Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Que nous apprend l’Optimum Climatique Romain?

by A. Préat, 4 septembre 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie


1/ Introduction

SCE a plusieurs fois rapporté que la période actuelle de réchauffement n’est pas exceptionnelle, qu’elle fait partie de cycles décennaux à pluriséculaires de refroidissement et réchauffement qui ont lieu dans des fourchettes de température fort modestes, de l’ordre de 0,15°C par 10 ans. SCE a aussi montré que le CO2 tant incriminé dans ces changements, et surtout l’actuel, n’avait pas de raison d’être, ce gaz venant après l’augmentation de température. Le ‘bouton CO2 ‘ à même d’expliquer ou de ‘justifier’ le battage médiatique quasi-quotidien est donc à ‘la remorque’ de la température et, l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre reste avant tout une hypothèse (exemple ici).

The Dirty Dozen Tests Of Global Warming Science

by G.H. Sherrington, Sep 11, 2020 in WUWT


Assume for discussion that there has been a change of 1⁰C in the customary global near-surface air temperature, GAST, over the last century. There have been many assertions that this has produced changes. The strength of assertions is greater when a mathematical relation between temperature and the alleged change is established. Here are some relationships to ponder, for the last century or for a significant or available shorter time.

For a 1C change in global temperature –

  1. By how many millimeters does the sea level surface height change?

  2. By how many ppm does atmospheric CO change?

  3. By how many tonnes does the weight of terrestrial vegetation, like forests, change?

  4. By how much does the pH of the oceans change?

  5. By how many sq km does the average area of cloud cover change?

  6. What change is there to the accumulated cyclone index, ACE?

  7. What is the net change to the globalnumber of –

    1. Birds
    1. Land animals
    1. Marine algae
  8. By how many Watt per square metre does the Top of Atmosphere TOA radiation balance change?

  9. By how many tonnes does the weight of ice change –

    1. Over land
    1. Floating on sea
    1. Grounded over sea
  10. By how much does total precipitable rainfall TPW change?

  11. By what number does the number of large bush fires change?

 

By how many tonnes do yields of major food crops change, expressed as tonnes available per person, for example

….

“NEW LITTLE ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?” BY DR THEODOR LANDSCHEIDT

by Cap Allon, September 7, 2020 in Electroverse


Among the long list or scientific papers suggesting that a solar-driven spell of global cooling is on the cards, Dr Theodor Landscheidt’s ‘New Little ICE Age Instead of Global Warming?‘ probably has the claim of priority.

Published in 2003, just a year before his death, Landscheidt’s research is standing the test of time, and is still largely on course to be proved correct.

The paper’s abstract begins:

‘Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.’

Crucially, in the growing list of research concluding that a solar-driven multidecadal spell of global cooling is on the cards (research from multiple studies of quite different characteristics), the year 2030 ALWAYS features prominently. Unlike the IPCC, which tosses its thermageddon doomsday date back and forth like a hot potato, researchers who track the multimillennial plays of the cosmos (namely those of the Sun) routinely land on the year 2030 as being the date of ‘climate deterioration’: this in itself should serve as compelling evidence.

Dr Landscheidt continues:

‘It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion … As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niño years before the respective event.’

Dr Landscheidt concludes his introduction with the IPCC’s position on global warming, and he points to a growing list of publications showing a solar-climate connection:

CNN Falsely Blames Climate Change For Siberian Craters

by A. Watts, September 6, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch


The phrase “never let a potential climate crisis story go to waste” must be in CNN’s news handbook because this headline has absolutely nothing to do with global warming aka climate change.

The story at CNN titled Massive mystery holes appear in Siberian tundra — and could be linked to climate change is a red herring of the smelliest kind because if the writer Katie Hunt had bothered to do even the simplest of web searches, she would have learned that this crater, peculiar to that part of Siberia, is called a Pingo.

It has been known to western academics since 1825, ruling out the paranoia of “climate change” in recent decades as the cause.

In fact, all Katie had to do was look at Wikipedia for the answer:

Pingos are intrapermafrost ice-cored hills, ranging in height from 3 to 70 m (10 to 230 ft) and 30 to 1,000 m (98 to 3,281 ft) in diameter. They are typically conical in shape and grow and persist only in permafrost environments, such as the Arctic and subarctic.

A pingo is a periglacial landform, which is defined as a non-glacial landform or process linked to colder climates. It is estimated that there are more than 11,000 pingos on Earth. The Tuktoyaktuk peninsula area has the greatest concentration of pingos in the world with a total of 1,350 pingos.

Sceptical covid-19 research and sceptical polar bear science: is there a difference?

by Polar Bear Science, September 6, 2020


This essay about medical researchers having trouble getting their papers published because the results don’t support the official pandemic narrative has disturbing parallels with my experience trying to inject some balance into the official polar bear conservation narrative.1 Especially poignant is the mention of models built on assumptions sold as ‘facts’ that fail once data (i.e. evidence) become available – which of course is the entire point of my latest book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.

Read the commentary below, copied from Lockdownsceptics.org (6 September 2020). Bold in original, link added to the story to which this is a response, and brief notes and links added as footnotes for parallels with polar bear conservation science.

Mining For Green-Energy Materials Threatens Biodiversity, Study Shows

by O. Rudgard, September 3, 2020 in ClimateChaneDispatch


Mining for renewable energy materials could threaten biodiversity, researchers have found.

Scientists at the University of Queensland, Brisbane found a high degree of overlap between areas used for mining essential minerals like lithium, which is used for car batteries, and areas with high levels of biodiversity as yet untouched by industry.

Conservationists are “often naive to the threats posed by significant growth in renewable energies”, the researchers said in the study published in the journal Nature Communications, pointing out that 14 percent of protected areas contain metal mines or have them nearby.

Overall, the researchers found that eight percent of mining areas were within the range of areas designated as protected by national governments, and seven percent were within the same range of key biodiversity areas.

Using this metric, 50 million square kilometers of the earth’s land surface is influenced by mining, with 82 percent of mining areas focused on elements needed for renewable energy production.

Elements including lithium, cobalt, and nickel are essential for rechargeable batteries, which are used for power storage in wind and solar projects, as well as in electric cars.

New mines are planned to target these substances, adding to the global surface area covered by mining activities.

Challenging IChemE climate scaremongering

by D.  Wojick, September 2, 2020 in WUWT


The Institution for Chemical Engineers (IChemE) is a prestigious international group of scientists and professionals with over 35,000 members in about 100 countries. IChemE has been conducting what it calls a consultation on its draft Position Statement on Climate Change. This basically means that the members are invited to submit comments. Given that many engineers are skeptical of the climate scare, it will be interesting to see if all of these comments are made public.

The draft statement itself is pure alarmism. They say the science is settled, per the IPCC, and catastrophe looms. Here is the opening paragraph:

“Climate science is established – global climate change is upon us, exacerbated by human activities. IChemE accepts the veracity of the science and its conclusions published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To avoid irreparable social, economic and environmental damage, it is essential that we accelerate our efforts to decarbonize our economic systems and stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, if we are to have any chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, beyond which catastrophic consequences are more likely. Action needs to be global and fair, recognizing the relative differences between regions, both in terms of historic contributions to emissions and vulnerability to the consequences of a warming planet.

Chemical engineers are uniquely placed to take action in the industries that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions to arrest and reverse the damage we humans are doing to the life support systems of our single, shared planet .” (Emphasis added).

Not only do they simply sing the IPCC song, they even get it wrong. Nowhere does the IPCC suggest that 1.5 degrees of warming (with one degree already on their books) is a threshold to catastrophe. In fact the Paris Accord target is still 2.0 degrees. The last sentence may explain IChemE’s fervent catastrophism. Its members are positioned to make huge sums of money doing the engineering to decarbonize the world. After all, CO2 emissions are typically the product of chemical reactions (including combustion).

About That Sharp Rise in Climate Concern

by Donna Laframboise, September 2, 2020 in BigPicturesNews


Poll sponsors say climate attitudes have been ‘remarkably consistent’ over two decades.

A few days ago, Scientific American reprinted an article straight from Climatewire. Titled Republican Convention Ignored Climate Threat, But Americans’ Attitudes Are Shifting, it says “Polling shows that voter concern about climate change has been growing for years and that it has not diminished as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.” We’re then told about a recent public opinion survey affiliated with Stanford University.

Debunking Popular Climate Myths About CO2

by N. Thorner, October 25, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch


If you believe the debate over global warming has ever been about science—or for that matter climate—you have been conditioned, through formal education or through reports warning of doom and gloom, to believe what others rightly describe as a world-wide hoax concocted to unite the world under a single socialistic government where there is no capitalism, no democracy, and no freedom.

Why is exposing the truth so important? Because it has everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and the establishment of political agendas aimed at destroying the foundation of eastern democracies and free markets.

Accordingly, it is therefore critical for everyone to become informed so free and open debate can exist, rather than the suppression and falsification of actual scientific climate data.

This article will expose some of the popular climate myths about CO2, so the reader will be equipped with ammunition to spread the truth to those who are willing to listen and have not yet become environmental extremists.

Links are included after each myth to substantiate information and to provide reference material for further interest and clarification.

The article was written using individual articles, with permission from my friend Jay Lehr, Ph.D., in which he exposed popular climate myths related to CO2. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst for The International Climate Science Coalition.

Myth #1:  Carbon dioxide emissions cause catastrophic global warming.

When will Temperatures start to fall? Part1

by Tony Brown, August 28, 2020 in WUWT


“If Europeans truly mobilize around the delivery of the 2050 goal, every business decision, lifestyle choice, political swing, every hallmark of European culture — from annual ski trips, to Champions League Football matches, to French cheese — will need to be tested against its contribution to climate change.” European Commission ‘Green Deal’ March 2020

This is an article with a simple proposition.  Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.

The three questions I ask, in the expectation that the answer can be provided from main stream published science is;

“Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement,  or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels, said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.”

There are all sorts of caveats of course, with methane, water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, ocean response, natural variations etc but having scoured various ‘official’ web sites I can find no definitive estimate. An examination of the Extinction Rebellion web site demonstrates they are anarchists, rather than a serious green organisation. A couple of more reasoned attempts to track the consequences of zero carbon emissions are given in Note 3below the graphic-Figure 1 together with a variety of other useful background information.

Whether the reader personally believes excess Co2 to be a problem is not a matter this article is concerned with.  Let’s take science at face value –our respective Governments  have overwhelmingly agreed that humanity has added some 140ppm of Co2 to the pre industrial 280ppm and that, as a result, temperatures have risen substantially and are at a dangerous level and causing extremes of weather.

New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming

by Dr. Judith Curry, August 27, 2020 in WUWT


Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on August 25, 2020

by Ross McKitrick

Two new peer-reviewed papers from independent teams confirm that climate models overstate atmospheric warming and the problem has gotten worse over time, not better.

The papers are Mitchell et al. (2020) “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” Environmental Research Letters, and McKitrick and Christy (2020) “Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” Earth and Space Science. John and I didn’t know about the Mitchell team’s work until after their paper came out, and they likewise didn’t know about ours.

Mitchell et al. look at the surface, troposphere and stratosphere over the tropics (20N to 20S). John and I look at the tropical and global lower- and mid- troposphere. Both papers test large samples of the latest generation (“Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 6” or CMIP6) climate models, i.e. the ones being used for the next IPCC report, and compare model outputs to post-1979 observations. John and I were able to examine 38 models while Mitchell et al. looked at 48 models. The sheer number makes one wonder why so many are needed, if the science is settled. Both papers looked at “hindcasts,” which are reconstructions of recent historical temperatures in response to observed greenhouse gas emissions and other changes (e.g. aerosols and solar forcing). Across the two papers it emerges that the models overshoot historical warming from the near-surface through the upper troposphere, in the tropics and globally.

Mitchell et al. 2020

Mitchell et al. had, in an earlier study, examined whether the problem is that the models amplify surface warming too much as you go up in altitude, or whether they get the vertical amplification right but start with too much surface warming. The short answer is both.

No Fuel, No Fire

by Mike Jonas, August 25, 2020 in WUWT


With wildfires devastating California, it may be worth while seeing if lessons can be learned from Australia. Connections between American and Australian firefighters go back many years, with each helping the other from time to time. There were devastating bushfires in Australia last summer, and, tragically, three Americans who had come to help were killed when their water tanker plane crashed. It’s now Australia’s turn to help California, and let us all hope there is a better outcome.

Gum trees burnt in the bushfires in The Blue Mountains in Australia

Submissions to Enquiries

Australia’s federal enquiry into the bushfires is not due to report until 28 October 2020 but the NSW [New South Wales] state enquiry report was published today. There were nearly 2,000 public submissions. Before I go into the report’s recommendations, it may be worth looking at a couple of the public submissions in order to understand the extreme level of public frustration with green tape and the way that the fire hazard has been allowed to grow ever larger over the years.

PBS Blames Hurricanes, Wildfires On Climate Change, Defying UN ‘Consensus’

by H.S. Burnett, August 20, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch


PBS News Hour attacked climate science this weekend, publishing alarmist claims about hurricanes and wildfires that defy findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In an interview between PBS reporter Hari Sreenivasan and Andrew Freedman, editor of Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, the two journalists blamed global warming for severe wildfires and hurricanes.

According to the IPCC, however, there is little or no evidence indicating global warming is impacting hurricanes or drought.

Figure 1: Total wildfire acreage burned by year in the United States, 1926 to 2019. Data from NIFC. Graph by meteorologist Anthony Watts

Stop Blaming Climate Change For California’s Fires–Michael Schellenberger

by P. Homewood, August 26, 2020 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


It’s Not About The Climate

Nobody denies climate change is occurring and playing a role in warmer temperatures and heatwaves. Keeley notes that, since 1960, the variation in spring and summer temperatures explain 50% of the variation in fire frequency and intensity from one year to the next.

But the half-century since 1960 is the same period in which the U.S. government promoted, mostly out of ignorance, the suppression of regular fires which most forests need to allow for new growth.

For much of the 20th Century, U.S. agencies and private landowners suppressed fires as a matter of policy. The results were disastrous: the accumulation of wood fuel resulting in fires that burn so hot they sometimes kill the forest, turning it into shrubland.

The US government started to allow forests in national parks to burn more in the 1960s, and allowed a wider set of forests on public lands to burn starting in the 1990s.

“When I hear climate change discussed it’s suggested that it’s a major reason and it’s not,” Scott Stevens of the University of California, Berkeley, told me.

Redwood forests before Europeans arrived burned every 6 to 25 years. The evidence comes from fire scars on barks and the bases of massive ancient trees, hollowed out by fire, like the one depicted in The New York Times photograph.

“There was severe heat before the lightning that dried-out [wood] fuel,” noted Stevens. “But in Big Basin [redwood park], where fire burned every seven to ten years, there is a high-density of fuel build-up, especially in the forests.”

Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be

by K. Richard, August 20, 2020 in NoTricksZone


Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. 

According to scientists (Song et al., 2016), the total net forcing for Earth’s oceanic atmospheric greenhouse effect (Gaa) during 1992-2014 amounted to -0.04 W/m² per year. In other words, the trend in total longwave forcing had a net negative (cooling) influence during those 22 years despite a 42 ppm increase in CO2. This was primarily due to the downward trend in cloud cover that overwhelmed or “offset” the longwave influence from CO2.

Cloud impacts on climate are profound – but so are uncertainties

The influence of clouds profoundly affects Earth’s radiation budget, easily overwhelming CO2’s impact within the greeenhouse effect. This has been acknowledged by scientists for decades.

Despite the magnitude of clouds’ radiative impact on climate, scientists have also pointed out that our limited capacity to observe or measure cloud effects necessarily results in massive uncertainties.

For example, Stephens et al. (2012) estimated the uncertainty in Earth’s annual longwave surface fluxes is ±9 W/m² (~18 W/m²) primarily due to the uncertainties associated with cloud longwave radiation impacts.

Why Earth Overshoot Day And The Ecological Footprint Are Pseudoscientific Nonsense

by M. Schellenberger, August 23, 2020 in Forbes


Pour lire cet article en français, cliquez ici

Starting today through the end of the year, humankind will start consuming more resources than our planet can sustainably produce, according to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which has been organizing such days since 1986.

“Humanity is using nature 1.75 times faster than our planet’s ecosystems can regenerate,” says the group. “This is akin to using 1.75 Earths.”

Rich nations “overshoot” their resources before poorer ones, according to GFN. The US, Australia, Denmark and Canada overshoot before the end of March, while Cuba, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Ecuador don’t overshoot until December.

“Earth Overshoot Day” is based on something called the “Ecological Footprint,” which is used by the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program, the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The Ecological Footprint has as much scientific merit as astrology, phrenology, and flat-earth theories. It’s time to treat the Ecological Footprint as the pseudoscientific theory it is.

An Industry Out of Control: 13 Major Climate Reports in 2020, and 42 Minor Reports

by E. Worrall, August 21, 2020 in WUWT


Yale Climate Connections has listed 13 major climate reports published this year, like it is a good thing. But at least 6 of the major reports received funding from US taxpayers.

The reports listed by Yale:

State of the Climate 2019: Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, edited by J. Blunden and D.S. Arndt (BAMS 2020, 435 pages, free download available here; a 10-page executive summary is also available) – paid for by taxpayers via NOAA

The First National Flood Risk Assessment: Defining America’s Growing Risk, by Flood Modelers (First Street Foundation 2020, 163 pages, free download available here) – not sure who pays for First Street Foundation

World Water Development Report 2020: Water and Climate Change, by UN Water (UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 2020, 235 pages, free download available here) – paid for by taxpayers via the United Nations.

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets, by FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (United Nations 2020, 320 pages, free download available here) – paid for by taxpayers via United Nations.

WHO Global Strategy on Health, Environment, and Climate Change: The Transformation Need to Improve Lives and Wellbeing through Healthy Environments, by WHO (UN-WHO 2020, 36 pages, free download available here) – paid for by taxpayers via United Nations

Cooling Emissions and Policy Synthesis Report: Benefits of Cooling Efficiency and the Kigali Amendment, by UNEP-IEA (UNEP and IEA 2020, 50 pages, free download available here) – paid for by taxpayers via the United Nations

The 2035 Report: Plummeting Solar, Wind, and Battery Costs Can Accelerate Our Clean Electricity Future, by Sonia Aggarwal and Mike O’Boyle (Goldman School of Public Policy 2020, 37 pages, free download available here) – Goldman school was started by a charitable donation, so may still be privately funded.

Addressing Climate as a Systemic Risk: A Call to Action for U.S. Financial Regulators, by Veena Ramani (Ceres 2020, 68 pages, free download available here, registration required). Not sure who paid. Ceres Foundation is a tax exempt group based in Switzerland, who appear to function as a meta charity – they provide a vehicle for people who want to create a charitable fund without having to set everything up themselves.

Gender, Climate & Security: Sustaining Inclusive Peace on the Frontlines of Climate Change, by UN Women (UN Environment & Development Programs 2020, 52 pages, free download available here) – paid for by taxpayers via the United Nations.

Evicted by Climate Change: Confronting the Gendered Impacts of Climate-Induced Displacement, by Care International (Care International 2020, 33 pages, free download available here) – Care International receives a lot of funding from taxpayers via the EU and the United Nations.

Wildfires, Blackouts And High Gas Prices: Californians Fight Familiar Foes Amid Pandemic

by C. Rotter, August 20, 2020 in TheDailyCaller/WUWT


  • Wildfires are scorching California amid a massive heatwave, which is prompting citizens to consume more energy in hopes of staying cool. The increase in consumption resulted in rolling blackouts, as energy regulators managed an over-taxed energy grid. 
  • The wildfires and blackouts are also coming amid a severe economic downturn caused in part by government-imposed lockdowns designed to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
  • At the same time, a recent fuel tax increase is forcing Californians to pay more at the gas pump. California now has the highest gas prices in the country, data show. 

 See also Californian Wildfires–Due To Climate Change?

“Low-Fact Propaganda”: Spiegel’s Alarmism Exposed (Again), Greenland Ice Not “Doomed”

by P. Gosselin, August 16, 2020 in NoTricksZone


German skeptic site Die Kalte Sonne here debunks a recent alarmist article appearing in Spiegel aimed at shocking its readers. The reality, it turns out, is not shocking at all.

Greenland ice doomed?

According to Spiegel, the Greenland ice sheet is already doomed (that is unless we skip the usual democratic process and just act immediately).

Spiegel claims Greenland “glaciers are continuously losing huge masses of ice” and that the system there is “dramatically off balance”. The leftist Hamburg-based weekly reported:

The melting of the glaciers on Greenland has apparently passed the point of no return. Even if the global rise in temperature were to stop immediately, the ice sheet would continue to retreat, report researchers led by Michalea King of Ohio State University report in the journal “Communications Earth and Environment“.

Read more at Spiegel

4°C warmer 11,000 years ago

But Die kalte Sonne wondered if this were really so, and needed only 2 mouse clicks to find a recent temperature reconstruction for Greenland’s past (Lecavalier et al. 2017, pdf here). The paper’s Figure 4a  shows the temperatures, with the temperature of 1950 at the far right which in paleo-climatology is always meant as “present”.

Thus, 11,000 years ago, it was up to 4°C warmer than in 1950 over long periods of thousands of years, and today the warming has been about 1°C since then. Since we can see an ice sheet of 2,850,000 km³ (that is roughly Gt) today, the “point of no return” cannot have been exceeded 10,000 years ago. How does the heading then come about? We take a look at the associated work by King et al. 2020:

 

The Tyranny Of Global Warmists Is Worse Than You Think

by D. Solway, August 11, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch


“The more one has paid for a forgery, the more one defends it in the face of all the evidence to the contrary,” writes John Le Carré in his novel about espionage and deception, Smiley’s People.

This certainly seems to be the case with the four major weather-tracking agencies: the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, the Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York (NASA GISS).

In a previous article for The Pipeline, I examined the malfeasance of the influential Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, where two major email dumps (aka “Climategate”) showed the outfit’s determined efforts to fudge the data, suppress unfavorable results and eliminate dissenting voices.

This should have put the “global warming” farce to bed once and for all, but the deception shows no sign of abating.

Le 20ème siècle a été anormalement chaud mais le 21ème siècle revient à la normale (1/2)

by Jean Van Vliet, 14 août 2020, in ScienceClimatEnergie


Introduction

Suite à la prise de conscience à la fin du 20ème siècle d’une hausse inhabituelle des températures terrestres, des chercheurs américains ont développé une théorie du réchauffement global basé sur l’effet de serre dû au CO2 [1], en soulignant la responsabilité possible de l’homme dans le réchauffement observé: la poursuite des émissions de CO2 conduirait à une éventuelle catastrophe planétaire. Ces  chercheurs ont présenté leur théorie au Congrès américain [2] et aux médias. Le monde politique international a réagi rapidement à cet alarmisme [3] en permettant à Assemblée Générale de l’ONU de décembre 1988 d’approuver la mise en place du GIEC [4].

Depuis plus de trente ans et malgré le manque persistant de preuve formelle, la peur du réchauffement global anthropique causé par le CO2 est propagée sans relâche par l’ONU et ses satellites PNUE, GIEC et OMM relayés par les ONG environnementales et les médias, suivis plus récemment par une fraction du monde académique occidental. Une puissante industrie des énergies renouvelables a été créée via des subsides et des certificats verts quitte à doubler ou tripler le prix de l’électricité. Cette industrie est prête à exploiter les nouvelles aubaines financières annoncées par l’Accord de Paris et le Green Deal de l’UE. Dans un tel contexte, le but avoué est que l’humanité change radicalement son comportement, fût-ce au prix d’une dictature environnementale: l’alarmisme médiatique est maximal, et même les enfants sont embrigadés dans le débat pour soi-disant “sauver la planète”.

Cette tentative rampante de prise du pouvoir a cependant buté contre un obstacle imprévu depuis le début de 2020, à savoir la pandémie du Coronavirus: le lockdown sanitaire a montré que la société pouvait changer son comportement de manière spectaculaire, mais au prix de conséquences économiques et sociales majeures. A la première attaque de la pandémie succède aujourd’hui une deuxième vague et il semble impossible de prévoir quand nous serons délivrés du virus.

Les ressources des Etats n’étant pas infinies, la question brûlante se pose aujourd’hui  de l’affectation des moyens humains et financiers disponibles en fonction nos priorités: devons-nous avoir davantage peur d’une pandémie et de ses conséquences sociales et économiques incontestables ou devons-nous supputer une explosion incontrôlable de la crise climatique amorcée au 20ème siècle et modifiant de manière drastique et irréversible notre environnement ?

Le but du présent article est d’apporter des éléments de réponse à cette question en examinant, dans une perspective scientifique large et basée sur les observations plutôt que sur les modèles, la “crise climatique” démarrée durant la seconde moitié du 20ème siècle en essayant de tirer des conclusions applicables au 21èmesiècle.

1/ La crise ‘climatique du 20ème siècle

Il existe de nombreuses sources fournissant des historiques de température, mais il existe peu de séries chronologiques comparables à celle de l’Observatoire d’Armagh en Irlande du Nord pour la période 1796-2002 [5]; cette série est disponible sur le site web du Met Office britannique pour la période allant de 2002 à aujourd’hui [6].

Figure 1 : Evolution des températures moyennes annuelles de 1796 à 2019 (courbe bleue) ainsi qu’une courbe lissée correspondant à la moyenne glissante rétrospective sur une période de 11 ans (courbe rouge).

Media Blame Isaias On Climate Change – As Hurricane Numbers Decline

by H.S. Burnett, August 10, 2020 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Hurricane Isaias hadn’t even made landfall in the United States before the media began proclaiming Isaias was the result of human-caused climate change.

Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but hurricane numbers have been declining as global temperatures modestly warm.

Also, even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) disputes any connection between global warming and hurricanes.

Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980

by P. Gosselin, August 9, 2020 in NoTricksZone

Today global warming alarmists insist blaming climate change on man-made CO2 emissions. Yet, everywhere we look it’s difficult to find any correlation between CO2 and warming. Pre-industrial history shows that changes in CO2 in fact followed temperature changes.

Today we look at some climate charts of the European upper Ostalpen to look for hints what may be behind the warming since the late 20th century. We know glaciers there have been receding over the recent decades.

First is a mean temperature chart of the region for the May to September period going back 133 years:

 

Chart cropped from video “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“, by Günther Aigner


New Study: Rising CO2 Drives Post-1980s Greening…Which Cools The Earth And Offsets 29% Of Human Emissions

by Haverd et al., 2020 in NoTricksZone/K. Richard


About 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization. More greening has offset or reversed 29% of recent anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Greening also has a net cooling effect on surface temperatures.

Earlier this year we highlighted a study (Haverd et al., 2020) asserting rising CO2 and warming are the dominiant drivers of Earth’s strong post-1980s greening trend. This greening expands Earth’s carbon sink so profoundly that by 2100 the greening of the Earth will offset 17 years (equivalent) of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

A 17% offset over 80 years, or net CO2 emissions reversal, would easily supplant the effectiveness of Paris climate accord CO2 mitigation policies.

Now another new study (Piaoet et al., 2020) expands upon these same principles, further suggesting the net effect of more CO2-driven greening is more cooling and carbon sink expansion.

Since the 1980s, 29% of human CO2 emissions were cancelled out by the CO2-induced greening of the Earth. The post-2000 vegetative greening expansion has been so massive (5.4 million km²) its net areal increase is equivalent to a region the size of the Amazon rainforest.

“Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale. Modelling indicates that greening could mitigate global warming by increasing the carbon sink on land and altering biogeophysical processes, mainly evaporative cooling.”