BIOS Releases Part I Of Climate Change Report

July 21, 2022

BIOS has released an in-depth 77 page report on ‘Climate Change and Bermuda – Part I: Science and Physical Hazards’, which they said “synthesizes the current understanding about the state of Bermuda’s climate, including historical trends and variations over the last several decades that are likely to have an impact on Bermuda’s society.”

A spokesperson said, “The report also examines projections of future climate scenarios, including a review of uncertainties. Chapters include reviews of recent and future changes in temperature, rainfall and sea level rise. Changes in local natural hazards such as hurricanes and winter gales are also explored to develop a longer-term view of what the near future looks like for the island’s disaster risk.

“The report leverages the last 10 to 15 years of scientific work published in academic literature and technical reports, as well as advancements in climate data reporting. Key findings of the report highlight that the upper ocean and surface air temperatures locally have been warming, and they are predicted to continue increasing. Sea level rise will continue to accelerate according to scientific analyses and projections. These climate effects support growing hurricane risk in Bermuda, which has been noted to be increasing in recent decades.

“While this first document outlines the state of the climate itself, Part II of this report, due later this year, will explore the societal impacts of climate change. The principal investigator on the project is Dr Mark Guishard, adjunct scientist and director of the Bermuda Weather Service, a section of the Bermuda Airport Authority.

“He is working with two BIOS interns this summer: Bermuda Program intern Caroline Alexander, and research intern Kendall O’Farrell. Caroline is a Bermudian currently studying for a Master of Science in Climate Change at University College London. Her research focuses on the impact of climate change on Bermuda’s water supply.

“Kendall is a recent graduate of Lehigh University [U.S.] with dual Bachelor of Arts degrees, one in Earth and Environmental Science, and the other in Environmental Studies. She will be studying the community-level impacts of climate change, including implications of inequality and justice. The work of these interns, and previous BIOS interns, will be incorporated into the body of the report, in addition to BIOS-led peer-reviewed studies.

“These reports are supported by an exclusive lead sponsor, HSBC Bermuda, whose grant we gratefully acknowledge.”

The full report follows below [PDF here]:

click here banner environment 2

Read More About

Category: All, Environment, News

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. joey-bag-o'doughnuts says:

    I remember in the 70s,maybe 1974 when we were told to recycle, KBB, conserve energy, yada, yada, yada. Because we were heading into a possible ice age, the world was going to change drastically if we didn’t do all that stuff.
    So,here we are 50 plus years later and the powers that
    be trying to frighten all the little children like they did back then. It’ the weather. It’s what happens on the surface of the sun that affects our weather.

    • Joe Bloggs says:

      “I remember in the 70s,maybe 1974 when we were told to recycle,”

      Yes, because someone realised that the trash pond (Pembroke marsh) was going to fill up some day.

      • LOL - the real one says:

        Ahhh, the 1970s and the promotion of global cooling.

        • saud says:

          PLP = myopic, bigoted, arrogant, racist and homophobic.

  2. LOL - the real one says:

    A disappointing report that references studies not performed by nor replicated by the report researchers, nor anyone! Many references are years out of date. Sea level and temperature data are known to be flawed. NOAA and NASA have admitted to the large margin of error in the data collected. Nothing was mentioned in this regard.

    Sea level change is not accelerating, and there is no uniform worldwide change in sea level. “Observation” based on flawed measurements has little value. Bermuda has only one tide gauge that is not close to being 100% inaccurate. Given inaccurate data, how good are long-term modeling projections on anything?

    The IPPC is cited many times. But the IPCC cherry-picks studies, does not allow contrary opinions, and even states on the IPCC website that the papers cited were not replicated. Scientists have admitted that IPCC report models and other climate models are notoriously incorrect and run hot. Interestingly, the IPCC continues to use scientists who claim to have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore was the only person who won, and the IPCC as an organization also won. Such false claims were so bad that in December 2012, the IPCC issued a memo telling people to stop making that claim. To this day, climate scientists continue to make the prize-winning claim and are not reported by their peers.

    The report implies that the climate is changing all because of humans, which is simply not true. NOAA and the American Meteorological Society assign no percentage of human influence vs. Mother Nature in their definitions of “climate change.”

    Everything I stated can be researched in less than 60 minutes.

    I could go on, but in short, the report goes along with the fearmongering being pushed by people who are not held legally responsible for being wrong year after year. It should not be used by policymakers to make any decisions. Policymakers should start by asking for opinions from both sides of the debate because it is not “settled science.” Policymakers should spend time educating themselves instead of referencing one-sided reports to justify going green at taxpayer expense.

    • Sandgrownan says:

      Lol…. What a load of tosh.

      • LOL - the real one says:

        Facts are not your friends. Everything I stated is common knowledge and verified. Why do you not know what is common knowledge?

        • sandgrownan says:

          What I assume you have done is take some published papers and some RWNJ talking points about climate change, and then concluded that it’s all a hoax because it fits some sort of narrative, the motivation for which I cannot fathom.

          But because you are incapable of rational argument, it’s difficult to counter any of your ranting.

          • LOL - the real one says:

            Your assumption is wrong, but to the uninformed such as yourself, it matters not. Why would anyone take someone seriously who would buy a car that only started 38% of the time? Keep his money in a bank where the account balance was only 38% accurate. That is you.

            Dude, come on now. Why are you commenting on something that you know nothing about? My facts are perfectly rational to the intelligent person and are irrefutable.

            • sandgrownan says:

              There it is again, the magical 38%.

              I have a suggestion, go read up on the scientific process.

    • Joe Bloggs says:

      “NOAA and the American Meteorological Society assign no percentage of human influence vs. Mother Nature in their definitions of “climate change.””

      That is true as far as it goes. I have not found any assignation of blame by the NOAA. Only research.

      • LOL - the real one says:

        Thank you. There are no peer-reviewed papers that irrefutably prove that human CO2 emissions are causing “climate change.” FYI. NOAA & NASA have not replicated any papers cited on their websites (footnoted) as “proof” of Anthropogenic climate change.

        • sandgrownan says:

          This is fundamentally untrue. Here’s the abstract of 2019 paper:

          While controls over the Earth’s climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since
          the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate
          change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific
          consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of
          anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published
          since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized
          subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was
          specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole
          dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that
          were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample
          utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly
          sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on
          human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total
          publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

          • LOL - the real one says:

            Wow! Copy and paste, and poorly done. Tell me again why you drive a car that only starts 38% of the time and why you keep your pennies in a bank gives you 38 cents on the dollar.

            • sandgrownan says:

              Of course it was “copied & pasted”. I merely found a peer reviewed statistical analysis of consensus in the scientific community for man induced global warming. It’s maths, plain and simple, not conjecture or opinion. You may not like it., but it’s maths.

              You are wrong. There is overwhelming consensus (>99%) within the scientific community.

              You are wrong.

          • Question says:

            Even you must know that’s pathetic.

            • Sandgrownan says:

              An abstract (admittedly poorly copied) from a pure statistical analysis of climate change papers over the past 10 years?

              It’s just maths, it’s not opinion.

        • Joe Bloggs says:

          There is no such thing as a study that can “irrefutably prove” such a proposition. You seek the impossible.

          There are many things contributing to global warming. The massive CO2 emissions created by humans are but one contributing factor, but those emissions are a factor we can control if we want to.

          • LOL - the real one says:

            But the science! The science!
            Way are you willing to spend trillions of dollars of other people’s money based upon something that cannot be definitively proven?

            Why are YOU not leading by example and reducing you greenhouse gas emissions? Stop using the non-renewable energy powered Not eating meat, but eating bugs, etc. Stop using the non-green energy powered Interet. Walk everywhere…

  3. LOL - the real one says:

    From the report Forward p.16
    Climate change is readily identified in most sectors of society as being one of the existential threats to humanity, as well as vital global ecosystems supporting plant and animal species.

    Reality – US surveys – climate change is at the bottom of the list of concerns

    • sandgrownan says:

      It may well be, but Americans elected Donald Trump, treat women as second class citizens, have paramilitary police forces and a politically appointed judiciary from local level to the SCOTUS.

      What concerns Americans in regards to climate change has no bearing on observable reality.

      • LOL - the real one says:

        You exemplify why so few Americans have never heard of Bermuda. Yesh… tell me, educated one, how many climate scientists have claimed to have won the 2007 Novel Peace Prize?

        • Sandgrownan says:

          Claimed or have? I’m not sure of the thrust of your question nor so I know the answer.

          • lol - the real one says:

            If you cannot understand a simple question, how can you claim to know climate science?

            • Sandgrownan says:

              I still have no idea what you are wittering on about. Articulate an argument of you can.

              • LOL - the real one says:

                What is your native language? I do not speak Deflection.

  4. LOL - the real one says:

    To test your climate science knowledge, would you:

    1. Buy a car that a mechanic said would only start 38% of the time?

    2. Keep your money in a bank where the bank was only 38% sure of your balance?

    3. Pay an employee whose sales projections were always overinflated and never right?

    4. Hire someone who boldly embellished their qualifications when you know they have been told by an authority to stop?

    5. Purchase a product when the quality of the materials is known to be deflective?

    If you answered yes to any question, think about your answer.

    If you answered no to any question, you are on the right track to understanding what goes into climate science.

    • sandgrownan says:

      Ah, here we have a denier, and of course someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else but fails to understand the scientific process.

      Ignoring the false equivalency of a series of poorly chosen straw man arguments, the writer makes a simple but all too common mistake.

  5. LOL - the real one says:

    Oh, look. Insults and talking points. OK, how many peer reviewed papers cited in IPCC reports were replicated by the IPCC? How many writers and researchers of AR6 have claimed to have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize? Easy questions for anyone such as yourself.

    • Sandgrownan says:

      The question is nonsensical. Are you saying the meme eta of the AR6 writing team are frauds?

      • lol - the real one says:

        Your deflection does not hide your inability to answer what is common knowledge. You keep demonstrating a comple lack of any subject matter expertise. Why is that?

        • Sandgrownan says:

          Common? Elaborate if you can.

          All I’m seeing are half baked insinuations.

          • LOL - the real one says:

            Do you speak English? Stop wasting my time if you do not speak and comprehend English. My bad, it is clear that you do not.

            • saud says:

              That’s a pathetically childish response.
              It happens when you’ve lost. When you haven’t got an argument. It’s embarrassing.

              • LOL - the real one says:

                And yet, you cannot refute a single thing that I have stated. Just scripted insults to deflect from being so uninformed. Why are you so unknowledgeable? Why are you here wasting my time?

                • sandgrownan says:

                  You haven’t said anything.

                • saud says:

                  There’s nothing to refute. You don’t actually post anything of substance. You’re just a simple racist.

                  Anyway, again, I’m sorry I’ve upset you…hope you don’t beat your kids for that.

              • LOL - the real one says:

                Your rejection of known and verifable facts that I stated that no one has refutted is not my problem.

                Tell me, do you comment here to work on your English skills, to waste people’s time, or both?

                I ask because you never contribute to any discussion.

            • Sandgrownan says:

              My bad?? Colloquial English at best. Is that it??

  6. Lol - the real one says:

    Ah, insults and talking points. OK, how many peer reviewed papers cited in AR6 were replicated by the IPCC? How many writers of AR6 have claimed to have won the 2007 Noble Peace Prize? You should know this common information.