Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Donc on est bien dans la théorie du complot….

Non. Il n'y a qu'un esprit faible pour avoir besoin d'une théorie du complot pour comprendre ce qui s'explique très bien par des comportements émergents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donc on est bien dans la théorie du complot….

Qui parlait de "lobbies importants et puissants"?

Sinon, comme H16 : il n'y a ici nul complot, tout se fait au grand jour et est constatable par tout un chacun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qui parlait de "lobbies importants et puissants"?

C'était simplement pour souligner le fait qu'il est aussi facile d'imaginer le "complot" dans un sens que dans l'autre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
…il est aussi facile d'imaginer le "complot" dans un sens que dans l'autre.

T'est bouché à l'émeri : personne n'imagine de complot, les lobbys existent dans les deux camps et tous travaillent à faire avancer leurs pions et imposer leur agenda, plus ou moins publiquement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T'est bouché à l'émeri : personne n'imagine de complot, les lobbys existent dans les deux camps et tous travaillent à faire avancer leurs pions et imposer leur agenda, plus ou moins publiquement.

J'ai pour ma part du mal à comprendre, malgré vos nombreuses explications, les intérêts des lobbys pro-réchauffement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J'ai pour ma part du mal à comprendre, malgré vos nombreuses explications, les intérêts des lobbys pro-réchauffement.

C'est noble d'avouer ses limites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C'est noble d'avouer ses limites.

Peut-être qu'il n'y a rien à comprendre, et donc c'est pour ça que je ne comprends pas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J'ai pour ma part du mal à comprendre, malgré vos nombreuses explications, les intérêts des lobbys pro-réchauffement.

Areva récite religieusement son Al Goran et tu ne vois vraiment pas pourquoi ? Ni pourquoi d'autres nucléaires dans le monde subventionnent des groupes écologistes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Areva récite religieusement son Al Goran et tu ne vois vraiment pas pourquoi ? Ni pourquoi d'autres nucléaires dans le monde subventionnent des groupes écologistes ?

Donc, si j'ai bien compris les scientifiques réchauffistes sont en fait corrompus d'une part par Areva et d'aure part par les vilains étâts qui voient une aubaine pour nous prélever plus d'argent à nous, pauvres serfs ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment sait-on que le Pape de l'Église de Climatologie est en perte de vitesse ? Même le Washington Post se fout de sa gueule :

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed

By Dana Milbank

Thursday, January 29, 2009; A03

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle's premonitions. "Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy," he beseeched.

"Geothermal energy," the Goracle prophesied. "This has great potential; it is not very far off."

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. "I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand," the Goracle spoke.

A third asked the legislative future -- and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. "The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it," he said.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. "What does your modeling tell you about how long we're going to be around as a species?" he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. "I don't claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator."

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as "unified national smart grid" the way he once did "no controlling legal authority" -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too."

Humor? From Al Gore? "I benefit from low expectations," he replied.

The Goracle's powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. "We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization," he said. And: "This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced." And: It "could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force."

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be "an almost existential impact" from the climate changes Gore described.

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: "I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong." He ended his question by saying: "I'm not questioning you; I'm questioning myself."

Others sought to buy the Goracle's favor by offering him gifts. "Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don't either understand it or want to understand it," gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: "Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?"

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by "naysayers" who thought it funny that Gore's testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. "The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis," Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as "Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region." At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. "I'm not proselytizing," he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: "This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we're in the front car." Polar ice: "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

The lawmakers joined in. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat," contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. "And if we have the dire circumstances we're facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat."

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a "practical politician," how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. "I am a recovering politician. I'm on about Step 9," the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? "There's a high degree of confidence." The future of automobiles in China and India? "I wouldn't give up on electric vehicles." The potential of solar power in those countries? "I have no question about it at all."

Of course not. He's the Goracle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…2803318_pf.html

"Goracle" C'est bon ça. :icon_up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J'ai pour ma part du mal à comprendre, malgré vos nombreuses explications, les intérêts des lobbys pro-réchauffement.

Le pognon budgeté par les Etats pour la lutte contre le réchauffement et sa promotion est très supérieur à l'ensemble du chiffre d'affaire de l'ensemble des sociétés pétrolière. (j'ai hélas perdu mes sources).

En outre, la quantité de pognon évaluée qui devrait circuler sur le marché du carbone est stratosphérique (évalué à 1000 milliard de dollars). Enron fut un actif promoteur du protocole de Kyoto. Son but était de devenir un leader dans le commerce des droits d'émission du CO2 :icon_up:

Lehman Brothers fut une grande banque du réchauffement climatique :doigt:

Al Gore possède des parts et des actions dans ces sociétés qui vendent fort cher du vent des droits à polluer. En outre il touche 200 000 dollars par heure quand il fait une conférence sur le sujet. Son film lui a rapporté au moins 50 millions de dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le Spectator, ce n'est pas un gang d'agités du bocal:

A cooling ardour

Thursday, 29th January 2009

Since Nobel Prize-winner Al Gore produced his movie An Incomprehensible Untruth Inconvenient Truth predicting the imminent end of the world through frying and drowning caused by man-made global warming, things haven’t exactly gone according to plan. The generally accepted prediction has been that as carbon dioxide levels continue to go through the roof (or should that be the stratosphere) the climate would continue to warm as a result, ice caps would continue to melt (with the North Pole becoming ice-free by 2008), polar bears would become extinct, glaciers would disappear and seas would continue to rise (by 20 feet in the near future, said Gore); and with an unchallengeable scientific consensus that life on earth would gradually succumb to the catastrophic consequences of greed, big oil and the cosmic and diabolical evil of western capitalism.

A whole new industry has grown up of ‘carbon trading’ to reduce those fatal emissions, which threatens to cripple the economies of the west. Global warming protection measures have brought California to the edge of bankruptcy. In Britain, where climate change is now a Cabinet portfolio, climate change policies already account for about 14% of the average domestic electricity bill and 21% of the average business electricity bill, with an expected rise to 55% of the average business electricity bill by 2020; now the aim is to cut carbon emissions by a crippling 80 per cent.

But according to satellite data the earth has cooled -- with 2008 the coldest for ten years; global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago; sea level rise has slowed down by 20 per cent; of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number; in Greenland, said by Gore to be facing an ice Armageddon, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000; and last December, 650 prominent climate scientists were recorded by a US Senate Minority Report dissenting from man-made global warming theory, with more and more prominent scientists joining their ranks virtually every week. Russian scientists, for example, have rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide was responsible for global warming, having discovered that, throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases were the result, not the cause, of global warming.

Two weeks ago the green guru James Hansen, who runs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and has done more than any other person on the planet to create the global warming frenzy with his dire climate warnings -- calling for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity and nature’ by actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer -- warned the then President-elect Obama that he needed to take decisive action in his first administration as soaring carbon emissions threatened to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major weather disruption:

[Hanson] argues that most estimates of sea level rises are too low conservative - thanks to the accelerating ice melt, rises will be far greater than previously thought.

But now the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports that James Hansen’s former supervisor, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Programme at NASA who was responsible for all weather and climate research in the agency from1982 to 1994, has said he thinks man-made global warming theory is anti-scientific bunk:

‘I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,’ Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. ‘I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation… Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress…

Theon declared ‘climate models are useless.’ ‘My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,’ Theon explained. ‘Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,’ he added.

Exactly as some of us have been saying since 1988. Since then, the Great Global Warming Terror – with sceptics even compared to Holocaust deniers – has intimidated many scientists into silence and cost other braver souls their jobs. With the global financial crisis likely to bring the green fantasy of crippling the capitalist world to a crashing halt, it is possible that the greatest scientific scam in history will simply fade away without the charlatans who perpetrated it being brought to book. But their names are on record; and no-one should take seriously what they say about anything at all ever again.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips…ng-ardour.thtml (avec des liens vers de nombreux articles pertinents)

Les phrases que j'ai mises en gras dans le 2e paragraphe disent clairement ce que l'industrie politique y gagne et ce sont des sommes énormes. Dommage qu'un Manpow n'ait pas la capacité de comprendre des phrases aussi simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les docteurs J. Scott Armstrong et Kesten C. Green sont, très certainement, aujourd'hui deux des meilleurs spécialistes en "forecasting". Raison pour laquelle le Sénat américain a fait appel à eux pour savoir ce qu'il fallait penser des prédictions et des modèles cliamtiques. La réponse :

To: Senator James M. Inhofe

From: Drs. J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green

Re: Your Request for an Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases

Statement

Scientific understanding about the Earth’s climate is tentative at best. As a result of uncertainties over what causes climate to change and how and when, there are rival theories and arguments among scientists about how to interpret the evidence.

Rather than join these arguments, we have examined the processes that have been used to analyze the available data in order to derive forecasts of climate over the 21st Century. We have concluded that the forecasting process reported on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis.

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate. Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.

2. Improper peer review process. To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.

3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting. Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock’s (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.

Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long-term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as:

a. causes of climate change,

b. direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change,

c. effects of changing temperatures, and

d. costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets). Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long-term climate predictions.

4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change. Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.

We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes.

5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change. Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.

6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model. We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C.

7. The climate system is stable. To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s data, we started with 1850 and used that year’s average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This “successive updating” continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts. We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.

8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle. One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts.

http://climatebet.files.wordpress.com/2009…nhofe-epa16.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un petit post devastateur de Henk Tennekes sur climate science.

[…]

A weather model deals with the atmosphere. Slow processes in the oceans, the biosphere, and human activities can be ignored or crudely parameterized. This strategy has been very successful. The dominant fraternity in the meteorological modeling community has appropriated this advantage, and made itself the lead community for climate modeling. […]

A climate model, however, has to deal with the entire climate system, which does include the world’s oceans. The oceans constitute a crucial slow component of the climate system. Crucial, because this is where most of the accessible heat in the system is stored. Meteorologists tend to forget that just a few meters of water contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. Also, the oceans are the main source of the water vapor that makes atmospheric dynamics on our planet both interesting and exceedingly complicated. For these and other reasons, an explicit representation of the oceans should be the core of any self-respecting climate model.

However, the observational systems for the oceans are primitive in comparison with their atmospheric counterparts. Satellites that can keep track of what happens below the surface of the ocean have limited spatial and temporalresolution. Also, the scale of synoptic motions in the ocean is much smaller than that of cyclones in the atmosphere, requiring a spatial resolution in numerical models and in the observation network beyond the capabilities of present observational systems and supercomputers. […]

Since heat storage and heat transport in the oceans are crucial to the dynamics of the climate system, yet cannot be properly observed or modeled, one has to admit that claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand. Climate modelers claiming predictive skill decades into the future operate in a fantasy world, where they have to fiddle with the numerous knobs of the parameterizations to produce results that have some semblance of veracity. Firm footing? Forget it!

[…]

From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tu vas mourir.

Gelé.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gelé.

Un, par contre, qui tient avoir chez lui la même tempétature qu'à Hawai, c'est notre bon Obama, qui vient de faire monter le thermostat de la Maison Blanche :

The New York Times reported on Thursday, January 29 that:

“…the capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/30/milloy_obama/

Ben oui, les conseils écologistes, ce sont toujours les autres qui doivent les suivre. Saviez pas ?

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs…2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Et si au lieu de se reposer sur des modèles informatiques dont la fiabilité est ce qu'elle est et nourris de données dont on se demande comment elle sont collectées, on retroussait ses petites manches, on allait sur le terrain, on allait trouver des longues séries de données, on les analysait, et on après analyse, mais après seulement, on offrait une conclusion possible? Mince, je n'y aurais pas pensé.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/flor…ming/#more-5542

Un, par contre, qui tient avoir chez lui la même tempétature qu'à Hawai, c'est notre bon Obama, qui vient de faire monter le thermostat de la Maison Blanche :

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/30/milloy_obama/

Ben oui, les conseils écologistes, ce sont toujours les autres qui doivent les suivre. Saviez pas ?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs…2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

Obama, de Hawaï. Ca fait combien de temps qu'il habite à Chicago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quelle est la part de l'homme dans l'effet de serre ?

Si l'on ne tient pas compte de la vapeur d'eau : 5,53%

Si l'on tient compte de la vapeur d'eau : 0,28%

image270f.gif

Lisez "Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System". Il ne s'agit pas d'un "paper" quelconque ; il s'agit simplement des données officielles sur lesquelles travaille l'équipe d'Obama. C'est-à-dire des données, pas des projections ni des modèles. Des données.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quelle est la part de l'homme dans l'effet de serre ?

Si l'on ne tient pas compte de la vapeur d'eau : 5,53%

Si l'on tient compte de la vapeur d'eau : 0,28%

image270f.gif

Lisez "Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System". Il ne s'agit pas d'un "paper" quelconque ; il s'agit simplement des données officielles sur lesquelles travaille l'équipe d'Obama. C'est-à-dire des données, pas des projections ni des modèles. Des données.

Si c'est des données officielles (sic) c'est super. Ça serait mieux si c'était un résultat publié dans une revue scientifique, etc, etc.. mais bon….

Ceci dit, c'est pas non plus nouveau-nouveau :

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi…ffect/#more-220

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realclimate ? Allons, un peu de sérieux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realclimate, avec comme auteur un modélisateur autoproclamé "climatologue" qui ne sait même pas ce qu'est un réseau COOPS, qui écrit un article sur la vapeur d'eau et qui cite Deltoid, un autre blog d'un informaticien.

Ah oui, c'est du lourd :icon_up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'est bien ce que je dis. Barbapapa tentait sans doute la diversion avec de l'humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais. Le retour de la vengeance :

THEY may shout their green credentials from the rooftops, but some of Britain’s most prominent environmental champions are living in homes that produce up to half a ton of excess carbon dioxide a year.

An audit of properties, measuring heat loss, has revealed that Chris Martin, the pop star, Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, and Sir David Attenborough, the broadcaster, are among those who reside in homes that are “leaking” energy. Some lack even the most basic energy saving measures such as cavity wall insulation and double glazing.

Thermal images of the residences of 10 high-profile green campaigners found that their heat loss was either worse or no better than that found in the average family home.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi…icle5734082.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Va voir un peu les articles sur la qualité des données de température en Russie sur climateaudit.org et sur Watts Up With That et reviens nous voir après.

En substance, quand il n´y a pas de données, on remplit avec des données de périodes précédentes, avec des méthodes très scientifiques qui accidentellement donnent toujours un réchauffement.

Bonne étude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Vilfredo Pareto
      Je crée un sujet pour arrêter de polluer le fil des images pas fun mais cool. Un excellent article de Shellenberger dans Forbes résume un peu le gouffre entre les faits et l'hystérie médiatique : https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong.
      Ce passage est noteworthy :
      Outre ce qu'on sait déjà (ces feux sont pour l'instant dans la moyenne des 15 dernières années, ne sont pas tous criminels (en fait "people forget that there are legitimate reasons for small farmers to use controlled burns to knock back insects and pests." selon Nepstad, cité par Shellenberger), n'ont pas seulement lieu en Amazonie et ne sont pas nécessairement liés à la déforestation, par ailleurs en net recul depuis le début des années 2000), je propose également que nous discutions sur ce fil des causes plausibles de ces feux (la sous-productivité de l'agriculture brésilienne par exemple*) et de leur lien avec la climate variability de l'Amazonie (v. lien frontiersin.org ci-dessous) @Philiber Té je crois que c'est ce dont tu voulais discuter. C'est l'occasion pour chacun de participer à la collecte d'articles au fur et à mesure que la situation évolue (Bolsonaro a envoyé l'armée) et à ceux qui parmi nous sont le plus au fait des débats scientifiques sur le réchauffement de discuter/partager leurs analyses de cet événement précis.
       
      * food for thought : https://www.icv.org.br/novo-campo-program-2/
      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2018.00228/full
      https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching
      et surtout https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1301/htm
    • By FabriceM
      L'Australie fait face à une énorme vague de chaleur.
      La demande en électricité explose, notamment pour faire tourner les climatiseurs.
      Problème, la production ne suit pas et des coupures tournantes sont en place et ont déjà touché 90 000 habitants*.
       
      *1 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-power-crisis-will-there-be-more-blackouts/news-story/82f848efbc42455b9d7c4e1487b04fa5?nk=ea7883841d0b2ba93781d572d98b9fae-1486676862
      *2  http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/02/08/20/12/blackout-leaves-at-least-40000-people-without-power-in-south-australia
       
      A l'origine de tout ça, la dépendance à l'énergie éolienne que s'est infligée le sud de l’Australie. Avec une production réelle égale à 7% de la production nominale, ce "trou" dans la production est, je cite, "au cœur du problème".
×
×
  • Create New...