Modélisation prouvée farfelue du rayonnement thermique terrestre.

[JacquesL]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-climate-energy-wrong-hot-global.html

Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming

July 29th, 2011 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

Data from NASA's Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth's atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to "believe."

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing, Spencer and UAHuntsville's Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

"At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

For this experiment, the UAHuntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UAHuntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

Provided by University of Alabama

"Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming." July 29th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-climate-energy-wrong-hot-global.html

Il faut vraiment avoir la foi du charbonnier pour croire que l'on peut modéliser l'évolution climatique globale d'une manière exhaustive incluant tous les phénomènes susceptibles d'intervenir sur plusieurs siècles et avec une probabilité de 90% de surcroit surtout quand on observe que les prévisions saisonnières à trois mois comme celles d'Avril dernier ne valent déjà pas plus qu'un trou de pisse dans la neige !

Si le dessinateur Cham vivait aujourd'hui, il représenterait ces messieurs du GIEC avec de longues robes constellées de symboles, et des chapeaux pointus. Ce seraient des messieurs Carbone, comme il y a eu Mme Soleil

[JacquesL]

Climategate n° 3 : Foya a révélé le mot de passe de l'archive all.7z, contenant 200 000 emails.

Source en anglais :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
Traduction :
http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1202

Le climategate ne montrera rien que ne nous ne sachions déjà, c'est
seulement une preuve supplémentaire des turpitudes de la clique du GIEC.

Cela a l'avantage d'être médiatiquement porteur du fait du moyen dont
l'information transpire.

Pour moi, des procédés de la clique tels que ceux révélés sur l'étude
Marcott et al par mcIntyre sont encore plus probant que les CG1 2 et 3. Mais
c'est beaucoup moins médiatiquement porteur car un peu plus compliqué à
expliquer.

Sur ce genre de sujets, la meilleure source reste toujours climateaudit.org
:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/

G.

A propos d'incohérence
Voilà le graphiques tel qu'il figure dans la thèse de Marcott :

et ce qu'il est advenu dans l'article de Science (pourquoi mets-je un majuscule ?)

Bien entendu ce sont les même données dans les deux graphiques...