Archives par mot-clé : Temperature

Trente épisodes caniculaires entre 1850 et 2006

by Guillaume Séchet, 3 juillet 2017,  in AssociationClimatoRéalistes

… dont août 1911 l’un des mois les plus chauds de l’histoire et 1947 (40°C à Paris les 27 et 28 juillet, record absolu depuis 1873). Emmanuel Leroy Ladurie indique qu’au dix-huitième siècle siècle les canicules pouvaient se répéter plusieurs étés consécutifs : ainsi les années 1705, 1706 et 1707, et le « couple brûlant » (sic) des années 1718 et 1719 « avec sauterelles africaines jusqu’au Languedoc ».

RSS Adjust Their Temperatures–Guess Which Way?

by  Paul Homewood, June 30, 2017

For years, RSS have been an embarrassment to the climate establishment. Their satellite data has consistently shown the pause in global temperatures since 1998, which so many scientists have attempted to explain.

At the same time, the surface datasets of GISS, NOAA and HADCRUT have diverged, with the help of adjustments, to show much greater warming.

The pressure on RSS to conform has been immense, and now the inevitable has happened. Highly conveniently they have found huge errors in their previous version, and have now adjusted to a new version, v4, which miraculously finds that global warming has continued unabated after all!

How too little CO2 nearly doomed humankind

by Dennis T. Avery, June 30, 2017 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had already pointed out that the Paris CO2 emission promises would cost $100 trillion dollars that no one has, and make only a 0.05-degree difference in Earth’s 2100 AD temperature. Others say perhaps a 0.2 degree C (0.3 degrees F) difference, and even that would hold only in the highly unlikely event that all parties actually kept their voluntary pledges.

Should Scientists and the Media Exaggerate Global Warming?

by Cliff Mass, June 17, 2017

Should scientists and the media exaggerate the current and future impact of human-forced global warming to encourage people “to do the right thing”?

A number of scientists and media folks believe the answer is yes.

For me, the answer is an emphatic no, for reasons I will explain below.   Let’s consider some of the arguments for and against and you can decide for yourself

Why “Climate Science” Snubs Climatic Temperature

by Leo Goldstein, June19, 2017 in WUWT

When something pretending to be a science cannot adequately define a quantity for its central subject, this something is inarguably a pseudo-science. This is certainly the case in the self-professed “climate science.” It proposes the hypothesis of a dangerously warming climate, but does it define a meaningful climatic temperature that can be robustly calculated from the observations at the current time? To the extent that it does define climatic temperature (meaningfully or not), does it pay much attention to this quantity? The answer to both these questions is a resounding NO.

Hundreds Of Scientific Papers Challenge ‘Global’ Warming

By Kenneth Richard, June 16, 2017 in NoTricksZone

Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016  — established that modern “global” warming is not actually global in scale, and that today’s warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

Here, an additional 140 non-hockey stick graphs taken from papers published in 2015 and earlier have now been made available.  With this latest installment, graphical temperature reconstructions challenging the conceptualization of global-scale or unprecedented modern warming are rapidly approaching 300.


The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4

by Euan Means, December 12, 2014

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

See also here

Global versus Greenland Holocene Temperatures

by Andy May, June 19, 2017 i

Last week, I posted a global temperature reconstruction based mostly on Marcott, et al. 2013 proxies. The post can be found here. In the comments on the Wattsupwiththat post there was considerable discussion about the difference between my Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude (30°N to 60°N) and the GISP2 Richard Alley central Greenland temperature reconstruction (see here for the reference and data). See the comments by Dr. Don Easterbrook and Joachim Seifert (weltklima) here and here, as well as their earlier comments.

Climate cycles and their extrapolation into the future

by Dr. Dietrich Koelle, February 2, 2015 in NoTricksZone

As the reconstruction of the climate’s development in the past by proxy data shows, there’s a series of temperature cycles that appear to be unknown, or ignored by many climate scientists. Among these are the larger climate cycles of 150 million to 180 million years (see Part 1 and Part 2), but also the shorter and for us the more important following cycles:

1000 years (900-1100)    Suess cycle with +/-  0.65°C
230 years (230-250)        deVries cycle with +/-  0.30°C
65  years (60-65)              Ocean cycles with +/- 0.25°C


A Holocene Temperature Reconstruction Part 4: The global reconstruction

by Andy May, June 9, 2017 in WUWT

In previous posts (here, here and here), we have shown reconstructions for the Antarctic, Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, the tropics, the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, and the Arctic. Here we combine them into a simple global temperature reconstruction. The five regional reconstructions are shown in figure 1. The R code to map the proxy locations, the references and metadata for the proxies, and the global reconstruction spreadsheet can be downloaded here

A Holocene Temperature Reconstruction Part 3: The NH and Arctic

by Andy May, June 8, 2017 in WUWT

As we did in the previous two posts, we will examine each proxy and reject any that have an average time step greater than 130 years or if it does not cover at least part of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO). We are looking for coverage from 9000 BP to 500 BP or very close to these values. Only simple statistical techniques that are easy to explain will be used.