Archives de catégorie : unclassified

unclassified

ESA STUDY REVEALS THE 2019 “HORRIFIC” AMAZON FIRE SEASON WAS ACTUALLY INLINE WITH THE 2001-2018 AVERAGE

by Poppaloff, March11, 2020 in Electroverse

Never has the phrase “don’t believe the hype” been so relevant.

Last year media outlet after media outlet pumped the horror of the fires in the Amazon: “The Earth is burning up – The Earth is burning up.” However, the latest study released from the ESA points to the fact that last year’s burn, although 70% up on the previous year, was in fact in line with the previous seventeen years of acreage burn figures.

“While forest fires are common in the Amazon, they vary considerably from year-to-year driven by changes in climate, as well as variations in deforestation and forest degradation,” the ESA wrote.

The 2019 fires triggered an international demand for updated information about active fires, most importantly in Brazil. However, these figures were never compared to the number of blazes over a longer time period, reads a watchers.news article.

Using information from ESA’s Fire CCI project, researchers studied fire-ravaged areas in South America in 2018 and 2019, then compared the data to the annual average from 2001 to 2018. The report indicated that the total burned area in South America was roughly 70 percent more in 2019 as compared to the same period of 2018– however, only a fraction more than the annual average over the previous 17 years:

 

Continuer la lecture de ESA STUDY REVEALS THE 2019 “HORRIFIC” AMAZON FIRE SEASON WAS ACTUALLY INLINE WITH THE 2001-2018 AVERAGE →

climate-debate, unclassified

Tendency, Convenient Mistakes, and the Importance of Physical Reasoning.

by Pat Frank, March 1, 2020 in WUWT

Last February 7, statistician Richard Booth, Ph.D. (hereinafter, Rich) posted a very long critique titled, What do you mean by “mean”: an essay on black boxes, emulators, and uncertainty” which is very critical of the GCM air temperature projection emulator in my paper. He was also very critical of the notion of predictive uncertainty itself.

This post critically assesses his criticism.

An aside before the main topic. In his critique, Rich made many of the same mistakes in physical error analysis as do climate modelers. I have described the incompetence of that guild at WUWT here and here.

Rich and climate modelers both describe the probability distribution of the output of a model of unknown physical competence and accuracy, as being identical to physical error and predictive reliability.

Their view is wrong.

Unknown physical competence and accuracy describes the current state of climate models (at least until recently. See also Anagnostopoulos, et al. (2010), Lindzen & Choi (2011), Zanchettin, et al., (2017), and Loehle, (2018)).

GCM climate hindcasts are not tests of accuracy, because GCMs are tuned to reproduce hindcast targets. For example, here, here, and here. Tests of GCMs against a past climate that they were tuned to reproduce is no indication of physical competence.

When a model is of unknown competence in physical accuracy, the statistical dispersion of its projective output cannot be a measure of physical error or of predictive reliability.

Ignorance of this problem entails the very basic scientific mistake that climate modelers evidently strongly embrace and that appears repeatedly in Rich’s essay. It reduces both contemporary climate modeling and Rich’s essay to scientific vacancy.

The correspondence of Rich’s work with that of climate modelers reiterates something I realized after much immersion in published climatology literature — that climate modeling is an exercise in statistical speculation. Papers on climate modeling are almost entirely statistical conjectures. Climate modeling plays with physical parameters but is not a branch of physics.

I believe this circumstance refutes the American Statistical Society’s statement that more statisticians should enter climatology. Climatology doesn’t need more statisticians because it already has far too many: the climate modelers who pretend at science. Consensus climatologists play at scienceness and can’t discern the difference between that and the real thing.

Climatology needs more scientists. Evidence suggests many of the good ones previously resident have been caused to flee.

…

unclassified

La péninsule Antarctique se porte bien

by P. Berth, 28 février 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Selon un récent article du Guardian, des scientifiques ont mesuré pour la première fois la température de 20,75°C le 9 février 2020 sur l’île Seymour, une île située au large de la péninsule Antarctique. Cette île comporte la station de mesure Marambio où les relevés ont été réalisés. Bien entendu, cette nouvelle a été reprise par les médias, Greta Thunberg en tête. Cependant, en analysant objectivement la situation vous pourrez constater qu’il n’y a pas lieu de s’alarmer.

1. Localisation de l’île Seymour et température moyenne annuelle

L’île Seymour est située au large de la péninsule Antarctique (Figure 1), la région la plus au nord du continent Antarctique et, quasiment, la seule partie d’Antarctique s’étendant au-delà du cercle polaire.

…

…

3. Conclusions

– Pour comprendre ce qu’il se passe dans un jeu de données de température il ne faut pas considérer une seule mesure comme le fait l’article du Guardian; il ne faut pas non plus considérer une seule station de mesure.

– Si l’on désire faire passer des droites parmi les données de température, les plus longues séries disponibles sont celles de la station Orcadas (depuis 1902), qui est quand même assez éloignée de la péninsule Antarctique. On constate alors un réchauffement d’environ + 2°C en 110 ans (la courbe de tendance coupe –5°C en 1900 et –3°C en 2010). Cependant, en considérant des courbes polynomiales dont le coefficient de détermination est meilleur on constate que les températures moyennes chutent depuis les années 2000, comme dans toutes les stations de la péninsule Antarctique présentées dans cet article.

– Les phénomènes naturels suivent rarement des droites. Ils sont généralement cycliques, avec des périodes et amplitudes très variables. Il est donc permis de conclure que la péninsule Antarctique ne se réchauffe pas depuis 25 ans. Ceci est confirmé par d’autres analyses (voir ici et ici) et il est dommage qu’une fois de plus les médias ne fassent pas plus preuve de rigueur et se permettent des raccourcis donnant une information inexacte à 100%. En sont-ils seulement conscients ?

unclassified

4 New Papers, One Alarm-Dispelling Conclusion: Future Sea Level Rise May NOT Threaten Islands After All

by K. Richard, November 4, 2019 in NoTricksZone

As reported in 4 separately-published papers, scientists have discovered a mechanism whereby islands can build themselves up naturally, thwarting the threat of sea level rise.  Tuck et al. (2019) affirm the “implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding.”

Earlier this year, Duvat (2019) identified a global trend in island shoreline net growth despite recent sea level rise.

The welcome news is that none of the islands larger than 10 ha – and just 1.2% of the 334 islands larger than 5 ha – have decreased in size since the 1980s. Nearly 90% of the world’s islands have been stable to expanding in coastal area during recent decades.

…

unclassified

Half of 21st Century Warming Due to El Nino

by Roy Spencer, May 13, 2019 in GlobalWarming

A major uncertainty in figuring out how much of recent warming has been human-caused is knowing how much nature has caused. The IPCC is quite sure that nature is responsible for less than half of the warming since the mid-1900s, but politicians, activists, and various green energy pundits go even further, behaving as if warming is 100% human-caused.

The fact is we really don’t understand the causes of natural climate change on the time scale of an individual lifetime, although theories abound. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Little Ice Age was real, and so some of the warming over the last 150 years (especially prior to 1940) was natural — but how much?

The answer makes as huge difference to energy policy. If global warming is only 50% as large as is predicted by the IPCC (which would make it only 20% of the problem portrayed by the media and politicians), then the immense cost of renewable energy can be avoided until we have new cost-competitive energy technologies.

The recently published paper Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRSused 15 years of infrared satellite data to obtain a rather strong global surface warming trend of +0.24 C/decade. Objections have been made to that study by me (e.g. here) and others, not the least of which is the fact that the 2003-2017 period addressed had a record warm El Nino near the end (2015-16), which means the computed warming trend over that period is not entirely human-caused warming.

If we look at the warming over the 19-year period 2000-2018, we see the record El Nino event during 2015-16 (all monthly anomalies are relative to the 2001-2017 average seasonal cycle):

 

…

…

unclassified

Denver Weather: Another Record Broken As Temperatures Plunge To Near Zero

by Ashton Altieri, Oct 30, 2019 in 4CBSDenver

DENVER (CBS4) – The temperature in Denver officially dropped to 3 degrees above zero early Wednesday morning. It was cold enough to shatter the previous record low for October 30 by 4 degrees. It was our third record temperature in 3 days and one more record is expected Thursday morning.

…

…

One final record is expected Thursday morning when the combination of clear skies, mainly light winds, and snow on the ground allows temperatures to plunge below zero along the Front Range. If the temperature manages to drop below -2° early Thursday, the all-time record low for October in Denver will be broken.  That record was set on October 29, 1917.

…

unclassified

World Leading Climate Scientist: “Greta’s Message Is Ridiculous”…”Something Of An End-Of-World Sect”

by Prof. H .von Storch, October 29, 2019 in NoTricksZone

In an interview with the Hamburg daily Abendblatt here, retired German climate researcher Prof. Hans von Storch commented on the global climate debate, saying “Greta’s message is ridiculous” and that “Greta Thunberg’s demand that we panic has something of an en of world sect.”

…

Doesn’t share doomsday views

When asked by the Abendblatt whether he shares the doomsday views of a “climate crisis” and that there needs to be an “uprising, or extinction”, von Storch says he does not share that outlook and reminded that today’s modern technology has made it possible for people to live by the millions in areas that would otherwise be inhospitable, like Phoenix, Arizona. “That was impossible in the past; today there are air conditioning systems.”

Selective listening

On Greta Thunberg’s demand that we “listen to the science!”, the award-winning German scientist slaps it down, hinting at a non-consensus among scientists: “She demands listening to scientists who should reinforce what she believes and says anyway.”

unclassified

Le GIEC en est virtuellement certain…

by Prof. Dr. Jean N., 11 octobre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

Le dernier rapport spécial du GIEC vient de sortir. Ce rapport, appelé SROCC (“Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate“), a été approuvé à la 51e session du GIEC tenue les 20 et 23 septembre 2019. Il a déjà fait beaucoup parler de lui dans les médias. Le résumé du rapport à l’intention des décideurs (SPM) a été présenté lors d’une conférence de presse le 25 septembre 2019. Pour ceux qui comprennent l’anglais, qui ont une formation scientifique et surtout qui ont le temps de lire 1170 pages, le fichier PDF de ce rapport est disponible sur le site du GIEC. Le présent article analyse le chapitre 4 de ce rapport, celui qui traite de la montée des océans. Rassurez-vous, nous n’allons pas critiquer la montée du niveau des océans qui est un phénomène bien réel. Nous allons plutôt montrer que les auteurs ont étrangement omis certaines explications qui relativisent la portée de leurs conclusions, notamment concernant la cause de la hausse du niveau marin.

1. Structure du chapitre 4

Ce chapitre 4 consiste en 168 pages et a pour titre “Élévation du niveau de la mer et conséquences pour les îles, les côtes et les communautés de faible altitude“. Les deux auteurs coordonnateurs de ce chapitre sont Michael Oppenheimer (USA) et Bruce Glavovic (Nouvelle Zélande). Les auteurs principaux sont au nombre de 13 et les auteurs contributeurs sont au nombre de 31. Au final, 46 scientifiques ont donc contribué à écrire ce chapitre. Rien que pour ce chapitre les auteurs citent un peu plus de 1500 références, essentiellement des articles scientifiques.

Qu’apprend-t-on dans le chapitre 4?

Pour faire simple, nous y apprenons : (1) Que le niveau moyen des océans monte toujours et que la vitesse s’accélère; (2) Que cette montée du niveau marin est essentiellement causée par l’homme; (3) Que l’on peut calculer ce qui va se passer dans le futur grâce aux modèles numériques; (4) Que l’on peut éventuellement se protéger de la hausse du niveau marin par toute une série de mesures.

Nous allons maintenant nous focaliser sur les points n°1 (montée du niveau) et n°2 (les causes).

2. La montée du niveau moyen des océans selon le SROCC

…

unclassified

NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCES FOURTH COLDEST SEPTEMBER THIS CENTURY

by Cap Allon, October 4, 2019 in Electroverse

New Zealand’s average temperature last month –for the country as a whole– was below the 1981-2010 September avg., Niwa has said in its Monthly Climate Summary.

An unusual warming of the atmosphere high above Antarctica –called a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event (SSW)– assisted in making last month the fourth coldest September in New Zealand this century.

There have only ever been two SSWs recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, previous to this years — one in September 2002 (major) and another in September 2010 (minor).

The 2002 SSW event resulted in New Zealand experiencing a significant cold outbreak in October while the 2010 event was associated with record rainfall during September.

…

…

unclassified

Record Antarctic Stratospheric Warming Causes Sept. 2019 Global Temperature Update Confusion

by Roy Spencer, October 4, 2019 in WUWT

While the vast majority of our monthly global temperature updates are pretty routine, September 2019 is proving to be a unique exception. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with the UAH temperatures we originally reported. But what I discovered about last month is pretty unusual.

It all started when our global lower tropospheric (LT) temperature came in at an unexpectedly high +0.61 deg. C above the 1981-2010 average. I say “unexpected” because, as WeatherBell’s Joe Bastardi has pointed out, the global average surface temperature from NOAA’s CFS model had been running about 0.3 C above normal, and our numbers are usually not that different from that model product.

[By way of review, the three basic layers we compute average temperatures from the satellites are, in increasing altitude, the mid-troposphere (MT), tropopause region (TP), and lower stratosphere (LS). From these three deep layer temperatures, we compute the lower tropospheric (LT) product using a linear combination of the three main channels, LT = 1.548MT – 0.538TP +0.01LS.]

Yesterday, John Christy noticed that the Southern Hemisphere was unusually warm in our lower stratosphere (LS) temperature product, while the Northern Hemisphere was unusually cool. This led me to look at the tropical results for our mid-troposphere (MT) and ‘tropopause’ (TP) products, which in the tropics usually track each other. A scatterplot of them revealed September 2019 to be a clear outlier, that is, the TP temperature anomaly was too cool for the MT temperature anomaly.

So, John put a notice on his monthly global temperature update report, and I added a notice to the top of my monthly blog post, that we suspected maybe one of the two satellites we are currently using (NOAA-19 and Metop-B) had problems.

As it turns out, there were no problems with the data. Just an unusual regional weather event that produced an unusual global response.

…

unclassified

Continental Cooling: Earliest Snow In 20 Years In Greta’s Sweden…Data Suggest Autumn Arriving EARLIER In Europe!

by P. Gosselin, Sep. 22, 2019 in NoTricksZone

By Kirye in Tokyo

Cooling August trends and stunningly early snows in Europe contradict global catastrophist warming claims.

Recently we heard reports of the earliest snowfall in Greta Thunberg’s Sweden in 20 years, and “stunning” snowfall in Norway. So it’s been strange to hear during these hysterical days of Fridays for Future (FFF) how snowfall is supposed to disappear even in the dead of winter.

Yet, Sweden’s and Norway’s early snowfall really should not come as a surprise when we look at the temperature trends for late summer in Sweden and elsewhere. The data are telling us that the opposite is happening: In reality autumn seems to be arriving earlier in Scandinavia.

Fall arriving sooner in Scandinavia

Using the untampered data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) from the 6 Swedish stations that offer close to complete datasets, we see that August has been seeing a late summer cooling trend across the Nordic country:

…

…

unclassified

Over 170 News Outlets Vow To Spread Climate Hysteria Ahead Of UN Summit

by  J. Syemour, Sep. 2, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Objectivity and truth-telling are no longer the most “sacred” responsibilities of the news media, at least according to the far-left The Nation magazine. It’s now … climate change.

“We see Covering Climate Now as a fulfillment of journalism’s most sacred responsibilities, which are to inform people and foster constructive debate about common challenges and opportunities,” The Nation wrote on Aug. 28.

The Nation, Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and The Guardian spearheaded The Covering Climate Now project.

On Aug. 28, they announced that 170 news outlets around the world signed on to the agenda-driven effort. They bragged that biased journalism will be delivered to a combined audience of hundreds of millions of people.

The list included a Who’s Who of liberal U.S. media outlets including Bloomberg, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, Newsweek, “eminent specialist publications” Nature, Scientific American, InsideClimate News, and “distinguished digital publications” HuffPost, Vox, The Intercept, and Slate.

Audiences can expect to be bombarded by climate alarmism the week of Sept. 16-23, since all the participating outlets agreed to focus on climate that week — just ahead of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summit in New York.

Although some aren’t waiting. CBS has already been celebrating the arrival of 16-year-old “climate warrior” Greta Thunberg and promoting her journey by low-emissions yacht while ignoring the fact that people have to fly to NY to retrieve the boat.

…

unclassified

Walruses climbing cliffs and falling off them are natural events: 1994 video from Alaska

by Polar Bear Science, Sept. 2, 2019 in WUWT

Posted on September 1, 2019 | Comments Off on Walruses climbing cliffs and falling off them are natural events: 1994 video from Alaska

US Fish and Wildlife officials in 1994 explain walruses falling to their deaths from a cliff at Cape Pierce in the southern Bering Sea (a haulout for adult males during the ice-free season). Explanation? Overcrowding (too many walruses)!

…

 

Hype from the Netflix/Attenborough ‘climate change is gonna destroy the world’ fearmongers earlier this year notwithstanding – or the media this summer trying to stir up climate change fever – the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined in October 2017 that the Pacific walrus is not being harmed by climate change and is not likely to be harmed within the foreseeable future (USFWS 2017). The IUCN Red List (2015) lists the Pacific walrus as ‘data deficient‘.

Large herds onshore are a sign of population health, not climate change, and walruses have come ashore in the Chukchi Sea during the ice-free season in summer and/or fall for more than 100 years (Crockford 2014; Fischbach et al. 2016; Lowrey 1985). Those are the relevant scientific facts.

…

unclassified

FORGET PARIS: CHINA’S NEW COAL BOOM

by Reuters, August 6, 2019 in GWPF

SHANGHAI/BEIJING (Reuters) – Approvals for new coal mine construction in China have surged in 2019, government documents showed, with Beijing expecting consumption of the commodity to rise in the coming years even as it steps up its fight against smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

Long-term cuts in coal consumption are a key part of China’s energy, environment and climate goals, but the fivefold increase in new mine approvals in the first-half of 2019 suggests China’s targets still provide ample room for shorter-term growth.

China’s energy regulator gave the go-ahead to build 141 million tonnes of new annual coal production capacity from January to June, compared to 25 million tonnes over the whole of last year, Reuters analysis of approval documents showed.

The projects included new mines in the regions of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Shanxi and Shaanxi that are part of a national strategy to consolidate output at dedicated coal production “bases”, as well as expansions of existing collieries, the National Energy Administration (NEA) documents showed. […] Chinese coal output rose 2.6% in the first-half of 2019 to 1.76 billion tonnes.

MORE TO COME?

Industry groups still expect coal-fired power capacity to increase over the next few years, with investments in nuclear and renewables still insufficient to cover rising energy demand.

The research unit of the China State Grid Corporation last month forecast that total coal-fired capacity would peak at 1,230-1,350 gigawatts (GW), which would mean an increase of about 200-300 GW.

A study published earlier this year also suggested China’s targets would allow the construction of another 290 GW of coal-fired capacity in the coming years.

Full story

 

…

unclassified

Cycles of Rapid Climate Warming

by Jim Steele, May 28, 2018 in WUWT

The globally averaged temperature rose 1.5°F from 1880 to today. Various narratives suggest the rise since 1950 was driven by increasing concentrations of CO2. The rising temperature before 1950 was considered natural. Since 1990, Arctic temperatures rose 2 to 3 times faster than the global average. So, are rapidly rising Arctic temperatures evidence of an impending climate crisis?

Astute students of climate history recall rapid Arctic warming has happened often and naturally. During the last Ice Age when CO2 concentrations were just half of today’s, 25 abrupt warming events happened. Arctic temperatures rose 9°F, and sometimes as much as 14°F in just 40 years. These rapid warming episodes are now called Dansgaard–Oeschger events (D-O events) in honor of the researchers who first detected them in Greenland’s ice cores. These D-O episodes affected global climate, changed ocean currents along California’s coast and altered the range of European forests.

What caused such abrupt warming? Basic physics dismisses changes in greenhouse gases or solar insolation because neither radiative effect induces such rapid warming. The most reasonable explanation suggests episodes of ventilating heat, that had accumulated in the Arctic Ocean, rapidly warmed the air.

…

better to know...?, unclassified

Quote of the Week: Greta Thunberg claims to be able to “see” carbon dioxide in the air

by Anthony Watts, May 2, 2019 in WUWT

At first, I thought this had to be a joke. Then I thought it must be some sort of misinterpretation. Sadly, no.

From the website Afrinik, quoting the book –Scener ur hjärtat by Malena Ernman, Svante Thunberg:

…

…

Of course, with a ~ 410 parts per million concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we know that is a physical impossibility. Carbon Dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas:

 

Source:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

unclassified

Impacts of Small-Scale Urban Encroachment on Air Temperature Observations

by R.D. Leeper et al., 2019 in J.Appl.Met.Climatology

A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C). This was particularly true for evenings following greater daytime solar insolation (20+ MJDay−1) with surface winds from the direction of the built environment where mean differences exceeded 0.80 °C. The impact of the built environment on air temperature diminished with distance with a warm bias only detectable out to tower-B’ located 50 meters away.

The experimental findings were comparable to a known case of urban encroachment at a U. S. Climate Reference Network station in Kingston, RI. The experimental and operational results both lead to reductions in the diurnal temperature range of ~0.39 °C for fan aspirated sensors. Interestingly, the unaspirated sensor had a larger reduction in DTR of 0.48 °C. These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology.

…

unclassified

Le CO2 belge : que représente-il vraiment ?

by Jean N., 17 avril 2019 in Science-Climat-Energie

Cet article s’inscrit dans le cadre de l’activité actuelle médiatique tout azimut en Belgique, notamment relayée par les marches hebdomadaires des étudiants pour le climat. Comme vous le savez peut-être si vous êtes un lecteur fidèle de SCE, nous avons démontré dans plusieurs articles que l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif ne tient pas la route (ici, ici et ici) et n’explique pas le léger réchauffement actuel de la basse atmosphère. Les fins connaisseurs savent également qu’il existe de nombreuses publications scientifiques remettant en cause l’hypothèse de l’effet de serre radiatif (plus de 500 publications rien que pour 2018), toutes écrites par des physiciens, des chimistes, des géologues ou des climatologues. Si cette somme d’évidences vous a convaincu, le GIEC aurait alors tort sur toute la ligne et le CO2 d’origine anthropique n’aurait aucun rôle majeur déterminant la température de la basse troposphère. Cependant, admettons un instant que vous ne soyez pas convaincu et admettons donc que le GIEC ait raison. Tout ce qui est écrit dans son dernier rapport spécial devrait alors être vrai… Quelle serait alors la part de la Belgique dans le réchauffement? Asseyez-vous pour ne pas tomber, vous allez être surpris.

Figure 1. Extrait de la Figure SPM.1 du résumé pour décideurs (SPM) du rapport spécial publié par le GIEC fin 2018. Cette figure se trouve en page 8 du rapport du GIEC.

…

unclassified

The stark reality of CO2 emissions reduction, in one graph

by Anthony Watts, March 22, 2019 in WUWT/BjornLomborg

Bjorn Lomborg‏ writes on Twitter:

“Wishful thinking: This graph starkly shows what power the 1.5°C target The black line is CO₂ emission increase last 118 years (last year was highest ever) The blue lines indicate the emissions necessary to ensure the widely politically agreed 1.5°C limit”.

 

…

unclassified

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
unclassified

ClimateGate continues – the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are now public

by Anthony Watts, March4, 2019 in WUWT

After years of trying to suppress their release, and finally being ordered to be released by a judge, they are now public, and we have them here. This will remain as a “top post” for a day, new stories will be below this one.

There’s quite a treasure trove, but also some duplications from previous releases.

…

unclassified

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.

…

unclassified

New Findings From German Scientists Show Changes in Precipitation Over Europe Linked To Solar Activity

by P. Gosselin, February 15, 2019 in NoTricksZone

A significant number of scientists say that the Earth’s climate is in large part impacted by solar activity, and less so by trace gas CO2 concentration. German scientists present new findings showing a link between solar activity and precipitation in Europe.
=================================================

How Changes on the Sun Influences Rain

A balanced level of precipitation provides the basis for a wide range of economic and social activities in Europe. Particularly agriculture, drinking water supply and inland waterway transport are directly affected. However, the amount of rain fluctuates strongly from year to year. While it may pour torrentially in one year, rain may remain absent for weeks in other year. The population is used to this variability and usually knows how to deal with it.

But what is behind the strong changes? A system, or pure atmospheric noise?

unclassified

Pas de réchauffement pour les zones éloignées des océans

by Dr. Jean N., 16 janvier 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

La théorie radiative de l’effet de serre prédit que la température de la basse atmosphère augmente lorsque le taux de CO2 croît. Si l’on prend par exemple une très vaste région, comme la Chine centrale ou le Midwest américain, qui couvrent tous deux des centaines de milliers de km2, on devrait donc observer un accroissement des températures moyennes de la basse atmosphère en fonction du temps. Effectivement, dans ces régions, et comme pour tout l’hémisphère Nord, le taux de CO2 n’a fait qu’augmenter depuis le début des mesures par spectrométrie infra-rouge en 1959. Cependant, une étude récente vient de montrer que la température moyenne n’aurait pas augmenté dans ces vastes régions, et ce malgré l’augmentation du taux de CO2 atmosphérique. L’étude en question a été publiée dans Energy & Environment en 2018 par deux chercheurs danois de la Danish Technical University, Frank Lansner et Jens Pedersen. Il faut rester prudent, mais si cette étude est confirmée, il s’agirait d’un sérieux problème pour la théorie radiative de l’effet de serre.

 

…

Figure 1. Anomalie de température pour la Sibérie centrale entre 1900 et 2010 (voir article)

…

unclassified

My experience at the German Bundestag’s Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

by Dr Shaviv, December 7, 2018 in ScienceBits

Three minutes is not a lot of time, so let me be brief. I’ll start with something that might shock you. There is no evidence that CO2 has a large effect on climate. The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove” that humans are the main cause of global warming, and which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that: a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.

These arguments are faulty. Why you ask?

We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real.  And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular.

In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.

…