Réchauffement climatique

[Kevinz]

Earth Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees' - Al Gore the Wise

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=529_1258575334

[Jesrad]

À certains endroits nanoscopiques, c'est pas impossible… Il y a de l'activité nucléaire là dedans après tout (fission… mais aussi fusion).

[Rincevent]

À certains endroits nanoscopiques, c'est pas impossible…

Pour peu que l'idée de température, grandeur intensive, donc résultat d'une espérance statistique, ait un sens à de telles échelles.

Il y a de l'activité nucléaire là dedans après tout (fission… mais aussi fusion).

Source impérative.

[Jesrad]

L'Hélium, tu crois qu'il vient d'où ?

[Rincevent]

L'Hélium, tu crois qu'il vient d'où ?

De TC ? Sérieusement, nos quantités ridicules d'hélium viennent sans doute des restes de l'atmosphère originelle, ainsi que de la désintégration alpha des éléments lourds. Parce que si tu penses qu'il vient d'une fusion d'atomes d'hydrogène, il va falloir m'expliquer ce que cet hydrogène fait à l'intérieur de la Terre.

[Jesrad]

Ce n'est pas la seule trace envisageable, mais il faudrait que je retrouve la source effectivement.

[john_ross]

L'isotope le plus abondant, l'hélium 4, est produit sur terre par la radioactivité α d'éléments lourd : les particules α qui y sont produites sont des noyaux d'hélium 4 complètement ionisés.

L'hélium 3 n'est présent sur terre qu'en traces ; la plupart date de la formation de la Terre, bien qu'un peu tombe encore dessus, piégée dans la poussière interstellaire. Des traces sont aussi produites encore par la radioactivité β du tritium.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lium

[Jesrad]

Le voilà: les teneurs observées en He3 et He4 dans la roche varient d'une manière qui semble indiquer la présence de fusion nucléaire.

[Rincevent]

Le voilà: les teneurs observées en He3 et He4 dans la roche varient d'une manière qui semble indiquer la présence de fusion nucléaire.

L'article a 20 ans. Non seulement les mesures étaient moins précises qu'aujourd'hui, mais de plus on était alors en pleine bulle de la fusion froide, et tout début d'indice était bon pour en valider la possibilité. Le fait que l'article n'ait pas été repris semble indiquer qu'il s'agissait d'une fausse piste. Désolé.

[Brock]

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/…,662092,00.html

[Stan Selene]

De la fusion naturelle sur Terre (dedans en l'occurrence) mouai bof bof.

[miniTAX]

Le Hadley Center a été hacké, ses boîtes emails et diverses doc se retrouvent maintenant sur le net dans un fichier zip.

On y trouve des correspondances explosives et les journalistes sceptiques vont s'en donner à coeur joie (ça a déjà commencé à l'Examiner) !

Ca va chauffer pour les réchauffistes.

Le fichier est certifié cachère par ClimateAudit/McIntyre qui y a retrouvé ses propres emails au CRU. Liens pour le pour télécharger, dépêchez-vous avant la fin des soldes :

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

http://rapidshare.com/files/30…..9.zip.html

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

A torrent file:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

[Jesrad]

Enorme

[Jaimepasmonpseudo]

Enorme

Incroyable !

En espérant que ça fasse l'effet d'une bombe et que ça soit repris par un certain nombre de médias…

Je peux pas regarder au taff..

Par contre, si quelqu'un peut faire une analyse rapide du contenu, ça serait top !

[Jesrad]

De Phil Jones, toujours:

One of the Russians has a reason why Khad hasn't grown so much. All the sites in the

region have permafrost at depth. Those nearer the rivers have the permafrost at a greater

depth, partly due to the rivers. Warmth in the 20th century has meant greater depths for

the roots. Khad is a walk from the river and slightly higher, so possibly has less

available soil depth above the permafrost. All the sites are sampled through river

transport. When the coring was done in the 1980s and early 1990s the fieldwork teams ate a

lot of fish!

Encore une raison pour surestimer les températures dendrologiques.

Kevin Trenberth, grand manitou du GIEC:

>>>>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at

>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data

>>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there

>>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

>>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.

Extrait de:

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>

To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:43:54 -0600

Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Jim Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

<x-flowed>

Gavin,

I just think that you need to be up front with uncertainties

and the possibility of compensating errors.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gavin Schmidt wrote:

> Tom, with respect to the difference between the models and the data, the

> fundamental issue on short time scales is the magnitude of the internal

> variability. Using the full CMIP3 ensemble at least has multiple

> individual realisations of that internal variability and so is much more

> suited to a comparison with a short period of observations. MAGICC is

> great at the longer time scale, but its neglect of unforced variability

> does not make it useful for these kinds of comparison.

>

> The kind of things we are hearing "no model showed a cooling", the "data

> is outside the range of the models" need to be addressed directly.

>

> Gavin

>

> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:

>> Hi Tom,

>>

>> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3

>> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices

>> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud

>> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling

>> community. I'm not saying that these things necessarily cancel out

>> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing

>> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across

>> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if

>> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine

>> what sort of comparison wouldn't be deceptive (your point re MAGICC

>> notwithstanding),

>>

>> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after

>> all),

>>

>> mike

>>

>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

>>> Mike,

>>>

>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical

>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the

>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low

>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too

>>> harsh)

>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model

>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use

>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least

>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and

>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

>>>

>>> Tom.

>>>

>>> +++++++++++++++++++

>>>

>>> Michael Mann wrote:

>>>> thanks Tom,

>>>> I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put

>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he

>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:

>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi…-manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,

>>>> mike

>>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:

>>>>> Dear all,

>>>>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the

>>>>> recent

>>>>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to

>>>>> look at

>>>>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic

>>>>> trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second

>>>>> is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the

>>>>> observed data.

>>>>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The

>>>>> second

>>>>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

>>>>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

>>>>> Kevin says … "The fact is that we can't account for the lack

>>>>> of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I

>>>>> do not

>>>>> agree with this.

>>>>> Tom.

>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++

>>>>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:

>>>>>> Hi all

>>>>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global

>>>>>> warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have

>>>>>> broken records the past two days for the coldest days on

>>>>>> record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days

>>>>>> was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the

>>>>>> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F

>>>>>> and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

>>>>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game

>>>>>> was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below

>>>>>> freezing weather).

>>>>>> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change

>>>>>> planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in

>>>>>> Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,

>>>>>> doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

>>>>>> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at

>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data

>>>>>> published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there

>>>>>> should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

>>>>>> Our observing system is inadequate.

>>>>>> That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People

>>>>>> like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly

>>>>>> correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the

>>>>>> change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The

>>>>>> PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO

>>>>>> index became positive in September for first time since Sept

>>>>>> 2007. see

>>>>>> http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODA…ing_current.ppt

>>>>>> Kevin

>>>>>> Michael Mann wrote:

>>>>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on

>>>>>>> BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard

>>>>>>> Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I

>>>>>>> can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met

>>>>>>> Office.

>>>>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile

>>>>>>> it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say

>>>>>>> about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?

>>>>>>> mike

>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

>>>>>>>> Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural

>>>>>>>> variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to

>>>>>>>> this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an

>>>>>>>> El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their

>>>>>>>> temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt

>>>>>>>> per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be

>>>>>>>> another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard

>>>>>>>> someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot

>>>>>>>> of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the

>>>>>>>> past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis

>>>>>>>> still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000

>>>>>>>> year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in

>>>>>>>> big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do

>>>>>>>> need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.

>>>>>>>> Such "fun", Cheers, Steve

>>>>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider

>>>>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary

>>>>>>>> Environmental Studies,

>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Biology and

>>>>>>>> Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment

>>>>>>>> Mailing address:

>>>>>>>> Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205

>>>>>>>> 473 Via Ortega

>>>>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978

>>>>>>>> F: 650 725 4387

>>>>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net

>>>>>>>> patientfromhell.org

>>>>>>>> —-- Forwarded Message —--

>>>>>>>> From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <ndrao@stanford.edu

>>>>>>>> <mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>

>>>>>>>> To: "Stephen H Schneider" <shs@stanford.edu

>>>>>>>> <mailto:shs@stanford.edu>>

>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00

>>>>>>>> US/Canada Pacific

>>>>>>>> Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

>>>>>>>> Steve,

>>>>>>>> You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCˇs

>>>>>>>> reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that thereˇs

>>>>>>>> been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations

>>>>>>>> will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not

>>>>>>>> outrageously biased in presentation as are other skepticsˇ

>>>>>>>> views.

>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

>>>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianth…climate-change/

>>>>>>>> BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside

>>>>>>>> the US.

>>>>>>>> Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from

>>>>>>>> a scientist?

>>>>>>>> Narasimha

>>>>>>>> ——————————-

>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate,

>>>>>>>> Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and

>>>>>>>> Resources (E-IPER)

>>>>>>>> Stanford University

>>>>>>>> Tel: 415-812-7560

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Michael E. Mann

>>>>>>> Professor

>>>>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

>>>>>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)

>>>>>>> 863-4075

>>>>>>> 503 Walker Building FAX:

>>>>>>> (814) 865-3663

>>>>>>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu

>>>>>>> <mailto:mann@psu.edu>

>>>>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013

>>>>>>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

>>>>>>> <http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/index.html>

>>>>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site:

>>>>>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Dire…ions/index.html

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> ****************

>>>>>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu

>>>>>> <mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu>

>>>>>> Climate Analysis Section,

>>>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

>>>>>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html>

>>>>>> NCAR

>>>>>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318

>>>>>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

>>>>>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

>>>>> <Wigley-RecentTemps.doc>

>>>> --

>>>> Michael E. Mann

>>>> Professor

>>>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

>>>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

>>>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814)

>>>> 865-3663

>>>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu

>>>> <mailto:mann@psu.edu>

>>>> University Park, PA 16802-5013

>>>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

>>>> <http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>

>>>> "Dire Predictions" book site:

>>>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Dire…ions/index.html

>>>

>>>

>> --

>> Michael E. Mann

>> Professor

>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

>>

>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu

>> University Park, PA 16802-5013

>>

>> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

>> "Dire Predictions" book site:

>> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/Dire…ions/index.html

Suite intéressante:

From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:25 -0400

Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily

account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the

CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can

"explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/

the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability

that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this

has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where

energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not

close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is

happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as

we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>

To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400

Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the

observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model

projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming,

is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is

always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing"

fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be

disagreement,

mike

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Mike

Here are some of the issues as I see them:

Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?

Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a

discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system

sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major

changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on

land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall

(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes

into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and

should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into

atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES

data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean

data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and

burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it

comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.

Kevin

Michael Mann wrote:

Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily

account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in

the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,

we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going

on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of

internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.

I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?

m

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where

energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not

close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is

happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as

we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent

lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at

the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf

for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations

from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second

method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says … "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment

and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not

agree with this.

Tom.

[jubal]

On y trouve "RulesOfTheGame.pdf", un document marketing pour promouvoir le changement climatique aupres du publique. Il a ete produit par une agence specialise dans la communication pour le developement durable: futerra.

Existe-t-il des agences marketing qui communiquent contre le developement durable ?

[Jesrad]

Et hop, toujours le même Phil Jones:

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>

Subject: Crap Papers

Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:12 2004

Mike,

Just agreed to review a paper for GRL - it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at

the

CRU temperature data - not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We added

lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.

Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says

GRL hasn't a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right

person with the one just received.

Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE - don't email around, especially not to

Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that

MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record - from models

or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them - I

want

to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with

discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090

School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784

University of East Anglia

Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk

NR4 7TJ

UK

—————————————————————————-

[jubal]

Par contre, si quelqu'un peut faire une analyse rapide du contenu, ça serait top !

Je n'ai pas tout lu, mais il me semble qu'on y parle beaucoup politique et marketing.

Il y a beaucoup de communication avec greenpeace, et aussi avec la WWF.

[Jesrad]

Je sors de ce tas d'emails simplement avec l'impression que ce sont des scientifiques ordinaires, qui essaient comme les autres de se convaincre qu'ils ont raison, qui s'arrangent pour couvrir leurs fesses exactement comme dans n'importe quelle organisation humaine, etc. Et on sent bien que Michael Mann déteste McIntyre…

[José]

Et hop, Der Spiegel maintenant :

Stagnating Temperatures

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

By Gerald Traufetter

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

[…]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/…,662092,00.html

[Jesrad]

Dans les emails piratés, on peut lire Phil Jones "parier" que d'ici 5 ans avec El Niño et le cycle décennal du Soleil, on allait avoir un nouveau pic de chaleur comparable à 1992-2000.

Mouais. J'en encore rien trouvé là dedans qui explique convenablement la tendance générale récente à battre des records de froid.

[teabag]

On y trouve des correspondances explosives

Excellent.

C'est l'occasion d'en dire deux mots sur la radio RMC. Entre 07h00 et 11h00 la parole est donnée en continue aux petites gens qui bossent, sur des sujets d'actualité variés. L'émission Bourdin & Co gagne chaque année en audimat mais le réchauffement n'est JAMAIS un des thèmes abordés. Même si par moment il raconte des conneries, Bourdin serait surement curieux d'en savoir plus sur ce fameux "réchauffement climatique" que tout le monde attend mais dont personne ne connait rien.

Pour participer, raconter les scandales en direct, faire germer le doute chez les auditeurs, en profiter pour pousser un gros coup et aussi filer les bons liens internet à des millier de personnes: http://www.rmc.fr/outils/mailEmission?id=1

Avis aux amateurs ! le sujet est vaste et je suis certain qu'il ferait un tabac.

[Jesrad]

Michael Mann explique en Mars 2003 comment ostraciser les sceptiques pour les exclure complètement de la science climatique:

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process

anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate

Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De

Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…

The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre

journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').

Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed

this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that

I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they

wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but

the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the

community on the whole…

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the

presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My

guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm

not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their

side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.

There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that

couldn't get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the

"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a

legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate

research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also

need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently

sit on the editorial board…

What do others think?

mike

[José]

Un lien vers tous les mails hackés ; http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

[teabag]

Un autre vers le blog québécois "Pour une école libre" qui traduit en français certains emails.

http://pouruneecolelibre.blogspot.com/2009…ez-les-eco.html

Profitez-en pour lire cet excellent billet :

http://pouruneecolelibre.blogspot.com/2008…t-norme_04.html

[teabag]

Google recense en ce moment 231 articles sur le sujet. Tous sont en langue anglaise ! Le seul article en langue française pour évoquer les faits - et les minimiser - est sur Slate.fr.

http://www.slate.fr/story/13347/documents-…uffement-climat

edit: Vincent Benard en remet une couche sur agoravox.fr

[teabag]

Selon Roy Spencer, c'est fort possible qu'un salarié du centre de recherche soit à l'origine du Hack:

I think there is a good chance that this was an inside job…either a disgruntled employee at CRU, or someone who is simply getting fed up with the politicization of the IPCC’s science and wanted to reveal some of the inner workings of the IPCC process. I’m sure that further revelations will arise in the coming days.

http://skyfal.free.fr/?p=421&cp=2#comment-23638

[Nick de Cusa]

Chapeau le Hacker. Grace a lui, WUWT est devant CNN et people magazine.

[jabial]

Une théorie est scientifique lorsqu'elle est falsifiable, c'est-à-dire lorsqu'il est possible de concevoir une expérience dont un résultat possible démontrerait qu'elle est fausse.

Or, le "réchauffement climatique" n'est pas falsifiable. Si vous demandez à un réchauffiste qu'est-ce qui prouverait que le RCA serait faux, il noie le poisson et répond que c'est évident devant les faits et que déjà ceux qui cherchent à le prouver faux ont un parti pris évident. Or, ce n'est pas une attitude scientifique. Même pour quelque chose d'évident comme "la Terre n'est pas plate", il y a une falsification possible. Ce n'est pas une question d'évidence ou de politique mais vraiment une pseudo-science qui n'est soutenue par des authentiques scientifiques que parce que le milieu universitaire est traditionnellement de gauche.

La climatologie, c'est un peu comme l'économie. On ne maîtrise pas tous les facteurs, il y en a beaucoup trop. Mais une bonne façon de trancher entre deux théories est de comparer leurs valeurs prédictives. Ce n'est pas nouveau dans le monde scientifique : c'est en prédisant un phénomène astronomique incompatible avec les théories de l'époque à l'aide de son nouveau modèle qu'Einstein a réussi à l'imposer. Qu'est-il advenu des prédiction à court terme des réchauffistes ? La réponse est simple : aucune ne s'est réalisée, et à chaque fois ils ont noyé le poisson, allant parfois même jusqu'à dire que le réchauffement, en agissant sur des rétrocontrôles climatiques mal connus, pouvait provoquer une refrodissement "local" (ils disent local parce que les données locales peuvent être mesurées objectivement alors que pour arriver aux données globales on doit nécessairement faire un calcul avec des pondérations donc on peut bidouiller). Ils demandent de faire confiance en des prévisiosn à long terme alors qu'ils ne sont même pas capables de prévoir le court terme. Qui a dit falsifiabilité ?

tl/dr : pour tester si la théorie de quelqu'un est scientifique, lui demander "qu'est-ce qui prouverait que ta théorie est fausse?". S'il ne peut pas répondre, alors c'est du domaine de la croyance. Les réchauffistes ne peuvent pas répondre.

[Brock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…2004093_pf.html

voila, je mets une quote pour eviter que Lulu poste le meme lien dans 24h

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.

"We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the statement says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."

Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.