Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

The Climate Debate Twenty Years Later (recalling Houston’s 1999 conference)

by Robert Bradley Jr., March 7, 2019 in MasterResource

“Better climate knowledge about natural versus anthropogenic forcing seems to a decade away.” That was the major takeaway from a major 1999 climate conference in Houston, Texas as noted by Martin Cassidy of the Houston Geological Society, who  authored a conference summary, “Global Climate Change: Panel Agrees: ‘In 10 Years We Will Know‘.”

In fact, one of the conference participants, Gerald North, climatologist at Texas A&M, repeated this a decade after this conference. In his words:

In another decade of research we will have squared away a lot of our uncertainties about forced climate change. As this approaches we can be thinking about what to do if the warming does indeed appear to be caused by humans and to what extent things are changing as result. (North to Seldon B. Graham, Jr. January 6, 2010)

Now for Cassidy’s 1,000-word writeup. As you read this, ask yourself: what is really that different today, 20 years later, science-wise?

Planet-Sized Experiments – we’ve already done the 2°C test

by Willis Eschenbach, March 17, 2019 inWUWT

People often say that we’re heading into the unknown with regards to CO2 and the planet. They say we can’t know, for example, what a 2°C warming will do because we can’t do the experiment. This is seen as important because for unknown reasons, people have battened on to “2°C” as being the scary temperature rise that we’re told we have to avoid at all costs.

But actually, as it turns out, we have already done the experiment. Below I show the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. In addition, there are a lot of stations in Europe that have been taking record for a long time. This gives us lots of good data.

So without further ado, here’s the record of the average European temperature.

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria

by Tim Ball, March 16, 2019 in WUWT

Most people were taken in by the false story of human-caused global warming. We can include all the students participating in the classroom walkout to demand governments stop climate change, organized by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg. Her goal is to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Apparently, she has no idea that the temperature was near or above that level for most of the last 10,000-years in a period known as the Holocene Optimum.

They are taken in by the false claim that a minute amount of human-produced CO2 is effectively controlling the entire atmospheric system since 1950 and causing environmental collapse through global warming. They don’t know that there is an upper limit to the amount that CO2 can increase temperature. They don’t know that the average level of CO2 over the last 250 million years is 1200 ppm. They don’t know that every projection of temperature by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990 was wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, how did so few, fool so many, to such an extent, for so long?

Exagérations climatiques extrêmes

by Jean N., 14 mars 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Il ne se passe pas une journée sans que l’on entende ou lise dans les médias que le climat est “déréglé” et qu’il y a de plus en plus d’évènements climatiques extrêmes. Et de nombreux scientifiques semblent penser la même chose. Par exemple, une pétition publiée fin janvier 2019 et signée par 3400 scientifiques belges, déclare au point 3 : “Le seul réchauffement actuel de 1°C entraîne déjà une augmentation de l’occurrence et de l’intensité des extrêmes climatiques tels que les canicules, les sécheresses ou encore les inondations.” Aucune référence n’est malheureusement donnée par les signataires de la pétition… Ces phénomènes climatiques sont-ils exagérés? Consultons donc le dernier rapport du GIEC, l’AR5 publié en 2013, et particulièrement le chapitre 2 qui traite des évènements climatiques extrêmes (depuis 2013, le GIEC n’a plus rien publié d’aussi complet sur le sujet). Préparez-vous à être surpris!

Figure 1. Extrait de la Table SPM.1 concernant les évènements climatiques extrêmes dans le résumé pour décideurs du rapport AR5 du GIEC. Sur 9 phénomènes climatiques extrêmes seulement 5 sont présentés dans la table par le GIEC. Le texte noir sont des conclusions tirées par l’AR5. Les textes en rouge et en bleu sont des conclusions plus anciennes (AR4 et rapport SREX). A droite, “OK Ch.2” indique que le résumé est correct par rapport au texte; le triangle rouge “attention”, indique que des informations importantes sont manquantes et peuvent induire en erreur.


by GWPF, March 6, 2019

The Met Office says it’s going to get warmer this year. GWPF readers reckon not.

Back in early February, we invited readers to submit their entries for our 2019 global temperature prediction competition. The GWPF posse had soundly beaten the Met Office in last year’s competition, and you certainly seemed encouraged by your success, as there were 250 entries this time round, more than double last year’s entry.

For 2019, the Met Office have once again pushed the boat out on their predictions, suggesting that we might see a temperature rise of 0.19°C by the year end.

As you can see from the graph below, GWPF readers are a lot more cautious. The graph is a histogram of the entries, so the height of each blue bar is the number of readers making a particular prediction, the temperatures being given in terms of anomalies from the 1961-1990 average. The most common prediction was therefore for a slight decline in temperature over the course of the year, down to to 0.55°C from last year’s 0.6°C. The Met Office prediction is the grey band – they have given a single value this time round, rather than the range given in previous years.


by Edwin Timmer, March 9, 2019 in GWPF

“What really matters is: what happens in developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria”, says Lewis, who gave a presentation at De Groene Rekenkamer Foundation this week in Amsterdam. According to him, it is much more important that developing countries quickly become richer and how rising CO2 emissions that this entails can be limited.

“We have a lot of knowledge and expertise in Europe. We can spend our money better than investing billions in subsidies and other climate policies that have virtually no effect on global emissions.”

Lewis would prefer to see investments in the development of clean nuclear energy or techniques to get CO2 out of the air and shut down coal-fired plants. “That could then be rolled out over the rest of the world.”

Circular reasoning with climate models

by Dr. Wojick, March 1, 2018 in CFact

Climate models play a central role in the attribution of global warming or climate change to human causes. The standard argument takes the following form: “We can get the model to do X, using human causes, but not without them, so human causes must be the cause of X.” A little digging reveals that this is actually a circular argument, because the models are set up in such a way that human causes are the only way to get change.

The finding is that humans are the cause of global warming and climate change is actually the assumption going in. This is circular reasoning personified, namely conclude what you first assume.

This circularity can be clearly seen in what many consider the most authoritative scientific report on climate change going, although it is actually just the most popular alarmist report. We are talking about the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), of the latest assessment report (AR5), of the heavily politicized UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their 29 page AR5 SPM is available here.

40387018 – the raging whirlpool

Our Planet Is Beautiful But Far From Fragile

by W.E. William, March 7, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

The people at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree, saying that to avoid some of the most devastating impacts of climate change, the world must slash carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and completely decarbonize by 2050.

Such dire warnings are not new. In 1970, Harvard University biology professor George Wald, a Nobel laureate, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, predicted in an article for The Progressive, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

The year before, he had warned, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

by Guy Sorman, March 2019 in CityJournal

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.

In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.

Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist …

Une Belgique trop ambitieuse sur le climat

by Prof. Samuel Furfari, 6 mars 2019 in L’Echo

En Belgique francophone, l’intérêt pour la question climatique ne cesse de croître. A la faveur du succès remporté par les écolos aux élections communales d’octobre dernier, les partis francophones se sont lancés dans une surenchère de promesses. A cela viennent se greffer les marches pro-environnement enthousiastes mais néanmoins naïves de lycéens qui, en matière d’énergie et de climat, connaissent très peu de choses. Avec un peu plus de connaissances, ils demanderaient des fenêtres hermétiques et à double vitrage dans leurs classes, au lieu de panneaux photovoltaïques, on y reviendra. En quelques jours on est passé d’un gouvernement critiqué pour être timide à une proposition de loi climat qui n’a pas d’équivalent dans le reste du monde. Car ne nous y trompons pas, la frénésie climatique est belge. Même si on ne devrait pas être étonné que Trump n’ait pas prononcé le mot climat dans son récent discours de l’Union, ce que j’observe professionnellement dans le monde ne correspond en rien à ce que vit la Belgique. Il y a lieu de s’interroger sur les motifs réels de ce déferlement ; ce n’est pas audible pour l’instant mais on devra y répondre un jour.


The ‘trick’: How More Cooling Generates Global Warming

by Jennifer Marohasy, March 5, 2019 in WUWT

The Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten Australia’s temperature in this way for the second time in just six years – increasing the rate of warming by 23 percent between Version 1 and the new Version 2 of the official ACORN-SAT temperature record.

Temperatures from the Rutherglen research station in rural Victoria are one of the 112 weather stations that make-up ACORN-SAT. Temperature have been changed here by Blair Trewin, under the supervision of David Jones at the Bureau.


Annual average minimum temperatures at Rutherglen (1913 to 2017). Raw temperatures (green) show a mild cooling trend of 0.28 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This cooling trend has been changed to warming of 1.7 degrees Celsius per 100 years in ACORN-SAT Version 1 (orange). These temperatures have been further remodeled in ACORN-SAT Version 1 (red) to give even more dramatic warming, which is now 1.9 degrees Celsius.

New Santer Study: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%

by Dr. Roy Spencer, February 27, 2019 in GlobalWarming

A new paper in Nature Climate Change by Santer et al. (paywalled) claims that the 40 year record of global tropospheric temperatures agrees with climate model simulations of anthropogenic global warming so well that there is less than a 1 in 3.5 million chance (5 sigma, one-tailed test) that the agreement between models and satellites is just by chance.

And, yes, that applies to our (UAH) dataset as well.

While it’s nice that the authors commemorate 40 years of satellite temperature monitoring method (which John Christy and I originally developed), I’m dismayed that this published result could feed a new “one in a million” meme that rivals the “97% of scientists agree” meme, which has been a very successful talking point for politicians, journalists, and liberal arts majors.

John Christy and I examined the study to see just what was done. I will give you the bottom line first, in case you don’t have time to wade through the details:

The new Santer et al. study merely shows that the satellite data have indeed detected warming (not saying how much) that the models can currently only explain with increasing CO2 (since they cannot yet reproduce natural climate variability on multi-decadal time scales).

That’s all.

But we already knew that, didn’t we? So why publish a paper that goes to such great lengths to demonstrate it with an absurdly exaggerated statistic such as 1 in 3.5 million (which corresponds to 99.99997% confidence)? I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question for you to ponder.

Warming Predictions Defied: Japan Winters Cool, Great Lakes Ice Grows And Cal Snow Pack Hits Record

by P. Gosselin, March 2, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Japan winters are cooling

The Pacific island nation of Japan refuses to obey climate scientists’ forecasts of warming and ignore climate alarmists and their chorus of doomsday shrieks. Climate trends are moving the other way.

Now that February has ended, the 2018/19 winter is now in the books. We’ve tabulated the winter temperature data for Japan going back 32 years. The following chart tells a story that was not supposed to happen:

Japan’s mean winter temperature has been falling for more than 30 years, according to the data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA).

While alarmists insist it’s heating up everywhere, the reality is actually just the opposite, and not just in Japan.

Finland is cooling

The Scandinavian country of Finland, which extends up into the Arctic, also shows no signs of warming at all since December, 1988.

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

by Ross McKitrick, March1, 2019 in WUWT

Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.


The fact that in my example the t-statistic on anthro falls to a low level does not “prove” that anthropogenic forcing has no effect on tropospheric temperatures. It does show that in the framework of my model the effects are not statistically significant. If you think the model is correctly-specified and the data set is appropriate you will have reason to accept the result, at least provisionally. If you have reason to doubt the correctness of the specification then you are not obliged to accept the result.

This is the nature of evidence from statistical modeling: it is contingent on the specification and assumptions. In my view the second regression is a more valid specification than the first one, so faced with a choice between the two, the second set of results is more valid. But there may be other, more valid specifications that yield different results.

In the same way, since I have reason to doubt the validity of the Santer et al. model I don’t accept their conclusions. They haven’t shown what they say they showed. In particular they have not identified a unique anthropogenic fingerprint, or provided a credible control for natural variability over the sample period. Nor have they justified the use of Gaussian p-values. Their claim to have attained a “gold standard” of proof are unwarranted, in part because statistical modeling can never do that, and in part because of the specific problems in their model.

L’art de gommer les incertitudes

by Jean, N. 2 mars 5019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Comme déjà mentionné dans un article précédent publié sur SCE, la variation de la couverture nuageuse a probablement un effet majeur sur la température moyenne globale de la basse atmosphère. Si l’on veut prédire le climat du futur comme le prétend le GIEC il faut savoir modéliser la formation des nuages. Que nous dit le dernier rapport scientifique (AR5) du GIEC à ce sujet? Le but du présent article est simplement de vous présenter quelques phrases tirées de ce rapport. La science est-elle dite?

1. Le chapitre 7 du rapport AR5 publié par le GIEC en 2013

Le chapitre 7 du rapport AR5 du GIEC[1] fait 60 pages et est consacré aux nuages et aux aérosols (le rapport AR5 complet fait au total 1535 pages). Ce chapitre 7 comporte 22 pages de références et cite plus de 1100 articles scientifiques publiés dans des revues aussi prestigieuses que Science, Nature ou PNAS. Le chapitre 7 a été écrit sous la direction de Olivier Boucher (France) et David Randall (USA), deux spécialistes du domaine. Nous n’allons pas ici remettre en question la validité de ce chapitre. Nous allons simplement vous présenter quelques phrases tirées du rapport. Comme le rapport est écrit en anglais nous vous proposerons ci-dessous une “traduction maison” des phrases qui nous paraissent les plus importantes, assorties parfois de quelques explications pour bien les comprendre. Les lettres entre crochets ([A] à [P]) renvoient simplement au texte original en anglais, donné en Annexe du présent article.