J'ai survolé Davis 2025 qui arrive aux mêmes conclusions comme tant d'autres.
Mais je ne comprends pas son avertissement catastrophe concernant l'acidification des océans par CO2 anthropique .Faut-il en tout cas diaboliser le CO2 pour pouvoir publier ?
Point de vues plus subtil: Wei et al., 2021, Wei et al., 2015, North et al., 2014, Kelley, 2017, Helo et al., 2011, Cardenas et al., 2020, Terlouw et al., 2019, McElhany (2017) ),Caldeira et Wickett,2005:"En réalité, le pH des océans ne devrait jamais descendre en dessous de 7,0 ; autrement dit, les océans deviennent moins basiques, mais pas acides. Un tel phénomène ne pourrait se produire que dans l’hypothèse peu probable où les émissions de CO₂ dépasseraient 10 000 Pg C")
Je croyais que les océans dégagent du CO2 en se réchauffant. Dans ce contexte artificialiser et diminuer la couverture forestière, qui peuvent équilibrer le cycle CO2 O2, est la pire stratégie. L'exploitation minière nécessaire aux énergies "vertes", et leur besoin exponentiel d'espace le contraire du but recherché d'absorption de CO2. La capture de CO2 en le stockant absurde car empêchant la libération de O2
Then, the IPCC alarmist groups claim it must be manmade CO2 because models can't match without it and we don't know what else it can be. Well here's another one that proves it can be done. Its a Clouds and oceans model, but not a forecast model - simply one that can explain the past warming without engaging positive feedback loop implification mechanisms or high CO2 ECS factors.
Ned is a clown who confuses dynamic with static processes. According to him the atmospheric pressure should have been much higher during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum than it is now, and yet he provides no evidence that's true.
I challenged him to pump a tire with a bicycle pump and see how long the valve stays warm after he stops pumping, and he blocked me.
Que pensez vous de l'étude de Jaworowsky du polar institue
Jaworowski Z., Segalstad T.V., Hisdal V. (1992). Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review. 2nd edition. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitut.
Etonnant que déja à ce moment la de sérieuses doutes existaient sur les causes et la pertinence d'un réchauffement, sur les valeurs fiables de taux de co2 atmosphériques préindustrielles.
Jaworowski et al. démontrent une variation de CO2 dans les carottes de glace bien plus importante que celle estimée par le GIEC. Ce dernier a retenu un niveau minimal, ce qui laisse entendre que le niveau actuel de CO2 est « sans précédent ». Or, il est clair que la température évolue en premier, et que le CO2 suit ensuite.
There’s so much bullshit in this article I couldn’t even get past the first page. Please feel free to ask me to clarify. Unlike the author, I’m open to having a discussion about what I’ve found.
"The 50% increase in vegetation productivity since 1900 can be attributed to higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and a longer growing season. "
Wait. What? You mean there's less CO2 because there's more CO2? Where did this "longer growing season" emerge from? Are plants not supposed to be ABSORBING it, and not releasing it?
The author of that reference also fails to account for the fact that outgassing is offset by higher partial pressure. With a 50% increase in the P(CO2) there should be an INCREASE in CO2(aq).
I notice the paper failed to pass peer review. Did they even try, or did they know they would get turfed after submitting the abstract?
"In a new paper, Veyres et al.6 suggest that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are only 5.5% of total CO₂ i.e. only 24 out of 430 ppm."
The carbon cycle is taught in grade nine, and even earlier in some places.
It's sad that "Veyres et al" missed the lesson on that one. By their calculation, given that the 3% is "extra", it would imply that the concentration of CO2 will double in about 14 years. Given the feedback from that much more CO2, the author admits that the average global temperature will increase by about 4 degrees C in a little more than a decade.
Wildfire fighting is becoming more difficult. Deniers don't care.
<<Earlier research on how fire weather patterns have changed, and the consequent effects on firefighting, focused on specific regions or countries. The new study focuses on global patterns.
Dr. Yin and his collaborators used weather data from 1979 to 2024 and computer modeling to assess how many days per year different regions of the world had severe fire weather, when and where it overlapped, and what factors were responsible.
Overall, the number of days per year with extreme fire weather increased over the study period. South America saw the biggest increase in the number of severe fire weather days per decade, at about 17 days. The Middle East, North Africa and Central Africa also saw double-digit gains per decade.
Additionally, more regions were seeing severe fire weather simultaneously. Northern boreal regions have the highest number of days of severe fire weather that overlap with similar conditions in other regions. South America and Africa were the two areas with the biggest increases in simultaneous days of severe fire weather. And overall, North America, Europe, the Middle East and South America all saw big increases in the number of days with severe fire weather overlap, averaging 15 days of overlap per year.
The researchers attributed most of the patterns to human-caused climate change.>>
Our author likes the IPCC AR's, but doesn't like the most recent one, since it proves he's lying about "the hiatus". However, since he's a fan of the IPCC, perhaps he likes this quote...
<<According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Sixth Assessment Report released in 2021, the human-caused rise in greenhouse gases has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. NASA’s satellite missions, including the upcoming Earth System Observatory, provide vital data for monitoring and responding to extreme weather events.>>
Facts that the author and his minions don't want to admit...
<<What’s causing sea level to rise?
Global warming is causing global mean sea level to rise in two ways. First, glaciers and ice sheets worldwide are melting and adding water to the ocean. Second, the volume of the ocean is expanding as the water warms. A third, much smaller contributor to sea level rise is a decline in the amount of liquid water on land—aquifers, lakes and reservoirs, rivers, soil moisture. This shift of liquid water from land to ocean is largely due to people depleting ground water.>>
The author and his minions seem to ignore basic realities about the climate change people are causing with their fossil fuel emissions...
<<The latest data confirms what we've long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread and destructive around the globe.
Using data from researchers at the University of Maryland, recently updated to cover the years 2001-2024, we calculated that forest fires now burn more than twice as much tree cover each year as they did two decades ago.>>
The author's opening paragraphs claimed there was a hiatus. There wasn't. Once that was pointed out to him he got angry, rather than explain why he continued to make that obviously false claim.
Anything this author says is not to be trusted. He spreads disinformation.
"the atmosphere should supply over twice as much radiant energy is nonsense. "
Nobody who knows what they're talking about says that the atmosphere "supplies" anything.
You're a classic example of how to tell us you don't know what you're talking about without actually admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps climatology is beyond what even a retired metallurgist ca grasp as a part time retirement vocation.
Merci pour cette compilation très éclairante.
J'ai survolé Davis 2025 qui arrive aux mêmes conclusions comme tant d'autres.
Mais je ne comprends pas son avertissement catastrophe concernant l'acidification des océans par CO2 anthropique .Faut-il en tout cas diaboliser le CO2 pour pouvoir publier ?
Point de vues plus subtil: Wei et al., 2021, Wei et al., 2015, North et al., 2014, Kelley, 2017, Helo et al., 2011, Cardenas et al., 2020, Terlouw et al., 2019, McElhany (2017) ),Caldeira et Wickett,2005:"En réalité, le pH des océans ne devrait jamais descendre en dessous de 7,0 ; autrement dit, les océans deviennent moins basiques, mais pas acides. Un tel phénomène ne pourrait se produire que dans l’hypothèse peu probable où les émissions de CO₂ dépasseraient 10 000 Pg C")
Je croyais que les océans dégagent du CO2 en se réchauffant. Dans ce contexte artificialiser et diminuer la couverture forestière, qui peuvent équilibrer le cycle CO2 O2, est la pire stratégie. L'exploitation minière nécessaire aux énergies "vertes", et leur besoin exponentiel d'espace le contraire du but recherché d'absorption de CO2. La capture de CO2 en le stockant absurde car empêchant la libération de O2
Merci pour ces informations complémentaires. Je partage votre avis sur Davies.
“ La capture de CO2 en le stockant absurde car empêchant la libération de O2”
Bow?
You realize that "acidification" means a drop in pH, do you not?
Yes
Notice there are quite a few questions you seem reluctant to answer.
Oh. Are you also Mamadan?
?????
So you’re not tracking the thread
I really do wonder about you, dude.
Thank you so much for this excellent and very clear article.
It is always important to return to the basics, in this case the calculation of uncertainties.
A friend recommended your site to me and I'm very grateful.
I'll spread the word about you.
Nokolov isn't the only one that has issues with the premise that gives rise to the 33GHGE.
Equilibrium thermodynamics clearly show that Earth’s atmosphere would be isothermal at equilibrium with or without GHG's.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/complex-systems/articles/10.3389/fcpxs.2025.1617092/full
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/author/phzoe/
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/
These results are about 20 times lower than IPCC predictions.
https://silo.tips/download/a-theoretical-analysis-of-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere
This one precludes detection of CO2's role in DWLWR.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-2877-2025
Then, the IPCC alarmist groups claim it must be manmade CO2 because models can't match without it and we don't know what else it can be. Well here's another one that proves it can be done. Its a Clouds and oceans model, but not a forecast model - simply one that can explain the past warming without engaging positive feedback loop implification mechanisms or high CO2 ECS factors.
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulburgess3/p/explaining-every-temperature-change?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=17bedn
Thanks for referring to Burgess (last link) with same conclusion as Nikolov & Zeller.
Ned is a clown who confuses dynamic with static processes. According to him the atmospheric pressure should have been much higher during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum than it is now, and yet he provides no evidence that's true.
I challenged him to pump a tire with a bicycle pump and see how long the valve stays warm after he stops pumping, and he blocked me.
No wonder Ned blocked you when you come up with a completely irrelevant example as pumping up a tyre.
You tell me what’s wrong with it then. I tired a number of things and he couldn’t even answer that one.
Anyway, I’d love to see you try to explain WTF exactly he’s trying to say.
Que pensez vous de l'étude de Jaworowsky du polar institue
Jaworowski Z., Segalstad T.V., Hisdal V. (1992). Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review. 2nd edition. Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitut.
Etonnant que déja à ce moment la de sérieuses doutes existaient sur les causes et la pertinence d'un réchauffement, sur les valeurs fiables de taux de co2 atmosphériques préindustrielles.
Jaworowski et al. démontrent une variation de CO2 dans les carottes de glace bien plus importante que celle estimée par le GIEC. Ce dernier a retenu un niveau minimal, ce qui laisse entendre que le niveau actuel de CO2 est « sans précédent ». Or, il est clair que la température évolue en premier, et que le CO2 suit ensuite.
Thanks for the link to Jaworowski et al. Very interesting!
Current Arctic sea ice extent is lower than any year since 1981…
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
There’s so much bullshit in this article I couldn’t even get past the first page. Please feel free to ask me to clarify. Unlike the author, I’m open to having a discussion about what I’ve found.
"The 50% increase in vegetation productivity since 1900 can be attributed to higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and a longer growing season. "
Wait. What? You mean there's less CO2 because there's more CO2? Where did this "longer growing season" emerge from? Are plants not supposed to be ABSORBING it, and not releasing it?
The author of that reference also fails to account for the fact that outgassing is offset by higher partial pressure. With a 50% increase in the P(CO2) there should be an INCREASE in CO2(aq).
I notice the paper failed to pass peer review. Did they even try, or did they know they would get turfed after submitting the abstract?
"In a new paper, Veyres et al.6 suggest that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are only 5.5% of total CO₂ i.e. only 24 out of 430 ppm."
The carbon cycle is taught in grade nine, and even earlier in some places.
It's sad that "Veyres et al" missed the lesson on that one. By their calculation, given that the 3% is "extra", it would imply that the concentration of CO2 will double in about 14 years. Given the feedback from that much more CO2, the author admits that the average global temperature will increase by about 4 degrees C in a little more than a decade.
Wildfire fighting is becoming more difficult. Deniers don't care.
<<Earlier research on how fire weather patterns have changed, and the consequent effects on firefighting, focused on specific regions or countries. The new study focuses on global patterns.
Dr. Yin and his collaborators used weather data from 1979 to 2024 and computer modeling to assess how many days per year different regions of the world had severe fire weather, when and where it overlapped, and what factors were responsible.
Overall, the number of days per year with extreme fire weather increased over the study period. South America saw the biggest increase in the number of severe fire weather days per decade, at about 17 days. The Middle East, North Africa and Central Africa also saw double-digit gains per decade.
Additionally, more regions were seeing severe fire weather simultaneously. Northern boreal regions have the highest number of days of severe fire weather that overlap with similar conditions in other regions. South America and Africa were the two areas with the biggest increases in simultaneous days of severe fire weather. And overall, North America, Europe, the Middle East and South America all saw big increases in the number of days with severe fire weather overlap, averaging 15 days of overlap per year.
The researchers attributed most of the patterns to human-caused climate change.>>
Our author likes the IPCC AR's, but doesn't like the most recent one, since it proves he's lying about "the hiatus". However, since he's a fan of the IPCC, perhaps he likes this quote...
<<According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Sixth Assessment Report released in 2021, the human-caused rise in greenhouse gases has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. NASA’s satellite missions, including the upcoming Earth System Observatory, provide vital data for monitoring and responding to extreme weather events.>>
Facts that the author and his minions don't want to admit...
<<What’s causing sea level to rise?
Global warming is causing global mean sea level to rise in two ways. First, glaciers and ice sheets worldwide are melting and adding water to the ocean. Second, the volume of the ocean is expanding as the water warms. A third, much smaller contributor to sea level rise is a decline in the amount of liquid water on land—aquifers, lakes and reservoirs, rivers, soil moisture. This shift of liquid water from land to ocean is largely due to people depleting ground water.>>
The author and his minions seem to ignore basic realities about the climate change people are causing with their fossil fuel emissions...
<<The latest data confirms what we've long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread and destructive around the globe.
Using data from researchers at the University of Maryland, recently updated to cover the years 2001-2024, we calculated that forest fires now burn more than twice as much tree cover each year as they did two decades ago.>>
The author's opening paragraphs claimed there was a hiatus. There wasn't. Once that was pointed out to him he got angry, rather than explain why he continued to make that obviously false claim.
Anything this author says is not to be trusted. He spreads disinformation.
Denying science is a bad look.
"the atmosphere should supply over twice as much radiant energy is nonsense. "
Nobody who knows what they're talking about says that the atmosphere "supplies" anything.
You're a classic example of how to tell us you don't know what you're talking about without actually admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps climatology is beyond what even a retired metallurgist ca grasp as a part time retirement vocation.
"Measurements that are less than the accuracy of the measuring instrument are not reliable."
Not when you're using the measurements to show trends.