UPPER CASE.

Open your eyes, sheeple!

2
0

Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

Looking back at the list of "Related Stories" for this article and others I can't see one saying Global Warming is something we need to do something about. There are many saying "We don't need to worry because X". How did a team consisting of climate change deniers lock up climate reporting at the Reg?

1
0
Gold badge
Meh

Re: Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

Perhaps they all read the harryreadme file of the CRU at East Anglia University and concluded that with such p**s poor documentation, change control and data management that it's impossible to conclude *anything* valid about the data.

That's not a science view that's an IT view. It's a viable one given the highly secretive and at times down right obstructive way they have operated.

Perhaps as a precursor question you might like to find the graph where CO2 rise *preceeds* rise in average global temperature.

That would be quite a strong indicator that it was real.

But what if it was the *other* way round?

2
1
Lu
Stop

Re: Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

Strange how so many people STILL don't seem to understand what The Reg is about.

It gives alternate news. The other side of the story. The stuff you don't get from mainstream news sources. Else you could just read CNN, or Sky, or BBC. What would be the point of El Reg? (you can even get all your IT articles from these sources nowdays)

So if the mainstream is pushing "AGW"; then The Reg must give us the opposite or balancing view point. Hence the motto - "biting the hand that feeds IT". Of course, Reg is no longer only an IT news service, but a science / geek interest news service; but the philosophy remains - biting the hand, being the upstart. Reporting the alternative view.

Which is perfect. Whether you agree or not, SOMEBODY has to give an opposing opinion. Especially in our current media climate (sic).

1
0
Headmaster

Re: Re: Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

Ummm. I think you might be confusing El Reg with Living Marxism/Sp!ked.

El Reg's editorial policy on climate change is the standard reactionary stance taken by pretty much all the red top tabloids and a couple of the right wing broad sheets. There's nothing even slightly revolutionary or novel about it.

0
1

Re: Re: Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

Right, so where are the anti-vaccination articles? Those educating on homeopathy, astrology, creationism and scientology? Reg is a place people trained in logical thought come to catch up on relevant news. It devalues the whole place to see crappy cherrypicked misleading articles on climate change included with other useful content. 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a fact, The Reg does itself a disservice by promoting such incorrect and damaging anti-science propaganda.

1
0

Re: Re: Why are all the Reg env articles anti-AGW?

The CRU are a small part of the evidence collection on Global Warming, and I have read the readme file. It was hilarious but that's the way old school university departments used to write (and maintain) their software. I saw nothing more than some poor bunny being handed a huge software mess and having to sit down and sort out (partially by trial and error) how it all worked. The secretiveness is mostly a response to the concerted attacks on climate science being funded by those making a buck from CO2 pollution being free at this time.

There is skepticism then there's stupidity. I'm not keen on sites that make me dummer.

0
0
Gold badge

@Tads

"The CRU are a small part of the evidence collection on Global Warming, and I have read the readme file. It was hilarious but that's the way old school university departments used to write (and maintain) their software."

Except the CRU is *not* a university department which supervises a stream of MSc's & PhD's.

It's a unit *specifically* set up to study climate change.

The ability to *manage* the processing of *multiple* large data sets and *document* how those data sets were used to derive the conclusions that they have presented is *critical* to the credibility *of* those conclusions. It's a set of *baseline* skills.

Especially given the *staggering* financial implications of those conclusions (which the UK is *legally* obligated to implement).

The implication of the harryreadme file, especially *trying* to re-construct some of the data sets used is that documentation does not *exist*.

If it *does* then people can discuss *how* those conclusions were reached and a *rational* discussion can be held as to how *reasonable* that is. It should be *widely* published.

If I were asked to reproduce the evidence chain describing what *can* be called the *greatest* threat facing humankind and I said "I took a load of data and ran it through a bunch of software and this came out and it's conclusions are *really* serious," I would not trust my results.

As always the evidence will end the argument. *Properly* conducted simulation experiments *should* have collected this as a matter of course. *Anything* else would be like cabalist studying the Bible or the Talmud for hidden patterns.

That won't silence the critics but it will put the whole discussion on a more *rational* footing. Just because they are *numerical* experiments does not mean they should be conducted with any less rigor than physical ones.

0
0
Gold badge
Meh

Consider a few things the article does *not* say.

That the *same* 2 week period would be the one to avoid for long term effects of *other* plants.

That the *same* 2 week period would be the one to avoid for long term effects in other parts of the world.

It would also be an idea to study the detailed *biology* of these species to see IDK maybe this sensitivity correlates to some *critical* biological process in the grasses life cycle.

Bottom line ecosystems *can* turn out to have *surprisingly* short vulnerability windows when climate effects can have serious effects on growth.

Now in an *ideal* world I'd hope that might trigger a cascade of similar studies of other major habitats *globally* to see if *similar* results are found.

Sadly I fear nothing quite that useful will happen.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.