Réchauffement climatique

[Bisounours]

Some like it

[pankkake]

Non.

Pour votre libéralité, tuez au moins deux animaux par jour.

[jamkan]

Pour votre libéralité, tuez au moins deux animaux par jour.

J'essaye, c'est dur. J'essaye de choper des pigeons et des mouettes autour de chez moi, sans succès ... Sérieusement les grosses mouettes je suis sûr que c'est bon.

[José]

J'essaye, c'est dur.

 

Pfff... tuer deux chats par jour, c'est quand même pas si compliqué.

[pankkake]

Pfff... tuer deux chats par jour, c'est quand même pas si compliqué.

[jamkan]

Pfff... tuer deux chats par jour, c'est quand même pas si compliqué.

 

 

 

Pfff... tuer deux chats par jour, c'est quand même pas si compliqué.

 

 

Du coup on sait ce que Lucilio est en train de faire ...

[José]

Du coup on sait ce que Lucilio est en train de faire ...

 

Ben... si je dois me torcher ton boulot...

[Nirvana]

Report: Global temps are the highest they’ve been in 4,000 years

 

Robert T. Gonzalez

 

It's global warming, stupid. And how. In an extensive study published in today's issue of Science, researchers report that today's global temperatures are warmer than any point in at least the last 4,000 years, and show no signs of declining: analyses of weather patterns since the end of the last Ice Age presage that the coming century will see Earth's average surface temperatures soar to intensities greater than any point in human history.

The study, led by Oregon State University paleoclimatologist Shaun Marcott, provides us with the most detailed climate reconstruction ever produced for the last 11,300 years, and accounts for all but a sliver of the modern geological era. That era, called the Holocene, kicked off roughly 12,000 years ago, and has been witness to a host of monumental global changes, including the rise of human civilization around 8,000 years ago. Point being: this reconstruction is absolutely unprecedented in scope. Previous studies have rarely examined beyond the last 2,000 years of Earth's climatic history. Marcott and his colleagues have pushed back our knowledge of global climate by thousands and thousands of years.

Climate data can be derived from many sources — ice cores, cave formations, coral reefs, even the shells of marine organisms — but all of them carry chemical and physical signatures that provide researchers with a reliable record of the planet's past climate. Marcott and his team worked by combining climate record data from around the globe into one vast stockpile of information. The patterns that emerged were extremely telling of a modern spike in global temperatures.

Worldwide temperatures are higher today than at any point in the last 4,000 years, and warmer than about three quarters of anything we've seen in the last 11,000. The study reports that, on the heels of the last Ice Age, global temperatures rose gradually until around the middle of the Holocene, at which point a cooling trend (also gradual) dominated the planet for roughly five millenia. But that all ended around two-hundred years ago. Ever since, temperatures have risen. Steadily at first, then rapidly over the course of the last century or so.

Climate scientists have been communicating the last century's global temperature spike with variations of the so-called "hockey stick" graph for around a decade now (imagine a line graph, fluctuating gradually over the course of many years, only to rise sharply in the shape of a hockey stick's blade — see below). The results of Marcott's team corroborate the shape of the hockey stick, while placing it in a much more extensive historical context. In doing so, they've demonstrated that the warming we're curently experiencing is, in fact, unique — and over an even longer period that previously believed. [below: Comparison of several different methods and reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies, via Marcott et al.. Notice a pattern? Spoiler: it's the vertical spike at the right hand side of each graph.]

That context demonstrates two things pretty unambiguously. One: it shows that there are, in fact, points in the Holocene when humans endured temperatures warmer than they are today; taking the flipside of the 75% statistic cited earlier, roughly 25% of the last 11,300 years (all of them earlier than 4,000 years ago) have been warmer than they are today.

Two: By the end of the century, that will no longer be the case. If the planet continues to warm in the fashion that Marcott's team's data suggests, surface temperatures will almost certainly surpass any and all record-highs from the last 11,300 years. "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios," write the researchers. Translation: even if our planet's temperature increases wind up being on the low end of estimates, Marcott and his colleagues say the planet will be at least as warm as the Holocene's absolute toastiest periods. (In an interview with the NYT, climate expert Michael E. Mann, who was not involved in the research, said Marcott's team "made conservative data choices in [its] analysis.")

The models presented by Marcott's team suggest that, in the absence of human-induced climate change, the Northern Hemisphere would likely freeze over in a few thousand years. But he and other climatologists believe that humanity's continued impact on global temperatures will almost surely prevent that from happening.

As for the temperature increases projected to occur in the coming centuries, it's important to note that as we approach, and exceed, climate records set all the way back at the beginning of the Holocene, the temperatures themselves are not nearly as problematic as the rate at which we are reaching them — a point aptly summarized by Mann in his interview with the Times:

"We and other living things can adapt to slower changes," he said. "It's the unprecedented speed with which we're changing the climate that is so worrisome."

The researchers' findings are published in today's issue of Science.

http://io9.com/5989440/report-global-temps-are-the-highest-theyve-been-in-4000-years

[Nick de Cusa]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/marcott-et-al-claim-of-unprecedented-warming-compared-to-gisp-ice-core-data/

[Nick de Cusa]

Confirmation de l'évoution récente du climat malgré la hausse du CO2.

 

http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/03/08/117448-changement-climatique-linvisible-rechauffement

[Nick de Cusa]

Rhô, vous avez vu ce fil de réactions ?

 

http://www.leparisien.fr/reactions/economie/votre-argent/le-bonus-malus-energie-vote-mais-12-03-2013-2634937.php

[free jazz]

En contrepoint, une nouvelle étude publiée dans la prestigieuse revue Science montre un réchauffement climatique inédit depuis 11300 ans.

 

Selon Slate, la récente vague de froid à l'approche du printemps peut aussi s'expliquer par le réchauffement climatique des pôles : http://www.slate.fr/life/69375/comment-il-peut-neiger-en-mars-quand-le-climat-se-rechauffe

 

Voilà qui ressemble quand-même à une théorie ad hoc : météo et climat coïncident à sens unique.

[h16]

En contrepoint, une nouvelle étude publiée dans la prestigieuse revue Science montre un réchauffement climatique inédit depuis 11300 ans.

 

Heu. En gros, ils disent que les années actuelles sont plus chaudes que 80% des 11300 dernières années. Ca en laisse tout de même 2000 plus chaudes que les années courantes.

C'est de la grosse blague, hein.

 

D'ailleurs : http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/03/12/117919-les-bouffees-de-chaleur-du-rechauffement-climatique

[Tremendo]

 

Selon Slate, la récente vague de froid à l'approche du printemps peut aussi s'expliquer par le réchauffement climatique des pôles : http://www.slate.fr/life/69375/comment-il-peut-neiger-en-mars-quand-le-climat-se-rechauffe

 

Voilà qui ressemble quand-même à une théorie ad hoc : météo et climat coïncident à sens unique.

Quand il fait froid c'est le réchauffement climatique, quand il fait chaud c'est aussi le réchauffement climatique, on connait la théorie.

 

 

[Nick de Cusa]

Quand il fait sec c'est le réchauffement climatique quant il fait humide c'est le réchauffement climatique.

[Nihiliste frustré]

Il doit y avoir environs autant de gens affectionnant l'incontôlé que le mauvais temps, le froid ou la chaleur. Le dérèglement climatique a de beaux jours devant lui, quand bien même les scientifiques deviendraient unanimes quant à l'inanité de ce concept... multimillénaire.

[Gidmoz]

Le réchauffement des océans, s'il existe, est-il un argument valable en faveur de l'existence d'un réchauffement climatique?

[Nick de Cusa]

Le héros qui a osé dénoncer le climategate a enfin rendu publique la clé.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/

[Nick de Cusa]

At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
> >Ed,
> >
> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick
> >reconstruction
> >of northern hemisphere temperatures. I am very intrigued to learn about
> >this – are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period
> >may
> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?
> >
> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >Thomas J. Crowley
> >Dept. of Oceanography
> >Texas A&M University
> >College Station, TX 77843-3146

[/Quote]

[Noob]

?? J'ai essayer de lire le lien au-dessus et j'ai l'impression que si on ne connait pas l'histoire depuis le début c'est absolument incompréhensible.

 

[Nick de Cusa]

Quand je pense qu'il y a des crétins qui sont contre le CO2.

 

 

Et des idiots. Et des ignorants. Et des salauds. Et de la racaille pastèque. Et NKM qui brigue la mairie de Paris, puisse-t-elle perdre.

 

Avec tout le respect que je dois à tout le monde

[Gidmoz]

est-il exact que la couche supérieure des océans se réchauffe? et sur quelle épaisseur?

[Nick de Cusa]

Si la question t'intéresse, lis.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=ocean+heat+content

 

http://www.google.fr/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:climateaudit.org+ocean+heat+content&oq=site:climateaudit.org+ocean+heat+content&gs_l=hp.12...1214.10502.0.12881.40.40.0.0.0.0.155.3421.32j8.40.0...0.0...1c.1.6.psy-ab.NCARJ-Bxiuk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.d2k&fp=958df7a6db40e59e&biw=1280&bih=699

[Nick de Cusa]

C'est quand même génial climategate 3.0.

Un Ed qui explique que bon, oui, il y a bien eu un optimum médiéval, Mann qui lui dit, attends un peu, je fais circuler ça, une réponse qui dit "Ed, une rumeur court que tu fais des recherches visant à invalider le hockey stick", et lui qui répond, oh mais non, faut pas prendre ça comme ça.

[Nick de Cusa]

Le Trésor américain prend ses instructions de la BM et du FMI sur comment faire passer une taxe carbone auprès du public.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/22/foia-and-the-coming-us-carbon-tax-via-the-us-treasury/

[Antoninov]

Le Trésor américain prend ses instructions de la BM et du FMI sur comment faire passer une taxe carbone auprès du public.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/22/foia-and-the-coming-us-carbon-tax-via-the-us-treasury/

 

Et même de l'Iran d'après l'article!

[h16]

Tiens, spéciale cacedédi à Nick de Cusa : un petit Matt Ridley pour bien commencer la journée.

 

La planète devient plus verte et pas malgré l'humanité, mais *grâce* à elle ! http://h16free.com/2013/03/26/21887-la-planete-devient-plus-verte

[Elphyr]

Faudrait placarder cet article dans tous les forums ecolol français.

[Nick de Cusa]

Hum.

Là c'est the Economist qui commence doucement à se préparer à retourner sa veste ...

 

...

 

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

...

[/Quote]

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

[Nick de Cusa]

Le ton de l'article est, on ne change pas encore d'avis, mais on couvre notre cul au cas où :

 

...

Lastly, there is some evidence that the natural (ie, non-man-made) variability of temperatures may be somewhat greater than the IPCC has thought. A recent paper by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests that “the anthropogenic global-warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century.” It is possible, therefore, that both the rise in temperatures in the 1990s and the flattening in the 2000s have been caused in part by natural variability.

...

[/Quote]

 

Tout de même ...