Le 21 septembre dernier, En Marche, parti politique du président Emmanuel Macron, publiait sur son site une page pleine de chiffres se voulant effrayants sur les risques liés au réchauffement climatique. Or, nous allons constater que les chiffres présentés sont soit faux, soit présentés de façon totalement fallacieuse. Vous me direz que ce genre de publication n’est pas nouveau. Certes. Mais là, cela vient directement du parti du président en exercice, et donc il convient d’essayer d’y répondre, sachant que de telles publications sont rarement dénuées d’arrières pensées politiques.
It was late evening, April 19, 1995, that the crestfallen figure of McArthur Wheeler could be found slumped over a Pittsburgh Police Department’s interrogation room table. Forlorn and understandably distressed by his predicament, he could be heard muttering dumbfounded astonishment at his arrest. “I don’t understand it,” he would repeat, “I wore the juice, I wore the juice!” (. . .)
A year ago I wrote an article at WUWT analyzing the recent upward trend in summer Arctic sea ice extent. Despite challenges of statistical irrelevancy, the trend has continued another year. Arctic ice experts, that have repeatedly predicted the demise of summer ice, don’t have an explanation for a 10-year trend that contradicts their predictions, beyond statistical variability or unexplained natural variability.
Debate and controversy concerning the issue of climate change generally results in the hindering and obstruction of social and governmental action on this issue. This paper analyses the scientific background, i.e. the reference list of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report ‘‘The Physical Science Basis’’ and an alternative climate change report of a US think tank institute ‘‘Climate Change Reconsidered II. Physical Science’’.
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves.
In the last 4 months, 40 more graphs taken from 30 more new peer-reviewed scientific papers have made their way into the ever-growing volume of evidence that today’s climate is not only not unprecedented or unusual in the context of the last millennium, but modern temperature values are still among the coldest of the last 10,000 years.
A number of authors, including the IPCC, have argued that climate models have systematically overstated the rate of global warming in recent decades. A recent paper by Millar et al. (2017) presented the same finding in a diagram of temperature change versus cumulative carbon emissions since 1870.
In the climate debate, though, it pays to read the small print. Official climatology does not usually admit its many errors: instead, we are ordered to obey the “consensus”, as the Party Line is these days rebranded. On reading the headlines, I suspected at once that the true purpose of the latest admission, by Millar et al. in the current issue of Nature Geo“science”, is to minimize and thus to conceal the true magnitude of past over-predictions.
Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature.
L’incroyable nouvelle a été annoncée par Mathieu Vidard dans l’émission La Tête au carrésur France Inter, le 20 septembre 2017 (ici, très brièvement, à partir de 10’, il faut bien viser) :
Maintenir le réchauffement climatique en dessous de 1,5°C, c’est encore possible, c’est l’objectif qui avait été fixé par les Accords de Paris à l’issue de la COP 21. La bonne nouvelle vient d’une équipe de recherche internationale. D’après leurs analyses, l’ampleur du réchauffement climatique qui a déjà eu lieu a été surestimée et la quantité de carbone que l’humanité peut émettre à partir de 2015 en restant en-dessous de ce seuil de 1,5°C serait trois fois supérieure à ce qui avait été annoncé.
“Les faits, et seulement les faits” doivent nous éclairer et nous préserver de malentendus entourant toute discussion, alors que l’administration Trump a pris la décision de se retirer de l’Accord de Paris COP21 (2015) qui traite du changement climatique.
Si vous pensez que la conférence sur le climat qui se tiendra à Paris en décembre 2015 (COP21) a quelque chose à voir avec le climat ou la protection de la nature, révisez votre copie. Vous avez tout faux. Les premiers qui s’en rendront compte, après avoir vainement fouillé dans les derniers recoins de ces futurs accords, minimalistes et non-contraignants mais présentés par les politiques comme une grandiose réussite pour l’environnement et le climat, seront les écolos et certaines ONG environnementales.
Important information has emerged in the field of energy, and yet it is as if European politicians ignore it. Judge for yourself based on just the following facts (…)
Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.
The study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of scientists led by Richard Millar of the University of Oxford. It has recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above temperatures seen in the late 19th century. It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable, but the new study would appear to give us much more time to act if we want to stay below it.
by Cédric Moro, 18 septembre 2017 in Mythes,Mancies&Mathématiques
Que n’a-t-on pas entendu dans une partie de la presse et dans les déclarations à chaud de scientifiques et d’experts du climat sur l’uragan Irma. C’était du jamais vu, du jamais mesuré, d’une puissance inégalée, Europe 1 allant jusqu’à parler « du plus important de l’histoire climatologique ». Des eaux extraordinairement chaudes devaient expliquer son intensité effroyable (sous-entendu : Irma, c’est la faute au réchauffement), ses vents destructeurs records, son diamètre exceptionnel, ses pluies diluviennes, son raz de marée démesuré, son intensification inouïe ou ses dégâts hors normes…
Climate Change: The Facts 2017 contains 22 essays by internationally-renowned experts and commentators, including Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. Anthony Watts also has a chapter.
The volume is edited by Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Fourteen of the contributors currently hold or have held positions at a university or a scientific research organisation.
I have written about sea level rise here: here, here, here, here and here. The previous essays are not prerequisites but are interesting specific examples.
There are two important points which readers must be aware of from the first mention of SLR:
SLR is a real imminent threat to coastal cities and low-lying coastal and near-coastal densely-populated areas.
SLR is not a threat to anything else — not now, not in a hundred years — probably not in a thousand years — maybe, not ever.
This modern rate – just 0.17-0.18 of a meter per century –has remained relatively unchanged from the overall 20th century average, and there has been no statistically significant acceleration in the sea level rise rate (just 0.0042 mm/yr-²) since 1900.
Weather and climate analyst Schneefan here writes of “early frost” in the Arctic and how Greenland snow and ice have grown after being hit by a “snow bomb”. This contradicts the expectations of global warming alarmists.
The polar summer this year appears to have ended prematurely. The mean temperature of the central Arctic above 80°N has remained under the long-term average over the entire summer and even dipped below the freezing point about a week earlier than normal (1958-2002 mean).
Various sources, scientists publishing their opinion in the media, claim that Tropical Storm Harvey, recently landed in Texas, is one more signal of the influence of global warming on such catastrophic events. These claims are based on model calculations. Let’s examine the facts.
In the press release for a newly published and controversial peer-reviewed scientific paper, Australian scientist Dr. Jennifer Marohasy unveiled one of climate science’s better-kept secrets.
She and her colleagues are well aware that the post-1940s Northern Hemisphere (NH) proxy evidence from tree-rings, bore holes, pollen, etc., consistently fails to affirm sharply rising temperatures from the late 20th century onwards.
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse
