Description

Mrs IRMA – Copy Painting
—
Digital – tmpx – May 14, 2019
Painting – tmpx – December 2019
—
Hahnemühle Fine Art Printing

Themes: societal, propaganda, belief
—
Sizes cm : 74.5 x 60 x 0.3
Sizes inch : 29.13 x 23.62 x 0.12
—
Signed by the author
—

Mrs IRMA – Copy Painting

Neo expressionism artwork tmpx – Mrs IRMA – Copy Painting
Here > The original artwork tmpx

—

Ms. Irma, IPCC scientist.
Seer reading the future in a crystal ball.

IPCC:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

—

Torture the numbers, they will eventually confess

Long sets of climate data have biases.

Biases are systematic errors due to imperfections in the instrumental arrangement and / or the unsuitable conditions in which the evaluation or measurement takes place.

The obsessive search for the anthropogenic signal in climate data leads to an equally formidable bias.

The confirmation bias that prompts you to constantly look for reasons to continue to believe what you already believe.

During a conference given at the Bureau des Longitudes on October 7, 2009.
Pierre Morel, founder of the dynamic meteorology laboratory (CNRS), speaks with humor of how cognitive biases and instrumental biases add up.
“We see a gradual warming which amounts to 0.6 ° C in a century.

But on this 0.6 ° C in a century, there are 0.4 which are corrections made to compensate for the defects of the measuring devices!

The signal is weak.

If there is one, it is noisy, and therefore the observation is extremely attentive if not obsessive.

These diagrams of secular variations of such or such parameter, in particular the temperature is a little bit, dangerous.

There is not enough information to draw conclusions …

The climate is a bit like the Rorschach tests, we find what we are looking for there.

We see there, we find what we want. You just have to want something. We find it.

This article provides some examples of how data is “subject to the question” to make them confess…. The anthropogenic origin of global warming.

Hockey stick-shaped curve

The climate quarrel has long been fixed on hockey stick, a curve supposed to reproduce the variations of the average temperature of the globe for 1000 years.

In the first IPCC report (1990). The graph of the climate of the previous 1100 years (Lamb curve) showed a medieval period which was a little warmer than the present one as well as a colder period which passed between the Renaissance and the middle of the 19th century, called Little Ice Age (PAG).

This curve was established in 1965 and relates only to the temperatures of central England; moreover, it stopped in 1950.

So don’t make her say more than she says.

But it shows that at the time of its 1st report (1990), the IPCC did not exclude that the earth could have known temperatures as hot as those which we know today.

Lamb curve (IPCC 1990)

The existence of a warmer period than the current one, in the absence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, was considered troublesome by those who argued that the current warming could only be explained by human activities.

Mann et al (1998, 1999) used dendrochronological data (records of tree rings) and produced a reconstruction of temperatures in the northern hemisphere which obscured the “medieval optimum” and the “Little Ice Age”.

This curve known as hockey stick showed slight cooling for about a thousand years, resulting in rapid warming beginning in the 19th century.

The Mann curve was highlighted in the following IPCC report (1995) suggesting that the current warming has been unprecedented for 1000 years.

IPCC AR3 Report (1995)

This curve has since been invalidated.
It is interesting to note that the most relevant criticisms of the Mann curve came from statisticians outside the field of climate research. (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005a, b).

The 4th IPCC report mentions a graph showing several curves more or less conforming to the Mann curve.

GIEC  AR4

The claim that the current warming is unprecedented therefore remained.

And if there was no hiatus, after all!

Since 1998 (the year of a particularly intense El Niño episode), the earth has not warmed up, even though greenhouse gases (GHGs) have not ceased to be diffused in the atmosphere.

This temperature plateau is recognized by the IPCC under the name of hiatus because it is an anomaly not foreseen by its models.

Embarrassed by this reality, some scientists put forward various hypotheses to explain the “hiatus”.

The lost heat would be buried in the deep layers of the ocean

For Kevin Trenberth, this “waste heat” (the extra energy introduced into the climate system that does not manifest itself as warming) would be buried in the deep ocean.

In May 2013 Trenberth and 2 co-authors (Balmaseda, and Källén) re-analyzed the climate data for the last 50 years and “showed” that during the last 10 years 30% of ocean warming has occurred below 700 m depth.

Given the incomplete nature of the observation data (the ARGOS tags were only deployed from 2007), this theory required a very sophisticated re-analysis of the data (called “assimilation”) which mixes observation data and model predictions to provide (in principle) a higher quality estimate.

Data homogenization

Homogenization techniques aim to extract the climate signal by eliminating breaks in homogeneity as best as possible (changes in sensors or observation practices, displacement of observation sites or changes in their environment).

There is no doubt about the need to reprocess the data. What is surprising is that the corrections are always in the direction of warming.

Richard Lindzen Professor of Climatology at MIT (and main author of chapter 7 of the 3rd IPCC report) writes on this subject. It is not at all surprising that corrections need to be applied to climate data, but that these corrections always go in the “desired” direction is highly unlikely.

This situation may suggest obvious dishonesty, but it is quite possible that many scientists imagine, in the current scientific context, that the role of science is to confirm the greenhouse effect paradigm for climate change Examples in France and the United States.

To conclude

let us quote the oceanographer Carl Wunsch who in an article entitled: “Climate change as an intergenerational problem” published in March 2013 in PNAS wrote:

Few scientists would claim to be able to understand even the most trivial physical phenomenon without having observed its evolution on the necessary time scales …

… The climate system changes at all time scales (from a few years to the age of the earth), even though we only have brief and recent observation data.

• Let’s remember that :
  • The thermometer was not invented until the early 17th century
  • Satellite temperature readings began in 1979
  • Rise in sea level has only been monitored by satellite since 1992
  • The full deployment of ARGOS beacons (allowing an analysis of the temperature and salinity of water from 0 to 200 meters) was not completed until 2007
  • The mass balances of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers did not begin until the early 21st century.

Carl Wunsch to conclude:

Understanding climate change is a problem for several generations.

Scientists today should take into account the needs of future generations, rather than just focusing on their immediate scientific productivity.

Texte Climato-Réalistes