The High Cost Of Runaway Climate Alarm
In this newsletter:
1) 2018 Will Be The First Year With No Violent Tornadoes In U.S.
Ian Livingston, The Washington Post, 26 December 2018
2) U.S. Climatologist Counters Climate-Disaster Predictions With Sea-Level Report
Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 27 December 2018
3) Editorial: The High Cost Of Runaway Climate Alarm
The Washington Times, 24 December 2018
4) Green Madness Without End: 2018 Was The Worst Year Ever For UK Energy Price Rises
MailOnline, 28 December 2018
MailOnline, 28 December 2018
5) Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs Can Take The Heat, Unlike Experts Crying Wolf
The Australian, 26 December 2018
The Australian, 26 December 2018
6) Ray Bates: Les Faiblesses Scientifiques Du Rapport Du GIEC Sur Les Conséquences D’un Réchauffement de 1,5°C
l’Association des Climato-réalistes, December 2018
l’Association des Climato-réalistes, December 2018
Full details:
1) 2018 Will Be The First Year With No Violent Tornadoes In U.S.
Ian Livingston, The Washington Post, 26 December 2018
In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters. We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States.
Ian Livingston, The Washington Post, 26 December 2018
In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters. We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States.
Source: Roger Pielke Jr.
Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.
It was a quiet year for tornadoes overall, with below normal numbers most months. Unless you’re a storm chaser, this is not bad news. The low tornado count is undoubtedly a big part of the reason the 10 tornado deaths in 2018 is also vying to be a record low.
While we still have several days to go in 2018, and some severe weather is likely across the South to close it out, odds favor the country making it the rest of the way without a violent tornado.
If and when that happens, it will be the first time since the modern record began in 1950.
2005 came close to reaching this mark. That year, the first violent tornado didn’t occur until Nov. 15, much later than typical for the first of the year, which tends to come in early spring.
This year’s goose-egg may seem to fit a recent pattern.
In simple terms, there have been down-trends in violent tornado numbers both across the entire modern period, and when looking at just the period since Doppler radar was fully implemented across the country in the mid-1990s. A 15-year average as high as 13.7 in the mid-1970s will drop to 5.9 next year.
Expanding to include all “intense” tornadoes, or those F/EF3+, this year’s 12 is also poised to set a record for the least.
Right now, the mark there is held by 1987 when there were 15 F3+ tornadoes. As with violent tornadoes, this grouping is also exhibiting both a short and long-term decrease in annual numbers, likely for similar reasons.
Full post
2) U.S. Climatologist Counters Climate-Disaster Predictions With Sea-Level Report
Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 27 December 2018
For years, climate prognosticators have warned that human-caused global warming is fueling catastrophic sea-level rise, but now climatologist Judith Curry is rocking their boat.
In her latest paper, Ms. Curry found that the current rising sea levels are not abnormal, nor can they be pinned on human-caused climate change, arguing that the oceans have been on a “slow creep” for the last 150 years—before the post-1950 climb in carbon-dioxide emissions.
“There are numerous reasons to think that projections of 21st-century sea level rise from human-caused global warming are too high, and some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity,” the 80-page report found.
Her Nov. 25 report, “Sea Level and Climate Change,” which has been submitted for publication, also found that sea levels were actually higher in some regions during the Holocene Climate Optimum—about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.
“After several centuries of sea level decline following the Medieval Warm Period, sea levels began to rise in the mid-19th century,” the report concluded. “Rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates. It is concluded that recent change is within the range of natural sea-level variability over the past several thousand years.”
Such conclusions are unlikely to find favor with the global-warming movement, or within the academic climate “consensus,” where some experts have predicted that mean sea level could rise by five to 10 feet by the end of the 21st century.
Full post
3) Editorial: The High Cost Of Runaway Climate Alarm
The Washington Times, 24 December 2018
You don’t need an advanced academic degree to practice common sense. That’s why working folks who carry the nation on their backs have grasped the limits of the renewable energy revolution more quickly than those enthralled with the promise of a fossil-fuel-free future.
The United Nations’ 24th annual climate-change conference concluded the other day in Poland, where the 196 signatory nations squabbled over the details of a rulebook meant to referee the arguments over the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activity. In the end, agreements for reducing carbon emissions and raising money were reached, but only sort of. Compliance with climate-change rules is to be voluntary, and it’s hardly surprising that some participants — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait and the United States among them — have been well aware that some rules are meant to be broken.
President Trump took a look at terms of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 and withdrew U.S. participation. Since then, the U.N. campaign to shift energy use from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, like sun and wind, have lost political support. The Green Climate Fund, set up to collect reparations from developed nations to pay for clean energy projects in underdeveloped countries, is falling far short of its goal of collecting $100 billion per year by 2020.
The global body’s climate lobby had counted on China as the leader of the renewable energy revolution, but the Beijing government is equivocating. “The Road from Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn,” a white paper published by the British-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, says a year after the U.S. pullout from the 2015 climate agreement China has gone its own way. “China’s energy policy is focused on the Communist Party’s two primary domestic needs, securing the energy to fuel China’s economy and reducing the smog that undermines public confidence in the party. Failure to accomplish those two goals would represent an existential threat to the party.”
Although China has invested heavily in renewal energy projects, wind still only supplies 2.7 percent of the nation’s energy needs and solar energy even less, at 0.5 percent. While the Chinese have labored to clean their dirty skies by bringing more natural gas plants online, their primary source of power necessarily remains affordable coal. Who can blame Chinese leaders — or President Trump — for giving precedence to the needs of their nations?
Full Post
GWPF Report: The Road from Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn (pdf)
see also -- GWPF: Climate Policies, Electricity Prices And The Energy Price Cap
GWPF Energy, 10 May 2017
Mark Our Words: Theresa May's Energy Price Cap May Actually Increase Your Bills & Energy Poverty
GWPF Energy, 9 October 2017
It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.
The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.
Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.
But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.
Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.
They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.
The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.
However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.
A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.
But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.
A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.
This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.
This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.
But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.
But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.
Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.
Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.
It was a quiet year for tornadoes overall, with below normal numbers most months. Unless you’re a storm chaser, this is not bad news. The low tornado count is undoubtedly a big part of the reason the 10 tornado deaths in 2018 is also vying to be a record low.
While we still have several days to go in 2018, and some severe weather is likely across the South to close it out, odds favor the country making it the rest of the way without a violent tornado.
If and when that happens, it will be the first time since the modern record began in 1950.
2005 came close to reaching this mark. That year, the first violent tornado didn’t occur until Nov. 15, much later than typical for the first of the year, which tends to come in early spring.
This year’s goose-egg may seem to fit a recent pattern.
In simple terms, there have been down-trends in violent tornado numbers both across the entire modern period, and when looking at just the period since Doppler radar was fully implemented across the country in the mid-1990s. A 15-year average as high as 13.7 in the mid-1970s will drop to 5.9 next year.
Expanding to include all “intense” tornadoes, or those F/EF3+, this year’s 12 is also poised to set a record for the least.
Right now, the mark there is held by 1987 when there were 15 F3+ tornadoes. As with violent tornadoes, this grouping is also exhibiting both a short and long-term decrease in annual numbers, likely for similar reasons.
Full post
2) U.S. Climatologist Counters Climate-Disaster Predictions With Sea-Level Report
Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 27 December 2018
For years, climate prognosticators have warned that human-caused global warming is fueling catastrophic sea-level rise, but now climatologist Judith Curry is rocking their boat.
In her latest paper, Ms. Curry found that the current rising sea levels are not abnormal, nor can they be pinned on human-caused climate change, arguing that the oceans have been on a “slow creep” for the last 150 years—before the post-1950 climb in carbon-dioxide emissions.
“There are numerous reasons to think that projections of 21st-century sea level rise from human-caused global warming are too high, and some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity,” the 80-page report found.
Her Nov. 25 report, “Sea Level and Climate Change,” which has been submitted for publication, also found that sea levels were actually higher in some regions during the Holocene Climate Optimum—about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.
“After several centuries of sea level decline following the Medieval Warm Period, sea levels began to rise in the mid-19th century,” the report concluded. “Rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates. It is concluded that recent change is within the range of natural sea-level variability over the past several thousand years.”
Such conclusions are unlikely to find favor with the global-warming movement, or within the academic climate “consensus,” where some experts have predicted that mean sea level could rise by five to 10 feet by the end of the 21st century.
Full post
3) Editorial: The High Cost Of Runaway Climate Alarm
The Washington Times, 24 December 2018
You don’t need an advanced academic degree to practice common sense. That’s why working folks who carry the nation on their backs have grasped the limits of the renewable energy revolution more quickly than those enthralled with the promise of a fossil-fuel-free future.
The United Nations’ 24th annual climate-change conference concluded the other day in Poland, where the 196 signatory nations squabbled over the details of a rulebook meant to referee the arguments over the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activity. In the end, agreements for reducing carbon emissions and raising money were reached, but only sort of. Compliance with climate-change rules is to be voluntary, and it’s hardly surprising that some participants — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait and the United States among them — have been well aware that some rules are meant to be broken.
President Trump took a look at terms of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 and withdrew U.S. participation. Since then, the U.N. campaign to shift energy use from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, like sun and wind, have lost political support. The Green Climate Fund, set up to collect reparations from developed nations to pay for clean energy projects in underdeveloped countries, is falling far short of its goal of collecting $100 billion per year by 2020.
The global body’s climate lobby had counted on China as the leader of the renewable energy revolution, but the Beijing government is equivocating. “The Road from Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn,” a white paper published by the British-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, says a year after the U.S. pullout from the 2015 climate agreement China has gone its own way. “China’s energy policy is focused on the Communist Party’s two primary domestic needs, securing the energy to fuel China’s economy and reducing the smog that undermines public confidence in the party. Failure to accomplish those two goals would represent an existential threat to the party.”
Although China has invested heavily in renewal energy projects, wind still only supplies 2.7 percent of the nation’s energy needs and solar energy even less, at 0.5 percent. While the Chinese have labored to clean their dirty skies by bringing more natural gas plants online, their primary source of power necessarily remains affordable coal. Who can blame Chinese leaders — or President Trump — for giving precedence to the needs of their nations?
Full Post
GWPF Report: The Road from Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn (pdf)
4) Green Madness Without End: 2018 Was The Worst Year Ever For UK Energy Price Rises
MailOnline, 28 December 2018
This has been the worst year ever for energy price increases, according to new research published this week, with households suffering 57 price rises in 2018 compared to just 15 in 2017.
MailOnline, 28 December 2018
This has been the worst year ever for energy price increases, according to new research published this week, with households suffering 57 price rises in 2018 compared to just 15 in 2017.
Some suppliers raised prices three times in the year, according to research conducted by auto-switching service Look After My Bills, as they race to increase costs ahead of the £1,137 per year price cap to be introduced by regulator Ofgem on 1 January, 2019.
Ofgem's price cap will apply to default tariffs, including standard variable tariffs and energy firms will be forced to make prices level with - or go below - the cap, if they charge more.
Look After My Bills' research also revealed that a shocking £840million was added to people’s bills in 2018, the equivalent of £74 per household.
Household suffered major energy price hikes in 2018 thanks to energy suppliers' upping prices ahead of Ofgem's £1,137 a year price cap.
Lily Green, head of research at Look After My Bills, said: ‘This has been the worst year on record for price rises. 2018 has been a kick in the teeth for British households.
‘It seems energy companies are spooked by the impending price cap and are setting prices high while they can.’
Unsurprisingly, the Big Six all raised their prices, but they did keep hikes to single digits.
But the worst offenders were in fact some of the smaller suppliers, including Economy Energy which upped its standard variable tariff by a whopping £311, or 38.3 per cent and Solarplicity, which came second in the top five worst price jumps table with its £254, or 26.9 per cent increase from £887 to £1,141.
In a further blow to households, at least three more price rises are already on the cards for January 2019 from smaller suppliers.
Despite Ofgem's price cap kicking in 1 January, Outfox the Market, Fischer Energy and Pure Planet have all confirmed that they will increase their variable tariffs.
Full post
Ofgem's price cap will apply to default tariffs, including standard variable tariffs and energy firms will be forced to make prices level with - or go below - the cap, if they charge more.
Look After My Bills' research also revealed that a shocking £840million was added to people’s bills in 2018, the equivalent of £74 per household.
Household suffered major energy price hikes in 2018 thanks to energy suppliers' upping prices ahead of Ofgem's £1,137 a year price cap.
Lily Green, head of research at Look After My Bills, said: ‘This has been the worst year on record for price rises. 2018 has been a kick in the teeth for British households.
‘It seems energy companies are spooked by the impending price cap and are setting prices high while they can.’
Unsurprisingly, the Big Six all raised their prices, but they did keep hikes to single digits.
But the worst offenders were in fact some of the smaller suppliers, including Economy Energy which upped its standard variable tariff by a whopping £311, or 38.3 per cent and Solarplicity, which came second in the top five worst price jumps table with its £254, or 26.9 per cent increase from £887 to £1,141.
In a further blow to households, at least three more price rises are already on the cards for January 2019 from smaller suppliers.
Despite Ofgem's price cap kicking in 1 January, Outfox the Market, Fischer Energy and Pure Planet have all confirmed that they will increase their variable tariffs.
Full post
see also -- GWPF: Climate Policies, Electricity Prices And The Energy Price Cap
GWPF Energy, 10 May 2017
Mark Our Words: Theresa May's Energy Price Cap May Actually Increase Your Bills & Energy Poverty
GWPF Energy, 9 October 2017
5) Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs Can Take The Heat, Unlike Experts Crying Wolf
The Australian, 26 December 2018
Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.
The Australian, 26 December 2018
Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.
It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.
The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.
Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.
But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.
Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.
They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.
The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.
However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.
A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.
But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.
A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.
This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.
This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.
But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.
But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.
Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.
6) Ray Bates: Les Faiblesses Scientifiques Du Rapport Du GIEC Sur Les Conséquences D’un Réchauffement de 1,5°C
l’Association des Climato-réalistes, December 2018
Sous le titre évocateur Deficiencies, Le GWPF a mis en ligne un article du professeur Ray Bates qui démontre les faiblesses scientifiques du rapport du GIEC d’octobre 2018 sur les conséquences d’un réchauffement de 1,5°C (versus 2°C), dit rapport SR1.5. Nous en proposons ci-dessous une traduction.
Ce document est une critique factuelle de certaines conclusions centrales du récent rapport spécial sur le réchauffement de la planète de 1,5 ° C (SR1.5) publié par le GIEC (Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat.
L’auteur est le professeur Ray Bates, un éminent scientifique justifiant d’ une longue expérience internationale dans la recherche sur le climat au MIT, à la NASA et comme professeur de météorologie à l’Institut Niels Bohr de Copenhague et à l’University College de Dublin.
Le rapport postule que les aspects essentiels de la science climatique étant établis, ce qui importe aujourd’hui est la nécessaire réponse politique à donner aux questions éthiques de développement durable, d’éradication de la pauvreté et de réduction des inégalités.
Le rapport appelle à des changements radicaux dans l’économie mondiale pour atteindre « zéro émission de carbone » d’ici le milieu du siècle. Étant donné les changements extrêmement coûteux et extrêmement disruptifs que cette action entraînerait, la rigueur du dossier scientifique sous-jacent devrait être irréprochable. Certains aspects centraux du rapport RS 1.5 sont examinés ici afin de déterminer si le rapport présente un niveau de rigueur scientifique à la mesure de l’ampleur du plan d’action prescrit; notre conclusion est que ce n’est pas le cas.
Pour l’élaboration du SR1.5, les trois groupes de travail du GIEC ont été fusionnés pour produire un rapport généraliste qui n’est pas centré sur une analyse purement scientifique.
Dans la cinquième rapport d’évaluation, la déclaration centrale du groupe de travail n°1 était la suivante
"Il est extrêmement probable que plus de la moitié de l’augmentation de la température moyenne observée à la surface de la planète entre 1951 et 2010 est due à l’augmentation de la concentrations des gaz à effet de serre due aux activités humaines et à l’ensemble des autres forçages anthropiques."
Full paper (in French)
l’Association des Climato-réalistes, December 2018
Sous le titre évocateur Deficiencies, Le GWPF a mis en ligne un article du professeur Ray Bates qui démontre les faiblesses scientifiques du rapport du GIEC d’octobre 2018 sur les conséquences d’un réchauffement de 1,5°C (versus 2°C), dit rapport SR1.5. Nous en proposons ci-dessous une traduction.
Ce document est une critique factuelle de certaines conclusions centrales du récent rapport spécial sur le réchauffement de la planète de 1,5 ° C (SR1.5) publié par le GIEC (Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat.
L’auteur est le professeur Ray Bates, un éminent scientifique justifiant d’ une longue expérience internationale dans la recherche sur le climat au MIT, à la NASA et comme professeur de météorologie à l’Institut Niels Bohr de Copenhague et à l’University College de Dublin.
Le rapport postule que les aspects essentiels de la science climatique étant établis, ce qui importe aujourd’hui est la nécessaire réponse politique à donner aux questions éthiques de développement durable, d’éradication de la pauvreté et de réduction des inégalités.
Le rapport appelle à des changements radicaux dans l’économie mondiale pour atteindre « zéro émission de carbone » d’ici le milieu du siècle. Étant donné les changements extrêmement coûteux et extrêmement disruptifs que cette action entraînerait, la rigueur du dossier scientifique sous-jacent devrait être irréprochable. Certains aspects centraux du rapport RS 1.5 sont examinés ici afin de déterminer si le rapport présente un niveau de rigueur scientifique à la mesure de l’ampleur du plan d’action prescrit; notre conclusion est que ce n’est pas le cas.
Pour l’élaboration du SR1.5, les trois groupes de travail du GIEC ont été fusionnés pour produire un rapport généraliste qui n’est pas centré sur une analyse purement scientifique.
Dans la cinquième rapport d’évaluation, la déclaration centrale du groupe de travail n°1 était la suivante
"Il est extrêmement probable que plus de la moitié de l’augmentation de la température moyenne observée à la surface de la planète entre 1951 et 2010 est due à l’augmentation de la concentrations des gaz à effet de serre due aux activités humaines et à l’ensemble des autres forçages anthropiques."
Full paper (in French)
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.