Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
'Atlantic on fire:' Unusually hot ocean sparks early hurricane season ｜ DPA
The Atlantic Ocean is hot right now. Hotter than it’s supposed to be for this time of year, and hot enough to worry scientists — particularly ones who monitor hurricanes. Those higher-than-normal temperatures help explain why the National Hurricane Center’s tracking map on Tuesday looked a lot...
nordot.app
Multi Sport
DA
And yet total global emissions have declined...
Hottest June on record --
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 45 44 55 50 58 52 59 49 52 50 72 56 53 51 39 54 53 58 2001
2002 77 78 88 58 64 53 61 53 63 54 59 44 63 64 70 70 56 58 2002
2003 75 58 60 55 61 48 58 64 62 72 53 75 62 59 59 58 57 62 2003
2004 58 72 63 61 37 44 26 45 50 60 72 51 53 55 69 54 38 61 2004
2005 74 60 74 67 63 65 61 60 71 75 74 68 68 66 61 68 62 73 2005
2006 56 73 63 47 48 66 54 71 65 69 74 79 64 63 66 52 63 69 2006
2007 102 70 73 76 69 61 60 60 60 58 59 49 66 69 84 73 60 59 2007
2008 30 38 74 53 49 49 60 46 61 67 68 54 54 54 39 59 51 65 2008
2009 64 53 54 61 65 64 73 68 72 65 79 67 65 64 57 60 69 72 2009
2010 75 83 92 84 75 68 62 67 63 70 81 45 72 74 75 84 66 72 2010
2011 52 48 65 65 53 62 70 74 56 66 59 61 61 60 48 61 69 60 2011
2012 49 49 58 72 78 64 58 65 72 79 78 53 65 65 53 69 62 77 2012
2013 71 62 67 54 61 69 60 69 77 69 83 70 67 66 62 60 66 76 2013
2014 76 55 78 80 86 67 58 82 87 80 66 78 74 74 67 81 69 78 2014
2015 85 90 96 76 80 80 72 80 85 109 106 116 90 86 84 84 78 100 2015
2016 117 137 136 110 95 79 84 101 90 89 92 86 101 104 123 114 88 90 2016
2017 102 113 116 94 91 71 81 87 77 90 88 93 92 91 101 100 80 85 2017
2018 82 85 88 89 82 77 82 76 80 102 82 91 85 85 86 86 78 88 2018
2019 93 95 117 101 85 90 94 95 93 101 99 109 98 96 93 101 93 98 2019
2020 117 124 117 113 101 91 90 87 98 88 110 81 101 104 117 110 89 99 2020
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2021 81 64 88 75 78 84 91 81 92 100 93 85 84 84 75 81 86 95 2021
2022 91 89 105 83 84 92 93 95 89 97 72 79 89 90 88 91 93 86 2022
2023 86 97 120 100 93 107 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 88 104 **** **** 2023
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit (deg-F).
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 45 44 55 50 58 52 59 49 52 50 72 56 53 51 39 54 53 58 2001
2002 77 78 88 58 64 53 61 53 63 54 59 44 63 64 70 70 56 58 2002
2003 75 58 60 55 61 48 58 64 62 72 53 75 62 59 59 58 57 62 2003
2004 58 72 63 61 37 44 26 45 50 60 72 51 53 55 69 54 38 61 2004
2005 74 60 74 67 63 65 61 60 71 75 74 68 68 66 61 68 62 73 2005
2006 56 73 63 47 48 66 54 71 65 69 74 79 64 63 66 52 63 69 2006
2007 102 70 73 76 69 61 60 60 60 58 59 49 66 69 84 73 60 59 2007
2008 30 38 74 53 49 49 60 46 61 67 68 54 54 54 39 59 51 65 2008
2009 64 53 54 61 65 64 73 68 72 65 79 67 65 64 57 60 69 72 2009
2010 75 83 92 84 75 68 62 67 63 70 81 45 72 74 75 84 66 72 2010
2011 52 48 65 65 53 62 70 74 56 66 59 61 61 60 48 61 69 60 2011
2012 49 49 58 72 78 64 58 65 72 79 78 53 65 65 53 69 62 77 2012
2013 71 62 67 54 61 69 60 69 77 69 83 70 67 66 62 60 66 76 2013
2014 76 55 78 80 86 67 58 82 87 80 66 78 74 74 67 81 69 78 2014
2015 85 90 96 76 80 80 72 80 85 109 106 116 90 86 84 84 78 100 2015
2016 117 137 136 110 95 79 84 101 90 89 92 86 101 104 123 114 88 90 2016
2017 102 113 116 94 91 71 81 87 77 90 88 93 92 91 101 100 80 85 2017
2018 82 85 88 89 82 77 82 76 80 102 82 91 85 85 86 86 78 88 2018
2019 93 95 117 101 85 90 94 95 93 101 99 109 98 96 93 101 93 98 2019
2020 117 124 117 113 101 91 90 87 98 88 110 81 101 104 117 110 89 99 2020
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2021 81 64 88 75 78 84 91 81 92 100 93 85 84 84 75 81 86 95 2021
2022 91 89 105 83 84 92 93 95 89 97 72 79 89 90 88 91 93 86 2022
2023 86 97 120 100 93 107 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *** 88 104 **** **** 2023
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).
Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit (deg-F).
Multi Sport
DA
96% of weather stations produce corrupted data...
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
What is really corrupted is climate journalism.
Climate Journalism is Broken
A new paper reveals troubling biases
- Roger Pielke Jr. from The Honest Broker
In 2020, scholars published more than 50,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate change in almost 6,000 journals. A new study by Marie-Elodie Perga and colleagues looks at how these papers were covered by news media and reveals some profound biases in coverage of climate. There are still some excellent journalists providing good coverage of climate, of course, but the overall patterns are troubling.
Let’s take a look at the numbers.
Of the 51,230 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published in 2020, Perga and colleagues found that only about 9% of them saw any media coverage, defined as a single mention in the paper’s Altimetric score. About 2%, or ~1,000 papers, saw more than 20 mentions in the media. These “mediatized” papers are the focus of Perga’s paper.
The 2% of papers most covered by the media are disproportionately focused:
- at the global and continental scales;
- on the end of the 21st century;
- on the natural sciences and health;
- and come primarily from just 6 journals (3 from Science journals, 2 from Nature and PNAS).
The biases are large. The paper reports that:
Reporting disproportionately deemphasized studies in the social and political sciences, economics, technology, engineering, energy and agriculture — these are all topics related to what might be done on climate change.
The authors conclude that as a result of these biases, news coverage is biased and the public is misinformed:
The authors hold a position that I do not — that the main purpose of media coverage of climate is to motivate people to act on climate, whatever that means. In my discussions of climate journalism with reporters (those that will speak to me) I often hear a similar view, that the purpose of climate journalism is advocacy for climate as a cause.
Indeed, the authors of the paper view themselves, alongside journalists, as collaborators in using communication to motivate “action”. Here is how they describe their work:
This definition of “climate communication” is evocative of what almost a century ago political scientist Harold Lasswell called, “the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols” — or political propaganda. If the idea that climate journalism is engaged in political propaganda seems uncomfortable, then try instead advocacy journalism.
Climate journalism wasn’t always dominated by an advocacy agenda. More than a decade ago, I along with colleagues Ursula Rick and Max Boykoff evaluated 20 years of media coverage of sea level rise. We found overall media reporting on sea level rise to be highly consistent with the scientific literature and the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized in the figures below.
 |
We concluded, “accurate reporting on projections for sea level rise by 2100 demonstrates a bright spot at the interface of climate science and mass media.”
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<page 2>
What has changed? I can think of a number of things:
A further complication, perhaps specific to climate, has been the influence of what has been called “balance as bias.” This idea holds that there is a single “correct” view of climate science, and divergences from this view are biased.
Academics have evaluated media reporting based on whether it reflects the “correct” view (good reporting) or challenges it (flawed reporting). The notion arose out of a perception several decades ago that climate skeptics received too much media attention, and gradually expanded to encompass any views outside a shared, preferred narrative of a group of academics, journalists and fellow travelers promoting climate advocacy.
Of course, science doesn’t work like this and it is entirely appropriate for experts to hold divergent views — in fact, that is how science gets done. The consequence however is that climate reporting typically includes no differences of opinion, rather, only voices friendly to the preferred narrative.
The “balance as bias” thesis has been wildly successful at eliminating certain voices from the legacy media. Ironically, the success of “balance as bias” thesis has itself contributed to profound biases in media reporting, and arguably allowed advocacy journalism on climate to proliferate unchecked.
Since 2020, the year explored in the data above, news media biases have gotten worse. Perga and colleagues report that in 2021 a non-peer reviewed pre-print asserting the “virtual impossibility” of the Pacific Northwest heatwave received 8 times the media coverage of the most-covered peer-reviewed paper of 2020. Climate science reporting apparently doesn’t even need science.
Make no mistake, there are excellent reporters out there doing good journalism on climate. For the average reader, however, telling the difference between biased or advocacy journalism to promote a narrative and reporting that accurately reflects the state of climate science and policy is almost impossible.
I welcome your comments. I’m blocked on Twitter by a number of reporters on the climate beat, so please share. Please click on that little heart at the top of this post and ReStack. I’d especially welcome the views of journalists on the climate beat on this post, which I am happy to publish. At THB, balance is not bias.
What has changed? I can think of a number of things:
- Journalism itself has changed dramatically, with resources for reporting shrinking;
- Reporting has shifted emphasis from news to opinion;
- Niche reporting tailored to reader interests has increased;
- Climate advocacy has increasingly focused on promoting extreme weather as climate change.
A further complication, perhaps specific to climate, has been the influence of what has been called “balance as bias.” This idea holds that there is a single “correct” view of climate science, and divergences from this view are biased.
Academics have evaluated media reporting based on whether it reflects the “correct” view (good reporting) or challenges it (flawed reporting). The notion arose out of a perception several decades ago that climate skeptics received too much media attention, and gradually expanded to encompass any views outside a shared, preferred narrative of a group of academics, journalists and fellow travelers promoting climate advocacy.
Of course, science doesn’t work like this and it is entirely appropriate for experts to hold divergent views — in fact, that is how science gets done. The consequence however is that climate reporting typically includes no differences of opinion, rather, only voices friendly to the preferred narrative.
The “balance as bias” thesis has been wildly successful at eliminating certain voices from the legacy media. Ironically, the success of “balance as bias” thesis has itself contributed to profound biases in media reporting, and arguably allowed advocacy journalism on climate to proliferate unchecked.
Since 2020, the year explored in the data above, news media biases have gotten worse. Perga and colleagues report that in 2021 a non-peer reviewed pre-print asserting the “virtual impossibility” of the Pacific Northwest heatwave received 8 times the media coverage of the most-covered peer-reviewed paper of 2020. Climate science reporting apparently doesn’t even need science.
Make no mistake, there are excellent reporters out there doing good journalism on climate. For the average reader, however, telling the difference between biased or advocacy journalism to promote a narrative and reporting that accurately reflects the state of climate science and policy is almost impossible.
I welcome your comments. I’m blocked on Twitter by a number of reporters on the climate beat, so please share. Please click on that little heart at the top of this post and ReStack. I’d especially welcome the views of journalists on the climate beat on this post, which I am happy to publish. At THB, balance is not bias.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
More corruption of climate science
Retracted
Think of the Implications of Publishing
A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in the climate science
- Roger Pielke Jr.
-- July 17
I have been contacted by a whistleblower with a remarkable story of corruption of the academic peer-review process involving a paper published in 2022. The whistleblower has provided me with relevant emails, reviews and internal deliberations from which I recount this disturbing episode — which ends with an unwarranted and politically-motivated retraction of a paper that some climate scientists happened to disagree with.
The paper at the center of this story is not particularly significant, as it mainly reviews the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on trends in weather extremes. The paper does venture a bit too far (in my view) into commentary, but that is neither unique nor a basis for retracting a paper – if it were we’d have a lot of retractions!
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.
I have contacted the publisher and the co-chief-editor of the journal with several questions (which you can find at the bottom), and a request for a reply by close-of-business today. It is now after 7PM in Europe, where both are based, and I have not received a response. My invitation for comment remains open and I will update this article should they respond.
In January 2022, the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal under the Springer Nature umbrella of journals, published a paper titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti and colleagues. The paper reviews trends in various extreme events and disasters, drawing heavily on IPCC reports.
Following its publication, the paper was discussed a bit on several blogs but did not get much attention (I Tweeted on it at the time). Then, eight months later following some discussion of the paper in the Australian media, The Guardian wrote an article severely criticizing the paper. The Guardian quoted four scientists critical of the paper: Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, and Michael Mann.
Michael Mann was scathing and personal in his comments:
The AFP quoted two scientists calling for the paper to be retracted by Springer Nature. One was Friederike Otto, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who stated:
Two days later, on 29 September 2022, Christian Caron of Springer Nature and the editorial manager of the Italian Physical Society, Barbara Ancarani (and why she was involved is unclear), contacted Alimonti et al. to let them know that based on the two media stories, an investigation had been opened of their paper, cc’ing EPJP co-editor-in-chief, Beatrice Fraboni:
Retracted
Think of the Implications of Publishing
A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in the climate science
- Roger Pielke Jr.
-- July 17
I have been contacted by a whistleblower with a remarkable story of corruption of the academic peer-review process involving a paper published in 2022. The whistleblower has provided me with relevant emails, reviews and internal deliberations from which I recount this disturbing episode — which ends with an unwarranted and politically-motivated retraction of a paper that some climate scientists happened to disagree with.
The paper at the center of this story is not particularly significant, as it mainly reviews the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on trends in weather extremes. The paper does venture a bit too far (in my view) into commentary, but that is neither unique nor a basis for retracting a paper – if it were we’d have a lot of retractions!
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.
I have contacted the publisher and the co-chief-editor of the journal with several questions (which you can find at the bottom), and a request for a reply by close-of-business today. It is now after 7PM in Europe, where both are based, and I have not received a response. My invitation for comment remains open and I will update this article should they respond.
In January 2022, the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal under the Springer Nature umbrella of journals, published a paper titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti and colleagues. The paper reviews trends in various extreme events and disasters, drawing heavily on IPCC reports.
Following its publication, the paper was discussed a bit on several blogs but did not get much attention (I Tweeted on it at the time). Then, eight months later following some discussion of the paper in the Australian media, The Guardian wrote an article severely criticizing the paper. The Guardian quoted four scientists critical of the paper: Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, and Michael Mann.
Michael Mann was scathing and personal in his comments:
Less than a week later, the AFP followed up with an article also critical of the paper, with the headline, “Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study.”
The AFP quoted two scientists calling for the paper to be retracted by Springer Nature. One was Friederike Otto, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who stated:
The other scientist calling for the paper’s retraction was Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who stated,
Two other scientists quested by the AFP, Peter Cox and Richard Betts, both of the University of Exeter, explicitly opposed the idea of retraction. Cox noted that retraction could "lead to further publicity and could be presented as censorship."
Two days later, on 29 September 2022, Christian Caron of Springer Nature and the editorial manager of the Italian Physical Society, Barbara Ancarani (and why she was involved is unclear), contacted Alimonti et al. to let them know that based on the two media stories, an investigation had been opened of their paper, cc’ing EPJP co-editor-in-chief, Beatrice Fraboni:
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<page 2>
The next day, 30 September 2022, Fraboni, the EPJP co-chief-editor, contacted the associate editor responsible for handling the review process of Alimonti et al., Jozef Ongena.
Fraboni explained that the journal’s publisher, Springer Nature, wanted action:
However, the investigation proceeded.
On 17 Nov 2022, after Alimonti emailed Fabroni to ask for an update on the investigation, Fabroni responded to Alimonti et al. that she had consulted with the scientists who had criticized the paper in the two media stories. She noted that her reply to Alimonti was crafted with assistance from Springer:
The next day, 30 September 2022, Fraboni, the EPJP co-chief-editor, contacted the associate editor responsible for handling the review process of Alimonti et al., Jozef Ongena.
Fraboni explained that the journal’s publisher, Springer Nature, wanted action:
Ongena responded immediately:
Ongena followed up with a second email with a proposal:
Alimonti responded to the publishers email (Ancarani/Caron above) on 4 Oct 2022 with a similar proposal to that made by Ongena — specifically to engage the different views in the literature, as is normally done in science:
Alimonti continued and took particular issue with the comment of Michael Mann about one of his co-authors:
The co-chief-editor of EPJP, Fabroni, initially appears to have accepted this proposed course of action on 9 Oct 2022:
The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen.
However, the investigation proceeded.
On 17 Nov 2022, after Alimonti emailed Fabroni to ask for an update on the investigation, Fabroni responded to Alimonti et al. that she had consulted with the scientists who had criticized the paper in the two media stories. She noted that her reply to Alimonti was crafted with assistance from Springer:
Fabroni’s reply to Alimonti stated:
The “clear weakness” was described by Fabroni as a “main criticism” and it was that the paper did not reference the IPCC AR6, which had not been published at the time that Alimonti et al. was written, reviewed or published.
Alimonti et al. were given a choice to prepare an “erratum” or not. If they chose to prepare an “erratum” then Fraboni asked that it discuss floods, drought and heavy precipitation, drawing on relevant sections if the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1. Here are how the choices were presented to Alimonti:
<cont>
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
<page 3>
Alimonti responded six days later, on 23 November 2022, noting that it should be an “Addenda” to their paper and not an “Erratum”:
There were four total reviews, two were solicited by Fabroni (who I call Reviewers 1 and 2 below) and two from Ongena (Reviewers 3 and 4). A fifth individual was enlisted by Fraboni as an “Adjudicator.” The Adjudicator apparently had access to only the reviews of Reviewer 1 and 2.
Of the four reviews of the Addendum, three recommended publication and offered minor suggestions. Reviewer 1 opposed publication. The Adjudicator agreed with Reviewer 1. Here are excerpts from all four reviews and the Adjudicator’s summary judgment.
Reviewer 1 wrote:
Meantime, the original paper’s original editor, Ongena, also solicited two further reviews of the Addendum, which he shared with Fabroni.
Reviewer 3 wrote:
The Adjudicator began their report by discussing his/her views of the original paper, noting that such commentary was not within their remit:
I emailed Fraboni and Springer Nature with the following questions:
What to take from this saga? Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.
Alimonti responded six days later, on 23 November 2022, noting that it should be an “Addenda” to their paper and not an “Erratum”:
Alimonti et al. then prepared an Addendum to their paper, which the journal sent out for review.
There were four total reviews, two were solicited by Fabroni (who I call Reviewers 1 and 2 below) and two from Ongena (Reviewers 3 and 4). A fifth individual was enlisted by Fraboni as an “Adjudicator.” The Adjudicator apparently had access to only the reviews of Reviewer 1 and 2.
Of the four reviews of the Addendum, three recommended publication and offered minor suggestions. Reviewer 1 opposed publication. The Adjudicator agreed with Reviewer 1. Here are excerpts from all four reviews and the Adjudicator’s summary judgment.
Reviewer 1 wrote:
Reviewer 1 also notes:
Reviewer 1 concludes:
Reviewer 2 recommended “Accept as it” and noted:
The journal sent the comments of Reviewer 1 to Alimonti et al. who then revised their Addendum and responded to EPJP with the revision and response to reviews. Reviewer 1 (and apparently inly Reviewer 1) was sent the revised Addendum. Reviewer 1 re-reviewed the Addendum and responded to the journal with the following conclusion (my emphasis added):
What implications?
Meantime, the original paper’s original editor, Ongena, also solicited two further reviews of the Addendum, which he shared with Fabroni.
Reviewer 3 wrote:
Reviewer 4 wrote:
Fabroni invited a fifth person to serve as an “Adjudicator” of the reviews of the Addendum and revised Addendum. Apparently the Adjudicator was provided only the reviews of Reviewer 1 and 2.
The Adjudicator began their report by discussing his/her views of the original paper, noting that such commentary was not within their remit:
The Adjudicator focused primarily on the original paper, despite not having been invited to discuss that paper, and concluded with a recommendation to retract the original paper.:
The editor, Fabroni, than emailed the handling editor, Onega, the following on 13 July 2023 notifying him of the journal’s and Springer Nature’s decision to retract the original paper:
A retraction based not on any claims of scientific misconduct, but simple disagreement.
I emailed Fraboni and Springer Nature with the following questions:
- I understand that you have decided to retract Alimonti et al. Is this correct?
- What is your motivation for the investigation of Alimonti et al.?
- What is your rationale for the post-publication actions that you have taken, including now the decision to retract?
- Under what specific journal procedures have you conducted your post-publication investigation and decision making?
- Can you provide me a timeline of your actions under the formal procedures?
What to take from this saga? Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.
Multi Sport
DA
That is you staying in your lane. Well done. Stick to posting cartoons. And well done to Sunshine too for helping you out with his/her obligatory "like".
baldref
GOLD
"With category 4 Hurricane Hilary churning off the coast of Baja California and heading northwest, millions of residents of Southern California from San Diego across Orange County found themselves on Friday in the area’s first tropical storm watch since modern hurricane warning practices began in the 1950s. Hilary is expected to turn north-northwestward and accelerate over unusually warm waters off the coast of Baja Mexico this weekend, enabling it to maintain enough strength to bring tropical storm conditions to parts of Southern California Sunday night and Monday morning. The storm’s impacts are likely to be severe and highly damaging over a large region of the Southwest U.S., with record rainfall amounts possible in some desert areas."
yaleclimateconnections.org
California's first Tropical Storm Watch on record as Hurricane Hilary heads for Baja » Yale Climate Connections
Even as it weakens, Hilary will pack an exceptional punch in the U.S. Southwest, with pockets of high wind and widespread flooding rains.
yaleclimateconnections.org
Cloud-computerized water heater --
www.technologyreview.com
This startup has engineered a clever way to reuse waste heat from cloud computing
Heata is now using these busy servers to heat water for homes.
www.technologyreview.com