Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Paris Won’t Cut Emissions–Bob Watson

by P. Homewood, November 10, 2019 in NotaLotofPeople KnowThat

It’s apparently taken ex IPCC Chair Bob Watson four years to work out that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce emissions.

It’s a pity he did not read this blog, because I was saying the same thing when it was signed!

Steve Milloy reports:


The truth behind the Paris Agreement climate pledges

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030


  • Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
  • China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase
  • U.S., second top emitter, has reversed key national policies to combat climate change
  • Almost 70 percent of the pledges rely on funding from wealthy nations for their implementation

Almost three-quarters of the 184 climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to slow climate change, and some of the world’s largest emitters will continue to increase emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists. It is these increasing greenhouse emissions that are driving climate change.

The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, a new report published by the Universal Ecological Fund, examines in great detail the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement, the first collective global effort to address climate change.

Scientists and Their Petitions

by Donna  Laframboise, November 11, 2019 in BigPictureNews

Many scientists are now activists. They’re just another flavour of politician. Armed with a particular worldview, they’re willing to do questionable things to advance that worldview – including dragging the good name of science through the mud.

As I’ve explained recently, this isn’t a new phenomenon. It was well underway by the 1970s. Those of us who are aware of this history aren’t likely to get overly excited by the latest 11,000 scientists say it’s time to panic headlines (see here, here, here, and here).

The typical journalist, on the other hand, is a babe in the woods, totally lacking in historical perspective. Every iteration of this very old song gets treated like something fresh and new.

2019’s statement/petition is published in BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Down in the ‘Conclusions’ section we read the following. The bolding has been added by me:

As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future…such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being…prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency…

Nope, these people don’t have a messiah complex. If all of humanity drops whatever it’s doing and follows their advice, they won’t just save us from the climate emergency. They promise to toss in universal justice and equity, as well.

New Paper: Ocean Temperature Changes Are Uneven And Uncertain

by DR.  B. Peiser, Nov. 8, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation looks at how scientists monitor changes in ocean temperatures and finds a story of huge uncertainties and surprising findings.

For example, while warming might be expected to be fairly uniform, measurements suggest that it is regionalized, with parts of the South Pacific, in particular, warming more than elsewhere.

As the report’s author, Dr. David Whitehouse, says, it is hard to draw firm conclusions about what is happening in the seas:

“The oceans can absorb far more heat than the atmosphere, so temperatures changes are extremely small and therefore hard to measure reliably.”

“The energy that would raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 4 degrees C would only raise the ocean temperature by thousands of a degree, barely detectable.”

“Measuring changes in the ocean heat content are at the limits of our current capability and are made with significant uncertainties and unknowns.”

A recent claim that warming of the oceans was accelerating had to be withdrawn after errors were found in its uncertainty estimates by an independent scientist.

Cold Water? The Oceans and Climate Change can be downloaded here (PDF)

How Bad Science & Horrific Journalism Misrepresent Wildfires and Climate

by Jim Steele, November 9, 2019 in WUWT

As one wildfire expert wrote, “Predicting future fire regimes is not rocket science; it is far more complicated than that.” But regardless of accuracy, most people are attracted to very simple narratives such as: more CO2 causes global warming causes more fires. Accordingly in the summer of 2019, CNN trumpeted the headline California wildfires burn 500% more land because of climate change. They claimed, “the cause of the increase is simple. Hotter temperatures cause drier land, which causes a parched atmosphere.” CNN based their claims on a scientific paper by lead authors Park Williams and John Abatzoglou titled Observed Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire in California. The authors are very knowledgeable but appear to have hitched their fame and fortune to pushing a very simple claim that climate change drives bigger wildfires. As will be seen, their advocacy appears to have caused them to stray from objective scientific analyses.

If Williams and Abatzoglou were not so focused on forcing a global warming connection, they would have at least raised the question, ‘why did much bigger fires happen during cooler decades?’ The 1825 New Brunswick fire burned 3,000,000 acres. In Idaho and Montana the Great Fire of 1910 burnt another 3,000,000 acres. In 1871, the Great Michigan Fire burned 2,500,000 acres. Those fires were not only 6 times larger than California’s biggest fire, they occurred in moister regions, regions that don’t experience California’s Mediterranean climate with its guaranteed months of drought each and every summer. If those huge devastating fires occurred in much cooler times, what are the other driving factors of big wildfires?

Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say “panic now”

by JoNova, November 2019

Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

To stop storms we apparently need to reduce the global population, stop mining “excessive” minerals, eat more veges,  and we need to preserve biodiversity, reefs, forests and greenery at whatever it was in 1685 or whenever the sacred preindustrial year of Life On Earth is declared. You know the drill — coal and oil are demon spirits. Exorcise them now! Then rinse, repeat and …hand-wash your undies.

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?

Also here and  here

New climate models – even more wrong

by P. Matthews, Nov. 5, 2019 in ClimateScepticsim

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”

Well, now there is a new generation of climate models, imaginatively known as CMIP6. By a remarkable coincidence, two new papers have just appeared, from independent teams, giving very similar results and published on the same day in the same journal. One is UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, with a long list of authors, mostly from the Met Office, also announced as a “New flagship climate model” on the Met Office website.  The other is Structure and Performance of GFDL’s CM4.0 Climate Model, by a team from GFDL and Princeton. Both papers are open-access.

Now you might think that the new models would be better than the old ones. This is mathematical modelling 101: if a model doesn’t fit well with the data, you improve the model to make it fit better. But such elementary logic doesn’t apply in the field of climate science.

Climategate: Ten Years Later

by Dr K. Kemm, November 1, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a man-made climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world.

The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism.

Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollarsfrom the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families.

Few people know the Inconvenient Facts about the supposed man-made climate and extreme weather “crisis.”

For example, since 1998, average global temperatures have risen by a mere few hundredths of a degree. (For a time, they even declined slightly.)

Yet all we hear is baseless rhetoric about man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate changes that pose existential threats to humanity, wildlife, and the planet.

Based on this, we are told we must stop using fossil fuels to power economic growth and better living standards. This is bad news for Africa and the world.

We keep hearing that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause rising global temperatures.

But satellite data show no such thing. In fact, computer model predictions for 2019 are almost a half-degree Celsius (0.9 degrees F) above actual satellite measurements.

See also here

La COP 25 annulée … catastrophe ou opportunité ?

by SCE-info, 1 novembre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Nous revoici plongé une fois de plus dans la énième COP censée répondre à l’Urgence Climatique. Pour rappel c’est lors du Sommet de la Terre, en juin 1992, à Rio de Janiero que cette urgence climatique, qui ne disait pas encore si haut son nom, a démarré. Depuis lors l’Urgence Climatique fait partie de notre quotidien avec ses prédictions apocalyptiques jamais avérées, sauf à établir un amalgame entre climat et catastrophes non liées au climat. Quelques amalgames parmi d’autres ? Les exagérations climatiques extrêmes, analysées à SCE et qui montrent comment les médias par un tour de passe-passe nous vendent du global à partir de ce qui est le plus souvent local, même démarche avec la forêt amazoniennedécrétée à tort ‘poumon de la planète’ ou encore les incendies de grande ampleur de 2017en Californie ‘simplement’ liés à une gestion idéologique des forêts par les pouvoirs publics. Que n’a-t-on pas entendu sur ces phénomènes et bien d’autres…

Oui les COP se succèdent, ne rectifient jamais le tir et n’ont toujours qu’un seul ennemi à combattre, le mal du siècle, le CO2, symbolisé par le ‘bouton CO2’ censé être à l’origine de tous les dérèglements rapportés. Force est de constater que dans cette hypothèse du CO2toutes ces COP se révèlent un échec cuisant, pour preuve l’augmentation de 1,7% de ce gaz en 2018 atteignant ainsi un nouveau record (ici et ici). Non seulement ces grands-messes onusiennes sont des échecs, mais elles entretiennent également une belle incohérence : outre que chaque sommet coûte très cher (130 millions de dollars pour plus de 30 000 participants (sic) au dernier sommet de Katowice en Pologne et environ 2 milliards de dollars depuis la première COP), ces réunions émettent plus de CO2 que 8200 familles américaines en un an, ou l’équivalent de 11700 voitures pendant un an, ou encore 728 camions pour la même période (ici).

Is the Man-Made Climate Change Debate Really Over?

by Dom Armentano, Oct 30, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Climate change enthusiasts are convinced that man-made global warming poses a near-term environmental disaster. Yet gloom-and-doom forecasts about the fate of the Earth are hardly new, and few have proven accurate.

In 1798 the Rev. Thomas Malthus predicted that mass starvation would strike England in the 19th century because population growth would inevitably overwhelm food production. It didn’t happen.

Or recall the dire predictions by experts in the 1970s that the world was running out of oil and that prices would skyrocket and stay high for decades.

These views were supported by analyses from the CIA and a boatload of geologists who believed in the so-called “peak oil” theory.

But the experts were wrong. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of crude oil today is cheaper than it was in 1980, which is arguably one of the most pro-consumer developments in recent economic history.

And now we are told that the world is on the brink of environmental disaster due to man-made global warming.

The conventional wisdom, repeated endlessly in the popular press, is that the Earth is heating dangerously because we burn fossil fuels and that this will generate devastating droughts, fires, floods, and rising ocean levels. (The oceans are currently rising by about one-eighth of an inch per year).


Scientists: The Entirety Of The 1979-2017 Global Temperature Change Can Be Explained By Natural Forcing

by K. Richard, October 28, 2019 in NoTricksZone

The last 40 years of global temperature changes can be radiatively explained by a natural reduction in cloud cover.

From 1979 to 2011, satellite data provide documentation of a reduction in cloud cover and aerosol depth that allowed an additional 2.3 W/m² of positive shortwave energy to be absorbed by the Earth’s surface rather than reflected to space.

This change in absorbed solar radiation can account for the energy imbalance and warming during this period far better than the much smaller 0.2 W/m² forcing associated with a +22 ppm CO2 change over 10 years (representing just 10% of the overall trend in downwelling longwave).

Does the Climate System Have a Preferred Average State? Chaos and the Forcing-Feedback Paradigm

by Roy Spencer, October 25, 2019 in GlobalWarming

The UN IPCC scientists who write the reports which guide international energy policy on fossil fuel use operate under the assumption that the climate system has a preferred, natural and constant average state which is only deviated from through the meddling of humans. They construct their climate models so that the models do not produce any warming or cooling unless they are forced to through increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases, aerosols, or volcanic eruptions.

This imposed behavior of their “control runs” is admittedly necessary because various physical processes in the models are not known well enough from observations and first principles, and so the models must be tinkered with until they produce what might be considered to be the “null hypothesis” behavior, which in their worldview means no long-term warming or cooling.

What I’d like to discuss here is NOT whether there are other ‘external’ forcing agents of climate change, such as the sun. That is a valuable discussion, but not what I’m going to address. I’d like to address the question of whether there really is an average state that the climate system is constantly re-adjusting itself toward, even if it is constantly nudged in different directions by the sun.


1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.Städel Museum/Wikimedia Commons

La science classique s’arrête où commence le chaos…

Prof. Igr. H. Masson, 25 octobre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

1. Un nouveau paradigme : les systèmes chaotiques

« Depuis les premiers balbutiements de la Physique, le désordre apparent qui règne dans l’atmosphère, dans la mer turbulente, dans les fluctuations de populations biologiques, les oscillations du cœur et du cerveau ont été longtemps ignorées ».

 « Il a fallu attendre le début des années soixante-dix, pour que quelques scientifiques américains commencent à déchiffrer le désordre, il s’agissait surtout de mathématiciens, médecins, biologistes, physiciens, chimistes cherchant tous des connections entre diverses irrégularités observées. Le syndrome de la mort subite fut expliqué, les proliférations puis disparitions d’insectes furent comprises et modélisées, et de nouvelles méthodes d’analyse de cours boursiers virent le jour, après que les traders aient dû se rendre à l’évidence que les méthodes statistiques conventionnelles n’étaient pas adaptées. Ces découvertes furent ensuite transposées à l’étude du monde naturel : la forme des nuages, les trajectoires de la foudre, la constitution de galaxies. La science du chaos (« dynamical systems » pour les anglo-saxons) était née et allait connaître un développement considérable au fil des années ».


Figure 4. L’effet papillon : analogie entre les ailes d’un papillon et l’attracteur étrange découvert par E. Lorenz.

Who Are the “Experts” on Climate Change?

by John Droz, Jr October 22, 2019 in WUWT

We live in complicated times, immersed in a society of incessant, loud, conflicting voices. Nowhere is this more true than in the discussion of the impact of carbon dioxide on the planet, oceans, better known as “climate change.” When interested citizens try to get to the bottom of such a highly complex issue, the standard, and proper, rejoinder is: “Listen to the Experts.”

Although that sounds like common sense, such advice is not as simple as it’s made out to be. For millennia, it was safe to assume that mainstream scientists (as a matter of principle) faithfully adhered to high scientific standards (see below). In our lifetime that has dramatically (and disappointingly) changed.

Today there is an ever-increasing number of scientists driven by political agendas, peer pressure, job security, etc. rather than scientific mores. This change has extraordinarysocietal implications — and none of them are beneficial.

Real Experts on a science-related subject have six distinguishing characteristics, which are really no more than the traditional scientific standards:

1 – They have a high degree of competence in the topic at hand.

[For example, out of 1000 people, they would know more than 999.]

2 – They have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

[They are not one of the blind people examining just a part of the elephant.]

3 – They are objective in their conclusions and recommendations.

[They are not influenced by economic incentives, or undeclared political agendas.]

4 – They are genuinely open-minded regarding their positions.

[They encourage other parties to critique their analyses and conclusions.]

5 – Their research and data are transparent.

[No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]

6 – Their research and data are based on empirical evidence.

[Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]

Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect On Atmospheric CO2

by Ed Berry, October 21, 2019 in PrincipiaScientificInternational

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 14CO2 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 CO2 inflow 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.

Keywords: carbon dioxide, CO2, climate change, anthropogenic

Reforesting is a good idea, but it is necessary to know where and how

by Charles the moderator, October 20, 2019 in WUWT

An international group of ecologists contests an article published in Science, which among other cardinal errors proposed ‘reforestation’ of the Cerrado, Brazil’s savanna biome

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

An article recently published in Science, entitled “The global tree restoration potential”, presents what it calls “the most effective solution at our disposal to mitigate climate change”. The lead author is Jean-François Bastin, an ecologist affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich).

The article attracted enormous media attention. It reports the results of a study in which Bastin and collaborators used remote sensing and modeling techniques to estimate that forest restoration in areas totaling 900 million hectares worldwide could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon.

The study was contested by a large international group of ecologists led by Joseph Veldman, a professor in Texas A&M University’s Department of Ecosystem Science and Management (USA). At the invitation of the editors of Science, the group formulated a reply, now featuring on the October 18th edition of Science under the title “Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’..

Its authors include William Bond, Emeritus Professor in the University of Cape Town’s Department of Biological Sciences (South Africa) and considered the world’s foremost expert on savanna ecology. Several Brazilian researchers also co-authored the reply, such as Giselda Durigan, affiliated with the São Paulo State Forestry Institute’s Ecology and Hydrology Laboratory.

“The plan proposed by Bastin et al. is based on flawed calculations and is actually a threat to the planet’s savannas, meadows and water resources,” Durigan said.