Recent Carbon Brief articles by tim.dodd

• Keep coal, gas and oil in the ground to save Antarctic ice sheet, study warns
• Guest post: The state of the Greenland ice sheet in 2015
• Climate change risks biggest change to marine species in three million years
• What do volcanic eruptions mean for the climate?
• Global emissions trading scheme ‘should be based on UN carbon budget’
• Arctic sea ice decline erratic as expected
• Formulating five ways just to thank Ban Ki-moon: Behind the scenes at the Lima climate conference
• Return to the home of the blizzard: Chris Turney reflects on his recent scientific mission to Antarctica
• The IPCC’s risky talk on climate change
• Predicting the future: The challenge of regional climate projection
• Climate rhetoric: What’s an energy trilemma?
• AGU 101: A guide to the US’s biggest geoscience conference
• Mail on Sunday’s £300 billion ‘eco bill’ claim is almost double government estimates
• IPCC sea level rise projection probably too low, says expert survey
• Wet UK summers: melting Arctic sea ice may be partly to blame
• Energy taxes: new polls show why they’re under attack
• Interrogating British Gas’s energy bill rise
• Sunday Telegraph front page marks return to ‘green taxes’ debate
• Why the UK’s politics are incapable of governing energy
• Methane reserves: Does size really matter?
• Boris’s energy policy quick fix will take a decade to kick in
• Energiewende: Electricity bills and Germany’s election
• Ed Davey: New planning regulations don’t allow local veto for wind turbines
• Claims of a global warming pause have had no impact on public opinion
• How much climate change is dangerous? Our poll tries to find out what people think
• Fracking has hardly any public support – but opponents have a tough choice
• Scientists mull slow carbon loss from Arctic permafrost
• Lost in translation: Scientific uncertainty and belief in climate change
• Assessing where to safely store carbon dioxide: It’s all about the rock
• Communicating the risks and uncertainties of climate change at the science and technology committee
• Scientists unveil new and improved El Niño forecasts
• Busting the myths about climate migration
• Climate policy in the Economist: Why ‘wait and see’ doesn’t cut it
• We all agree about communicating climate consensus, don’t we?
• Consensus study: fewer than one per cent of climate studies reject human causes
• Out with the old and in with the new? The rhetoric of new nuclear
• The good life, the green economy and global catastrophe: the changing rhetoric of renewables
• DECC’s climate and energy survey: One poll cooked five ways
• Cloud-building plants help cool the atmosphere (but only slightly)
• Climate scientists highlight urgent need to get to grips with black carbon
• Expert view: what next for the EU ETS?
• New paper shows natural climate cycles can change the pace of atmospheric warming
• The costs and benefits of climate action: Are policymakers wrong to think we should cut emissions now?
• Poll: It doesn’t matter what’s causing it – UK adults believe the government must act on climate change
• Polling: UK public blames energy companies for higher bills; is split over paying more for climate change and energy security
• Asia going low carbon faster than Europe, report says
• What makes clean coal ‘clean’: A rhetorical look
• Coral bleaching could be the norm by the 2050s
• New nuclear – it’s about time (and money)
• Can we really have carbon negative power?
• Climate rhetoric – From apocalypse to action in Obama’s State of the Union
• Cost, not capacity, is the crucial statistic for renewable energy
• Crepe! Will climate change ruin pancake day?
• Greenhouse gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms: opening a can of worms
• A tail of climate sensitivity
• Is individual action on emissions really futile under the EU ETS?
• That picture of One Direction won’t save your climate comms – and other lessons
• Does DECC predict a post-2020 renewable slowdown?
• Soot fingered as climate threat
• The Observer is wrong: “climate change denial” is not becoming “entrenched”
• Reviewing factchecks of the Mail group
• Gas power could push up energy bills, says Committee on Climate Change as government gives go-ahead to fracking
• Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions
• Daily Telegraph on climate aid: New headline, same old figures
• Five things to know about flooding and climate change
• US election coverage: will Obama put climate change back on the agenda?
• Hurricane Sandy coverage: Do Fraser Nelson’s arguments for dropping carbon cutting policies stack up?
• Confusion from the Telegraph about renewables displacing carbon dioxide north of the border
• ITV’s weird exchange of skeptic views – on the Alan Titchmarsh show
• Don’t mention the ‘c’ word: It’s the UN biodiversity conference
• How much would an expansion of nuclear power cost us?
• Carbon Brief’s pick of the Climate and Energy events at the Conservative conference
• Polar bear scientist Dr Charles Monnett cleared of scientific misconduct
• Carbon Brief’s pick of the Climate and Energy events at the Labour conference
• Christopher Booker flunks general studies
• Carbon Brief’s pick of the Climate and Energy events at the Lib Dem Conference
• Statoil’s UK PR campaign: a quiet power play
• BBC makes a locally-sourced meal of discussing Arctic sea ice melt
• Why there’s more to a fall in US emissions than meets the eye
• How regions may still experience cold winters in a warming world: visualising the role of natural variability in a global warming trend
• Has there ever been a level energy playing field? Putting renewables subsidies in context
• Why Fraser Nelson’s Olympic optimism about climate change and fossil fuel consumption may be misplaced
• Is climate change really making squirrels sleep in?
• Why we won’t see tropical plants in Antarctica any time soon
• Sun writers disagree on windpower
• Carbon Brief’s shamelessly tenuous Olympics Friday Five
• Onshore wind subsidies spared with 10% cut, as DECC also announces gas power has a ‘key role’ beyond 2030
• At a glance: Key criticisms of UK draft energy bill in Select Committee report
• ‘You can’t absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 is responsible for global warming?’ The Today programme out of its depth on climate science
• Does more carbon dioxide mean more forests? And is this all good? Not quite.
• Wiltshire’s wind regulation: blowing evidence-based policymaking out of the window
• Scientists respond to the Register on Antarctic ice shelf melt: ‘This is the equivalent of turning the statement “the cancer is not as bad as we thought” into “you don’t have cancer”.’
• Confidential House of Commons research on renewables and fuel poverty makes it into the Sunday Telegraph
• Don’t like sea level rise projections? Make them illegal
• The anatomy of a WSJ article on “Europe’s Green Energy Suicide”
• When it comes to Geoengineering, are you a Promethean?
• Fugitive emissions from shale gas: our Q&A
• Geeks form cliques too – why better scientific understanding doesn’t guarantee concern about climate change
• £100 or £1000? The Times and the Telegraph interpret Energy Bill figures in very different ways
• Reaction to the draft energy bill – and the questions it raises