Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion


by Jo Moreau, 17 juillet 2019 in Belgotopia

Quel est le principe de fonctionnement du « peer review », ou révision par les pairs 

Nous avons déjà pu apprécier à quel point la publication d’un article dans une revue scientifique pratiquant le « peer review » constitue pour certains le sommet, et même la condition sine qua non pour se voir accorder l’autorisation d’émettre un avis sur un sujet donné (dans notre cas : le réchauffement, pardon, les changements climatiques).

L’exemple le plus récent est illustré par la position d’un réseau social bien connu qui émet un avis à la limite calomnieux à l’égard d’un physicien par ailleurs professeur d’université, qui a fait l’objet de mon article précédent :

Comment cela fonctionne-t-il ? Le scientifique (ou le groupe de scientifiques) soumet son étude à l’éditeur de la revue qu‘il aura choisie (ou à plusieurs d‘entre eux). Il s’agit souvent du premier filtre, l’éditeur jugeant si l’étude est ou non conforme à la ligne éditoriale de la revue. Le physicien Edwin BERRY vient encore d’en faire l’expérience. Son étude « Le CO2 d’origine humaine a peu d’effet sur le CO2 présent dans l’atmosphère » a été refusée par l’American Journal of Climate Change sous le seul et unique motif que « La conclusion de cet article est complètement opposée au consensus de la communauté universitaire ». Evidemment, le fait que Ed BERRY soit un GIECosceptique affirmé n’aura pas favorisé sa démarche …

2019 Climate “Ship Of Fools” Runs Into 3-Meter Thick Ice… Baffin Inlets Mid Summer Ice Extent No Trend in 50 Years

by P. Gosselin, July 19, 2019 in NoTricksZone

Our German skeptic friend Snowfan here keeps us up to date on the latest ODEN “Ship of Fools” attempt to travel across an Arctic that is supposed to be ice-free by now.

The incentive to cross the Arctic passages in the summer is huge. Doing so would mean at least a week of fame with the media blaring out your name along with grossly hyped headlines of an Arctic ice meltdown due to global warming. One of these years, a ship might get lucky and manage to get through the Northwest Passage.

Also defying the models is the extent of ice cover for July 9 at the Baffin inlets Regent – Boothia. Over the last 50 years, there’s been little trend change:


Source: Canadian Ice Service

La croissance du CO2 dans l’atmosphère est-elle exclusivement anthropique? (3/3)

by J.C. Maurin, 19 juillet 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Effet Bombe et Modèles du GIEC

Les prévisions du climat sont générées par des modèles informatiques. Leurs concepteurs pensent pouvoir décrire l’état moyen de l’atmosphère en 2100, en prenant comme principale donnée d’entrée, le taux futur de CO2 qui constituerait donc le ‘bouton de commande’ du climat.

Il y a deux étages de modélisation : on commence par prévoir le taux de CO2 en 2100 avec des modèles sélectionnés par le GIEC (ces modèles « IRF » du GIEC sont l’objet de l’article).
Cette prévision constitue ensuite l’entrée du second étage, à savoir les modèles types « échanges radiatifs » ou « effet de serre » qui ne sont pas traités ici (mais on peut consulter ceci).
Le présent article ( qui est la suite de deux autres ici et ici) compare la réponse impulsionnelle théorique de ces modèles « IRF » avec la réponse impulsionnelle observée du 14CO2(effet Bombe).


by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, July 13, 2019 in Physics.gen-ph

Abstract. In this paper we wil lprove that GCM-models used inI IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

1. Introduction

The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report [1]. As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.

2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature

Study: Clouds, Solar Cycles Play Major Role In Climate Change

by  G. Lloyd, July 15, 2010 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Sand deposits near the Gobi Desert in China may seem a strange place to look for evidence that cosmic rays can control how clouds are formed and the impact they have on Earth’s climate.

But Japanese scientists have measured the size of sand grains and the distance they traveled 780,000 years ago to add a new level of understanding to one of the questions that continue to baffle climate science: clouds.

The findings, published in Nature, point to big trends in natural variation of past and future climate that operate apart from greenhouse gas levels.

The study adds weight to a contentious theory by Danish researcher Henrik Svensmark, of the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen, which uses cosmic rays and clouds to question the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

My new video – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

by Anthony Watts, July 14,2019 in WUWT

In the first part of a new video series, I give an outline of Chapter One of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, which covers environmental economics. I explain the role of economics in protecting the environment. In a nutshell, it’s this: economic prosperity gives humans the time to care about the environment. Otherwise it’s just a day-to-day battle for survival.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels (principally coal, oil, and natural gas) by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs). It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Additional background information about Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels is available at these links:

Message from the Coauthors (2-page PDF)
About the Coauthors (1-page PDF)
About NIPCC (1-page PDF)
Impact of Fossil Fuels on Human Health (full-color graphic, PDF)
Complete background package (5-page PDF)


Anchorage “Record” Was Not Actually A Record!

by P. Homewood, July 14, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

The US state of Alaska, part of which lies inside the Arctic Circle, is sweltering under a heatwave, with record temperatures recorded in several areas, including its largest city.

Temperatures reached 90F (32C) in Anchorage on Thursday, shattering the city’s previous record of 85F.

The report clearly implied global warming as the cause, with several references to climate change links throughout the article.

As I pointed out at the time, the all-time record temperature for Alaska was set as long ago as 1915, when an incredible 100F was measured at Fort Yukon.

This story follows the usual BBC recipe for Arctic heatwaves:

  • Record temperatures = global warming
  • Hot weather is unprecedented in the Arctic. Most people would believe that temperatures of 90F simply never used to occur in the Arctic, it just sounds so unimaginable.

Unfortunately for the BBC, it turns out that the Anchorage temperature is not even a record!

I have now had time to check through the NOAA data files, and have discovered that back in June 1931, the temperature actually reached 92C at Anchorage:

Land’s complex role in climate change

by  Pielke et al., 2016 in PhysicsToday

To date, most reporting on climate has focused on the possibility of catastrophic warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The assessment of climate change risk has essentially been distilled to a single metric: the global average surface temperature. That reality was evident at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where the central negotiating point was whether the global temperature rise should be limited to 1.5 °C or 2 °C. Indeed, a 2016 opinion piece by Simon Lewis (University College London and the University of Leeds, UK) states that, “by endorsing a limit of 1.5 °C, the [Paris] climate negotiations have effectively defined what society considers dangerous.”

But the reality of humans’ impact on climate is exceedingly complex.2 Even if greenhouse gas emissions could be elimi- nated completely, other harmful anthropogenic sources of cli- mate change would remain. And even if global average tem- peratures were contained, human impacts on climate would manifest in other potentially dangerous ways.

One often overlooked human factor is land use. Deforestation, dry land farming, irrigated agriculture, overgrazing, and other alterations to the natural landscape can disrupt Earth’s natural balances and change weather patterns. As with the addition of CO2into the atmosphere, the effects can last for decades or longer and affect regions distant from the original offense. Given continued rapid population growth, they threaten to be irreversible.

Celebrating America’s Environmental Stewardship

by Jim Steele, July 10, 209 in WUWT

What’s Natural?

Celebrating America’s Environmental Stewardship

I resent the one-sided mis-characterization of humanity as “destroyers of our environment”. Humans certainly had negative impacts on most ecosystems. However, in contrast to a recent United Nations report insinuating we are threatening one million species with extinction, humans have been working hard to restore nature and prevent further extinctions. Most endangered species are still staggering from disruptions initiated centuries ago. But now humans are correcting past mistakes.

Islands have been extinction hotspots. Sixty-one percent of all known extinctions have occurred on islands and 37% of today’s critically endangered species are found only on islands. The main driver of island extinctions has been purposeful or unintentional introductions of alien species. Introduced species are implicated in 81% of all island extinctions. With no natural predators, Island species did not evolve needed behaviors to avoid introduced rats, cats and stoats. Researchers now suggest eradication of rats and other introduced mammals could prevent the extinction of up to 75% of threatened island birds, reptiles and mammals.



Ice Box July: Unusual Cold, Surface Frost Sweep Across Central Europe!

by P. Homewood, July 10, 2019 in NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat

No Tricks Zone has the latest on the coldwave gripping much of Northern Europe. Following a new record low for July set in Lower Saxony last week, there are unconfirmed reports of a new record July low for the whole of the Netherlands:

From No Tricks Zone:

Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays.

The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing.

Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground surface frost yesterday morning. Source:

Yesterday morning ground frost hit parts of Belgium, Holland, Germany and the Czech Republic, as the above chart shows. Unsurprisingly, the media have been curiously silent about it.

Record Dutch July low


Climate scientists fiddling the data again and again and again and again

by Paul Matthews, June 30, 2019 in ClimateScepticism

The history of climate scientists adjusting data to try to make recent warming look greater than it really is goes back quite a long way – it’s a regular topic at Paul Homewood’s blogfor example. But climate scientists continue to do it, giving the sceptics plenty of ammunition. Here are three recent blog posts discussing how climate scientists continue to adjust data to exaggerate warming.

At Pierre Gosselin’s blog there’s a guest post by Kirje from Japan, on NASA GISS temperature adjustments. In the latest GISS version, V4, the supposedly “unadjusted” data sets are different from the unadjusted data in the previous version V3.

Tony Heller has a graph of the 2000, 2017 and 2019 version of NASA GISTEMP, showing that Gavin Schmidt and his team have managed to crank up  warming, particularly in the era of the inconvenient pause. You can also see this effect in fig 2 and fig 4 of the GISS history page.

Here in the UK, the HadCRUT4 team are doing the same thing. Clive Best asks Whatever happened to the Global Warming Hiatus? The answer is that they have demolished it with a sequence of adjustments to the data. HadCRUT3, as published in 2014, shows a clear pause, with no warming from about 2001-2013, but the latest new improved data set HadCRUT4.6 cranks recent temperatures upwards. Clive thought that night be due to including different measurement stations, but checked and found that was not the case. The numbers have simply been adjusted.


Here the red diamond is the raw data, the green diamond is HadSST3, and the new HadSST4 is shown as the black line, with grey shading representing uncertainty. In the early years of the 20th century, there was global warming that doesn’t fit with the carbon-dioxide-controlled theory of climate scientists, so that is adjusted downwards. But look at the trend over the pause era, since 2000. The raw data shows literally no trend at all. HadSST3 adjusted the trend upwards to create warming, and HadSST4 adjusts things upwards again, roughly doubling the previous adjustment. And this is in an era when the data quality should be excellent, thanks to the introduction of the ARGO float system.

‘Woke’ Climate Scientists Reveal Deep, Hard-Core Biases In New Article

by Judith Curry, July 9, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

It’s getting worse.

About 5 years ago, I wrote two blog posts on climate scientists’ pre-traumatic stress syndrome:

Mother Jones has a new article on the same topic: It’s the end of the world as they know it: The distinct burden of being a climate scientist.

The following scientists were interviewed: Kim Cobb, Priya Shukla, Peter Kalmus, Sarah Myhre, Jacquelyn Gill, Katharine Wilkinson, Eric Holthaus, David Grinspoon, Ken Caldeira.

Lots of ‘trauma,’ read the article to get a flavor. This sentence pretty much sums things up:

“There’s deep grief and anxiety for what’s being lost, followed by rage at continued political inaction, and finally hope that we can indeed solve this challenge. There are definitely tears and trembling voices.”

End of civilization?

The title of the article is: “It’s the end of the world as they know it.” Some selected quotes:

Capture et stockage du CO2 : une situation étrange…

by Claude Mandril, 13 mai 2019 in ConnaissanceDesEnergies

La capture et le stockage de CO2 (CCS(1)) est indispensable…

Les accords de Paris ont donné l’objectif : un réchauffement climatique « well below 2°C » d’ici 2100 par rapport aux températures de l’ère préindustrielle.

Le dernier rapport du GIEC montre par ailleurs qu’on serait « beaucoup mieux » à + 1,5°C, et que tout dixième de degré compte : + 1,7°C vaut mieux que + 1,8°C. Il faut donc, ajoute le GIEC, atteindre la neutralité carbone autour de 2050.

Or il est complètement exclu d’arrêter toutes les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, et de loin ! :

  • l’AIE estime dans son scénario Sustainable Development (le plus contraignant)(2) que les énergies fossiles représenteront encore 60% de la fourniture mondiale d’énergie en 2040. Même si on juge l’AIE timorée, on est clairement hors limite ! ;

  • la capacité d’extraction charbonnière en Chine a augmenté de 6% en 2018 (selon la National Energy Administration en Chine) ;

  •  et surtout, n’oublions pas les émissions « de procédé » (ciment, sidérurgie, chimie, agroalimentaire).

Donc il faudra des « puits » de carbone. En premier lieu, les forêts mais à condition qu’elles soient exploitées et que les produits de cette exploitation donnent un stockage permanent. L’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris montre que ce n’est pas garanti… L’usage du bois en chaudière réduit les émissions en remplaçant des émissions de carbone fossile, mais ce n’est pas un puits (sauf avec CCS !).

Reste donc la CCS, qui est indispensable. D’ailleurs, sur les 4 scénarios du GIEC, 3 comportent le déploiement de la CCS, le 4e étant un repoussoir.

Et pourtant la CCS est complètement ignorée voire vilipendée, sauf dans une dizaine de pays.

Examinons les critiques ou les objections :


What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations

by Herman Harde, April 3, 2019 in Earth Sciences

Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over

recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising

temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically

scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative

concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional

with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really

human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just

opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are

responsible for any observed climate changes.

Keywords: Carbon Cycle, Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, CO2 Residence Time, Anthropogenic Emissions,

Fossil Fuel Combustion, Land Use Change, Climate Change


Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2

by Edwin X Berry , June, 2019 in JAtmOceanSciences

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.