Archives de catégorie : climate-debate

Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry, August 31, 2019 in Climate Etc.


A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Several papers of fundamental importance:

*Important new paper by Peter Minnett:  The response of the ocean thermal skin layer to variations in incident infrared radiation [link]

*A provocative paper with many implications:  Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit  [link]

*Does Surface Temperature Respond to or Determine Downwelling Longwave Radiation? [link]

*Reframing the carbon cycle of the subpolar Southern Ocean [link]  Synopsis [link]

Something new and interesting from Russian scientists. A new approach to local climate dynamics, integrating bifurcation analysis, control theory and climate theory. Start with Section 7 for an overview worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.114

Climate change is altering winter precipitation across the Northern Hemisphere [link]

The influence of weather regimes on European renewable energy production and demand. [link]

Hemispheric Asymmetry of Tropical Expansion Under CO2 Forcing [link]

How predictable were this summer’s European temperature records? [link]

A Skeptic’s Guide To Global Temperatures

by Clive Best, August 30, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Climate change may well turn out to be a benign problem rather than the severe problem or “emergency” it is claimed to be.

This will eventually depend on just how much the Earth’s climate is warming due to our transient but relatively large increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

This is why it is so important to accurately and impartially measure the Earth’s average temperature rise since 1850. It turns out that such a measurement is neither straightforward, independent, nor easy.

For some climate scientists, there sometimes appears to be a slight temptation to exaggerate recent warming,  perhaps because their careers and status improve the higher temperatures rise.

NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Model Projections Are 100x Less Accurate

by K. Richard, August 30, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds.

Clouds have the capacity to dramatically influence climate changes in both radiative longwave (the “greenhouse effect”) and shortwave.

Cloud cover domination in longwave radiation

In the longwave, clouds thoroughly dwarf the CO2 climate influence. According to Wong and Minnett (2018):

  • The signal in incoming longwave is 200 W/m² for clouds over the course of hours. The signal amounts to 3.7 W/m² for doubled CO2 (560 ppm) after hundreds of years.

  • At the ocean surface, clouds generate a radiative signal 8 times greater than tripled CO2 (1120 ppm).

  • The absorbed surface radiation for clouds is ~9 W/m². It’s only 0.5 W/m² for tripled CO2 (1120 ppm).

  • CO2 can only have an effect on the first 0.01 mm of the ocean. Cloud longwave forcing penetrates 9 times deeper, about 0.09 mm.

 

Climate Scientists Admit Their Models Are Wrong

by Bud Bromley, August 30, 2019 in PrincipiaScientificInternational


Climate scientists who support human-caused global warming, for example Ben Santer and Michael Mann, authored a peer reviewed paper which acknowledges that their climate models are wrong, although their admission is buried in weasel words and technical jargon:

In the scientific method it is not the obligation or responsibility of skeptics or “deniers” to falsify or disprove hypotheses and theories proposed by climate scientists.  It is the obligation and responsibility of climate scientists to present evidence and to defend their hypothesis.  Alarmist climate scientists have failed to do so despite the expense of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

http://climatechangedispatch.com/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/

Read more at budbromley.blog

La hausse du niveau de la mer accélère-t-elle l’érosion des côtes? (3/3)

by Prof. Y. Battiau, 30 août 2019 in ScienceClimat Energie


 

6. Conclusion

A la question initiale qui avait été posée – “la hausse du niveau de la mer accélère-t-elle l’érosion des côtes?”- on peut répondre qu’elle ne joue qu’un rôle mineur, comparé à celui des tempêtes. Dans l’état actuel des recherches, on peut dire aussi que le réchauffement climatique n’augmente pas la fréquence et l’intensité des tempêtes. Tout cela va à l’encontre de ce que l’on entend habituellement dans les médias, mais le scientifique a le devoir de rétablir la réalité des faits.

Pourtant, on ne peut nier que les risques littoraux s’aggravent dans beaucoup de régions et que leur gestion est de plus en plus coûteuse. Mais la plupart du temps, cette aggravation résulte de facteurs anthropiques. Alors que les hommes ont longtemps évité la proximité immédiate du littoral, ils ont depuis plus de 150 ans, entrepris d’installer habitations, infrastructures et complexes industriels le plus près possible de la côte. Face à cette vulnérabilité accrue, il a fallu ensuite “défendre contre la mer” tous ces biens, une stratégie qui n’a fait que renforcer ou déplacer l’érosion marine. La seule façon de prévenir efficacement les risques littoraux est de travailler avec les processus naturels et surtout de respecter la ressource sédimentaire du système côtier, en évitant d’entraver la mobilité naturelle du trait de côte. Mais ce serait là l’objet d’un autre article…

La forêt amazonienne n’est pas le poumon de la planète

by SCE-INFO, 30 août 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie


La forêt amazonienne fait beaucoup parler d’elle en ce moment. Selon le journal Le Monde mais également selon de nombreux autres médias, la forêt amazonienne est ravagée par des incendies d’une ampleur inédite, et ce depuis plusieurs semaines. Sans nier les feux ni l’importance de cette forêt au niveau de sa biodiversité, nous tenons à dénoncer quelques contre-vérités qui ont circulé.

1/ La forêt amazonienne n’est pas le poumon de la planète

Scientifiquement, l’expression “poumon de la planète” pour désigner l’Amazonie est fausse et prétendre que l’Amazonie produit 20% de notre oxygène — une assertion du Président français Macron lors du récent sommet du G7 — est fausse. Tout d’abord un poumon ne produit pas d’oxygène mais en consomme… Mais passons ce détail. Ce qu’il faut retenir est ceci : le bilan entre photosynthèse et respiration pour cet écosystème est nul du point de vue de l’oxygène [1] . La forêt amazonienne ne produit donc quasi pas d’oxygène, tout comme les océans, lorsque l’on considère le bilan net (photosynthèse + respiration). Tout ceci est même rappelé sur page Wikipedia consacrée à la forêt amazonienne, ou encore sur le site web du National Geographic.

Pour ceux qui ont du mal à lire en anglais, vous pouvez également lire le site français du Huffington Post, cette page de Planet Terre écrite en juin 2000, ou cet article écrit dans Le Parisien.

Pour ceux qui se posent la question de l’origine de l’oxygène que nous respirons (21% dans l’atmosphère actuelle), voici la réponse : nous respirons essentiellement un O2 libéré par des végétaux anciens (par exemple datant du Carbonifère) devenus matière organique fossile (ce carbone n’est pas dégradé par les bactéries des sols et sédiments et donc ne consomme pas d’oxygène atmosphérique). La page de Planet Terre citée précédemment explique parfaitement ce phénomène.

Figure 1. Nombre de feux de forêt au Brésil entre 2004 et 2019.
Source : Libération.

Greenland Meltdown Hoax

by P. Homewood, August 29, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


You will recall those ridiculous stories about Greenland heatwaves and ice sheet meltdown, which were circulating just a couple of weeks ago :

As I pointed out at the time, they were simply not true. And, now the actual data bears this out.

The Surface Mass Balance (SMB) of the ice sheet, while below average is still well above that of 2012, and also within the historical range.. Most of the shortfall this year is because of dry weather during the winter, hence lack of snow.

[The light grey band shows differences from year to year. For any calendar day, the band shows the range over the 30 years (in the period 1981-2010), however with the lowest and highest values for each day omitted. ]

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

Amazon Wildfires Are Horrifying, But They’re Not Destroying Earth’s Oxygen Supply

by Scott Denning, August 22, 2019 in LiveSci=nce


Fires in the Amazon rainforest have captured attention worldwide in recent days. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who took office in 2019, pledged in his campaign to reduce environmental protection and increase agricultural development in the Amazon, and he appears to have followed through on that promise.

The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80% following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.

Some media accounts have suggested that fires in the Amazon also threaten the atmospheric oxygen that we breathe. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted on Aug. 22 that “the Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire.”

Don’t hold your breath

Even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1% of the world’s oxygen would be consumed.

In sum, Brazil’s reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure. There’s enough oxygen in the air to last for millions of years, and the amount is set by geology rather than land use. The fact that this upsurge in deforestation threatens some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes on Earth is reason enough to oppose it.

Fake News and Fires in the Amazon

by Donna Laframboise, August 23, 2019 in BigPicturesNews


Politicians and government officials like to talk as though it’s possible to stamp out fake news. It isn’t.

Fake news is as old as humanity. After Aristotle incorrectly claimed women had fewer teeth than men, generations of highly educated people believed it.

Rajendra Pachauri was called “the UN’s top climate scientist” by the BBC – and a “Nobel laureate” by the New York Academy of Sciencesmagazine. Neither statement was true.

Pachauri’s doctorate wasn’t in climatology, but in industrial engineering and economics. And the fact that he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the UN organization he chaired doesn’t make him or any other person affiliated with that organization a Nobel laureate.

Published in 2008 and 2009, these inaccurate statements have never been corrected. In other words, we’re surrounded by fake news. And always will be. Humans are frequently mistaken. Organizations, as well as individuals, post things on the Internet before double-checking.

While media outlets are supposed to be more reliable than your brother-in-law, that seems less true every day. Over the past week, people have shared a CNN headline on Facebook that declares: “The Amazon rainforest is burning at a record rate” (see the screengrab from my own Facebook feed, at the top of this post).

If you click through to the CNN website, you’ll find a few extra words: “…research center says.” But the primary statement is misleading. Which means that millions have been alarmed unnecessarily – including a lovely, smart, young mother of my acquaintance.

Over at the website of National Geographic, a headline falsely declares: Brazil’s Amazon is burning at record rates – and deforestation is to blame. The second half of that assertion is vigorously disputed here.

Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It’s The ‘Lungs Of The World,’ Is Wrong

Amazon fires: how celebrities are spreading disinformation

The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs: Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply

Is Amazon Rainforest Burning At Record Rates? What Is The Way Forward?

Lies, Damn Lies, And Rainforest Fear-Mongering

Annual Amazon farmland burn sets records for international outrage

Amazon fires: What about Bolivia?

Stop Sharing Those Viral Photos of the Amazon Burning

The Three Most Viral Photos of the Amazon Fire Are Fake. Here Are Some Real Ones to Share.

What Satellite Imagery Tells Us About the Amazon Rain Forest Fires

The myth of ecocide: So many lies are being told about the Amazon fires

Why shouldn’t Brazilians burn down trees?

Sugar cane, Palm oil, and Biofuels in the Amazon

How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate

by Dr Roy Spencer, August 25, 2019 in GlobalWarming


An old mantra of the news business is, “if it bleeds, it leads”. If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.

There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don’t need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word.

Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject. The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.

When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable. The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter. Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects. The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don’t know for sure).

For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.

And still I am widely considered a climate denier.

Why? Because I am not willing to exaggerate and make claims that cannot be supported by data.

The widely reported Greenland surface melt event around 1 August 2019 (green oval) was then followed by a recovery to normal in the following weeks (purple oval), which was not reported by the media.

More fake five-alarm crises from the IPCC

by Paul Driessen, August 25, 2019


UN and other scientists recently sent out news releases claiming July 2019 was the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth” – nearly about 1.2 degrees C (2.2 degrees F) “above pre-industrial levels.” That era happens to coincide with the world’s emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. And “ever recorded” simply means measured; it does not include multiple earlier eras when Earth was much warmer than now.

Indeed, it is simply baseless to suppose that another few tenths of a degree (to 1.5 C above post-Little Ice Age levels) would somehow bring catastrophe to people, wildlife, agriculture and planet. It is equally ridiculous to assume all recent warming has been human-caused, with none of it natural or cyclical.

Moreover, as University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has noted, this past July was most likely not the warmest. The claim, he notes, is based on “a limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.”

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

by P. Homewood, August 26, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

 

Amazonie : fake news, désinformation, manipulation !

by Jo Moreau, 26 août 2019 in Contrepoints


L’ avalanche d’articles, de photos et d’avis de personnalités de tous horizons sur les incendies qui ravagent l’Amazonie constitue une illustration parfaite du sale boulot de manipulation de l’opinion publique exercée par les médias, et porteur de l’amalgame trompeur diffusé jour après jour entre protection de l’environnement et réchauffement climatique.

La première chose qui a attiré mon attention est le rapport fait entre le nombre d’incendies constatés en 2019, avec la situation en… 2018. Il est à peine croyable qu’une comparaison aussi peu significative sur le plan statistique et trompeuse sur le plan historique ait été diffusée sans aucune réserve par tous les médias mondiaux, mais serve de surcroît les intérêts d’hommes et de femmes politiques, à commencer par le leader auto-proclamé de l’Union Européenne et porte-drapeau mondial de l’écologisme, j’ai nommé le président Macron.

Illustré par une photo « détournée », son récent tweet sur le sujet résume parfaitement l’amalgame entretenu par les sauveurs de la planète sur base de fake news :

« Notre maison brûle. Littéralement. L’Amazonie, le poumon de notre planète qui produit 20 % de notre oxygène, est en feu. C’est une crise internationale. Membres du G7, rendez-vous dans deux jours pour parler de cette urgence. »

Alors, soit le président Macron est mal informé, soit il suit aveuglément les avis très orientés d’ONG n’ayant aucune légitimité scientifique ou démocratique. Le problème est que la majorité de ceux qui nous gouvernent a une démarche identique.

Mais reprenons les choses dans l’ordre.

FAKE NEWS

Je place sous ce titre l’emploi par les médias ou sur les réseaux sociaux de photos parfois anciennes, non pas « fausses », mais tout à fait étrangères avec la situation actuelle en Amazonie.

Il s’agit d’une tactique souvent employée, destinée à émouvoir le public et l’orienter dans le sens voulu. Le choix des photos qui illustrent un article a une grande importance. Ainsi, les photos de dirigeants politiquement incorrects montrent souvent des visages grimaçants ou dans des poses peu avantageuses, tandis que les dirigeants idéologiquement corrects (aux yeux des médias) nous sont montrés souriants et sympathiques.

Mais l’emploi massif de ces photos « détournées » était tellement flagrant qu’après les avoir abondamment publiées, l’ensemble de la presse émit dans un deuxième temps des réserves prudentes quant à leur origine, ce qui lui permit accessoirement de se draper dans une démonstration émouvante d’objectivité.

DÉSINFORMATION

Voir aussi ici
(Une Amazonie bien commode pour la politique idiote de Macron)

Amazon Rain Forest Fires: Here’s What’s Really Happening

by Alexandria Symonds, August 23, 2019 in TheNewYorkTimes


 

These fires were not caused by climate change. They were, by and large, set by humans. However, climate change can make fires worse. Fires can burn hotter and spread more quickly under warmer and drier conditions.

When it comes to the future of climate change, widespread fires contribute a dual negative effect. Trees are valuable because they can store carbon dioxide, and that storage capacity is lost when trees burn. Burning trees also pumps more carbon into the atmosphere.

Is Amazon Rainforest Burning At Record Rates? What Is The Way Forward?

by R. Walker, August 21, 2019 in Science20


Short summary: we have had wild fires for many years now in the Amazon, even in the tropical rainforest – mainly started by humans for forest clearing and ranching. It is not enough to impact significantly on the Paris agreement pledges yet, though it is important in the long term if this continues for decades. It does of course have major and immediate impacts on forest residents, nature services and the biodiversity in Brazil.

This image is being shared widely, for instance in National Geographic’s “The Amazon is burning at record rates – and deforestation is to blame”. Similarly, the BBC is reporting it as ‘Record number of fires’ in Brazilian rainforest.

Yet, NASA’s own description for this photo says that it is burning at close to the average for the last 15 years. So, what is going on here?

APOLOGIES – UPDATE FROM NASA FROM 19TH AUGUST – THEY NOW CONFIRM INPE INSTEAD OF SAYING IT IS BELOW AVERAGE

Previous version of this article was mistaken. I have made a copy on my website here (the comments on this article are based on that earlier version):

NASA Say Amazon Rainforest Burning At Close To Average Rates – Yet Many News Stories Say Record Rates – Which Is It?

It accurately summarized the article it linked to from NASA (Fires in Brazil) and that page showed as updated on 22nd August which lead me to believe it was up to date. But apparently it isn’t, that’s just the date for a minor update of the page.