Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
L'impact du CO2, issu de l'activité humaine, semble en fait, relativement faible par rapport aux autres facteurs.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
De plus, 97 articles ont décrit l'affirmation du chiffre de 97% d'accord comme étant merdique.
Ironique non?
https://climatechangedisp[...]?utm_source=pocket_mylist
Ironique non?
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
En ce qui concerne l'étude de Doran et Zimmerman.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Dr. Roger Pielke explique très bien l'arnaque du consensus.
https://friendsofscience.[...]nts/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Plus de 50 pages au total de lecture. La page 13 est particulièrement intéressante à ce sujet néanmoins.
Plus de 50 pages au total de lecture. La page 13 est particulièrement intéressante à ce sujet néanmoins.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
500 milliards de tonnes d'émissions représentant 14 % du total des émissions de CO2 d’origine humaine.
Et malgré cela, en bientôt une décennie, on ne constate point de réchauffement climatique.
Source :
https://www.woodfortrees.[...]om:2016/to:2023/normalise
Et malgré cela, en bientôt une décennie, on ne constate point de réchauffement climatique.
Source :
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
L’hémisphère nord jusqu’en 2010 à partir de procurations (proxys) uniquement.
Source :
https://www.sciencedirect[...]cle/pii/S1125786520300965 sur Science Direct sur le sujet : Prominent role of volcanism in Common Era climate variability and human history ;
publié par : Ulf Büntgen ; Dominique Arseneault ; Étienne Boucher ; Olga V. Churakova (Sidorova); Fabio Gennaretti; Alan Crivellaro; Hughes, Malcolm K; Alexander V. Kirdyanov; Lara Klippel; Paul J. Krusic ; Hans W. Linderholm ; Fredrik C. Ljungqvist ; Josef Ludescher; Michael McCormick; Vladimir S. Myglan; Kurt Nicolussi ; Alma Piermattei; Clive Oppenheimer; Frederick Reinig; Michael Sigl; Jan Esper
Publié en décembre 2020
Il y a utilisation de données proxy.
Et des données proxy qui vont jusqu’aux années 2000 au lieu d’enlever les proxys post 1960 pour cacher certaines réalité dérangeantes et d’y mettre des instrumentaux,
Et donc ce cas précis, on constate que la hausse est inexistante.
Source :
publié par : Ulf Büntgen ; Dominique Arseneault ; Étienne Boucher ; Olga V. Churakova (Sidorova); Fabio Gennaretti; Alan Crivellaro; Hughes, Malcolm K; Alexander V. Kirdyanov; Lara Klippel; Paul J. Krusic ; Hans W. Linderholm ; Fredrik C. Ljungqvist ; Josef Ludescher; Michael McCormick; Vladimir S. Myglan; Kurt Nicolussi ; Alma Piermattei; Clive Oppenheimer; Frederick Reinig; Michael Sigl; Jan Esper
Publié en décembre 2020
Il y a utilisation de données proxy.
Et des données proxy qui vont jusqu’aux années 2000 au lieu d’enlever les proxys post 1960 pour cacher certaines réalité dérangeantes et d’y mettre des instrumentaux,
Et donc ce cas précis, on constate que la hausse est inexistante.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Pour revenir sur le GIEC, regardons du côté d'une fraude, un certain Timothy Osborn,auteur principal du 5ème rapport du GIEC puis rédacteur en chef d’un chapitre du 6ème.
https://web.archive.org/w[...]ia/foia2011/mail/1546.txt
cc: [email protected]
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:16:57 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Recent NH reconstruction
to: Edward Cook <[email protected]>
<x-flowed>
At 12:55 08/04/02, Edward Cook wrote:
>Some quick questions, comments, and a request. First, when you say that
>you recalibrated all of the series shown in your windy perspectives bit,
>what time period did you recalibrate all the series over?
1881-1960.
>Was it the same for all series?
Exceptions (as mentioned in Briffa et al., 2001, JGR paper on our
age-banded reconstructions) are:
(1) because Overpeck et al. provided only 5-yr mean values, the
instrumental data were converted to matching 5-yr means.
(2) because Crowley and Lowery's series had reduced high-frequency
variability (due to their use of some lower-resolution proxies, and the way
they combined these with the higher-resolution ones), the instrumental data
were smoothed with a decadal filter. Plus we omitted the period 1901-1919
from the calibration. Crowley and Lowery omitted a similar (perhaps a bit
longer?) period when they did their calibration. I shortened and moved the
omitted period to 1901-1919 because that seemed better when calibrating
against warm-season temperatures (which is what we put into the 2001 JGR
paper). In our recent Science piece we calibrated against annual
temperatures, but I still left it as omitting 1901-1919 from the Crowley
calibration (because that's what my program does!). Omitting a period
because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to
do. I think Crowley and Lowery make some weak arguments to justify it,
though I'm not convinced by them. But they did omit some data, so we do
the same (with some concern). I'm also a little hesitant about being too
critical, because one might view our use of a calibration period that ends
in 1960 as being a similar thing - we omit the post-1960 period because of
the apparent decline in high-latitude tree-ring density!
Anyway, for both Overpeck et al. and Crowley and Lowery, the calibration is
effectively fitting against the low-frequency trend. There's no need to
express the implications of this, since you covered that already in your
reply to Mann & Hughes.
>Just to be clear here, I thoroughly dislike the pre-1900 instrumental
>data. That pre-1900 warming back to 1860 or so is very suspicious. No
>large-scale pure proxy estimates have ever been able to reproduce it. Only
>the MBH series does because it includes instrumental data.
I have similar concerns, but little expertise to be authoritative in
attributing it to changes in thermometer exposure. It, as you probably
know, is particularly noticeable in the warm season and over land. Given
the location of the, e.g., the density tree-ring network I really feel it
is preferable for us to reconstruct land, warm-season temperatures rather
than going for the entire land & marine, annual NH mean. Yet it choosing a
more optimal and defensible thing to reconstruct, we are penalised by the
early summer warming. Given the apparent density decline, we're being
squeezed from both ends of the record - and 1881-1960 seemed the best
period to choose.
>Thus, recalibrating the proxies using pre-1900 observed data may be
>biasing the results. That is why I did not use the pre-1900 data in my
>calibration. Phil would probably disagree strongly with me here, perhaps
>you and Keith too, but that is my opinion. Also, how did you express all
>series as anomalies from the observed 1961-1990 mean when not all series
>extended out to 1990 (e.g. Briffa1, Mann)?
I haven't checked, but I'd guess that *none* of the calibrated series have
a zero mean over 1961-1990. But their mean over the calibration period
(1881-1960, except for Crowley & Lowery - see above) will be forced by
calibration to match the mean of the instrumental temperatures over the
same period. Since the instrumental temperatures are expressed as deg C
anomalies from the 1961-90 mean, the calibrated reconstructions have the
same units.
>I honestly dislike such short anomaly periods in any case, especially when
>the data are trendy. It unnaturally distorts the visual expression of the
>data (my opinion anyway).
Yes - I've been playing around with calibrating the proxy records against
each other (rather than against instrumental data) over earlier and much
longer periods - it really highlights the similarity of the decadal-century
variability (in many cases due to the common proxy records, of course).
>Finally, can you send me the unfiltered observed land-only data that you used?
File is attached.
Best wishes
Tim
cc: [email protected]
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:16:57 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Recent NH reconstruction
to: Edward Cook <[email protected]>
<x-flowed>
At 12:55 08/04/02, Edward Cook wrote:
>Some quick questions, comments, and a request. First, when you say that
>you recalibrated all of the series shown in your windy perspectives bit,
>what time period did you recalibrate all the series over?
1881-1960.
>Was it the same for all series?
Exceptions (as mentioned in Briffa et al., 2001, JGR paper on our
age-banded reconstructions) are:
(1) because Overpeck et al. provided only 5-yr mean values, the
instrumental data were converted to matching 5-yr means.
(2) because Crowley and Lowery's series had reduced high-frequency
variability (due to their use of some lower-resolution proxies, and the way
they combined these with the higher-resolution ones), the instrumental data
were smoothed with a decadal filter. Plus we omitted the period 1901-1919
from the calibration. Crowley and Lowery omitted a similar (perhaps a bit
longer?) period when they did their calibration. I shortened and moved the
omitted period to 1901-1919 because that seemed better when calibrating
against warm-season temperatures (which is what we put into the 2001 JGR
paper). In our recent Science piece we calibrated against annual
temperatures, but I still left it as omitting 1901-1919 from the Crowley
calibration (because that's what my program does!). Omitting a period
because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to
do. I think Crowley and Lowery make some weak arguments to justify it,
though I'm not convinced by them. But they did omit some data, so we do
the same (with some concern). I'm also a little hesitant about being too
critical, because one might view our use of a calibration period that ends
in 1960 as being a similar thing - we omit the post-1960 period because of
the apparent decline in high-latitude tree-ring density!
Anyway, for both Overpeck et al. and Crowley and Lowery, the calibration is
effectively fitting against the low-frequency trend. There's no need to
express the implications of this, since you covered that already in your
reply to Mann & Hughes.
>Just to be clear here, I thoroughly dislike the pre-1900 instrumental
>data. That pre-1900 warming back to 1860 or so is very suspicious. No
>large-scale pure proxy estimates have ever been able to reproduce it. Only
>the MBH series does because it includes instrumental data.
I have similar concerns, but little expertise to be authoritative in
attributing it to changes in thermometer exposure. It, as you probably
know, is particularly noticeable in the warm season and over land. Given
the location of the, e.g., the density tree-ring network I really feel it
is preferable for us to reconstruct land, warm-season temperatures rather
than going for the entire land & marine, annual NH mean. Yet it choosing a
more optimal and defensible thing to reconstruct, we are penalised by the
early summer warming. Given the apparent density decline, we're being
squeezed from both ends of the record - and 1881-1960 seemed the best
period to choose.
>Thus, recalibrating the proxies using pre-1900 observed data may be
>biasing the results. That is why I did not use the pre-1900 data in my
>calibration. Phil would probably disagree strongly with me here, perhaps
>you and Keith too, but that is my opinion. Also, how did you express all
>series as anomalies from the observed 1961-1990 mean when not all series
>extended out to 1990 (e.g. Briffa1, Mann)?
I haven't checked, but I'd guess that *none* of the calibrated series have
a zero mean over 1961-1990. But their mean over the calibration period
(1881-1960, except for Crowley & Lowery - see above) will be forced by
calibration to match the mean of the instrumental temperatures over the
same period. Since the instrumental temperatures are expressed as deg C
anomalies from the 1961-90 mean, the calibrated reconstructions have the
same units.
>I honestly dislike such short anomaly periods in any case, especially when
>the data are trendy. It unnaturally distorts the visual expression of the
>data (my opinion anyway).
Yes - I've been playing around with calibrating the proxy records against
each other (rather than against instrumental data) over earlier and much
longer periods - it really highlights the similarity of the decadal-century
variability (in many cases due to the common proxy records, of course).
>Finally, can you send me the unfiltered observed land-only data that you used?
File is attached.
Best wishes
Tim
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
David Deming avait dit : i had an interesting experience aroud the time my paper was published in science. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change : He said : We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.
Source :
https://www.ncpathinktank[...]ysteria-on-global-warming
Autres :
https://www.researchgate.[...]rth_Fennoscandian_summers ; publié par : Håkan Grudd
(Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden, PhD) sur le sujet : Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers ;
et sa version pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/Tornetrask_tree-ring_width_and_density_AD_500-2004.pdf
Egalement publié ici : http://www.diva-portal.or[...]va2:189270/FULLTEXT01.pdf
michael mann used my data series but he inserted it upside down : prof andy baker Source :
https://climateaudit.org/[...]e-peerreviewedliterature/
Source :
Autres :
(Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden, PhD) sur le sujet : Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers ;
et sa version pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/Tornetrask_tree-ring_width_and_density_AD_500-2004.pdf
Egalement publié ici : http://www.diva-portal.or[...]va2:189270/FULLTEXT01.pdf
michael mann used my data series but he inserted it upside down : prof andy baker Source :
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Pour revenir sur le GIEC, regardons du côté d'une fraude, un certain Timothy Osborn,auteur principal du 5ème rapport du GIEC puis rédacteur en chef d’un chapitre du 6ème.
https://web.archive.org/w[...]ia/foia2011/mail/1546.txt
cc: [email protected]
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:16:57 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Recent NH reconstruction
to: Edward Cook <[email protected]>
<x-flowed>
At 12:55 08/04/02, Edward Cook wrote:
>Some quick questions, comments, and a request. First, when you say that
>you recalibrated all of the series shown in your windy perspectives bit,
>what time period did you recalibrate all the series over?
1881-1960.
>Was it the same for all series?
Exceptions (as mentioned in Briffa et al., 2001, JGR paper on our
age-banded reconstructions) are:
(1) because Overpeck et al. provided only 5-yr mean values, the
instrumental data were converted to matching 5-yr means.
(2) because Crowley and Lowery's series had reduced high-frequency
variability (due to their use of some lower-resolution proxies, and the way
they combined these with the higher-resolution ones), the instrumental data
were smoothed with a decadal filter. Plus we omitted the period 1901-1919
from the calibration. Crowley and Lowery omitted a similar (perhaps a bit
longer?) period when they did their calibration. I shortened and moved the
omitted period to 1901-1919 because that seemed better when calibrating
against warm-season temperatures (which is what we put into the 2001 JGR
paper). In our recent Science piece we calibrated against annual
temperatures, but I still left it as omitting 1901-1919 from the Crowley
calibration (because that's what my program does!). Omitting a period
because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to
do. I think Crowley and Lowery make some weak arguments to justify it,
though I'm not convinced by them. But they did omit some data, so we do
the same (with some concern). I'm also a little hesitant about being too
critical, because one might view our use of a calibration period that ends
in 1960 as being a similar thing - we omit the post-1960 period because of
the apparent decline in high-latitude tree-ring density!
Anyway, for both Overpeck et al. and Crowley and Lowery, the calibration is
effectively fitting against the low-frequency trend. There's no need to
express the implications of this, since you covered that already in your
reply to Mann & Hughes.
>Just to be clear here, I thoroughly dislike the pre-1900 instrumental
>data. That pre-1900 warming back to 1860 or so is very suspicious. No
>large-scale pure proxy estimates have ever been able to reproduce it. Only
>the MBH series does because it includes instrumental data.
I have similar concerns, but little expertise to be authoritative in
attributing it to changes in thermometer exposure. It, as you probably
know, is particularly noticeable in the warm season and over land. Given
the location of the, e.g., the density tree-ring network I really feel it
is preferable for us to reconstruct land, warm-season temperatures rather
than going for the entire land & marine, annual NH mean. Yet it choosing a
more optimal and defensible thing to reconstruct, we are penalised by the
early summer warming. Given the apparent density decline, we're being
squeezed from both ends of the record - and 1881-1960 seemed the best
period to choose.
>Thus, recalibrating the proxies using pre-1900 observed data may be
>biasing the results. That is why I did not use the pre-1900 data in my
>calibration. Phil would probably disagree strongly with me here, perhaps
>you and Keith too, but that is my opinion. Also, how did you express all
>series as anomalies from the observed 1961-1990 mean when not all series
>extended out to 1990 (e.g. Briffa1, Mann)?
I haven't checked, but I'd guess that *none* of the calibrated series have
a zero mean over 1961-1990. But their mean over the calibration period
(1881-1960, except for Crowley & Lowery - see above) will be forced by
calibration to match the mean of the instrumental temperatures over the
same period. Since the instrumental temperatures are expressed as deg C
anomalies from the 1961-90 mean, the calibrated reconstructions have the
same units.
>I honestly dislike such short anomaly periods in any case, especially when
>the data are trendy. It unnaturally distorts the visual expression of the
>data (my opinion anyway).
Yes - I've been playing around with calibrating the proxy records against
each other (rather than against instrumental data) over earlier and much
longer periods - it really highlights the similarity of the decadal-century
variability (in many cases due to the common proxy records, of course).
>Finally, can you send me the unfiltered observed land-only data that you used?
File is attached.
Best wishes
Tim
cc: [email protected]
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:16:57 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Recent NH reconstruction
to: Edward Cook <[email protected]>
<x-flowed>
At 12:55 08/04/02, Edward Cook wrote:
>Some quick questions, comments, and a request. First, when you say that
>you recalibrated all of the series shown in your windy perspectives bit,
>what time period did you recalibrate all the series over?
1881-1960.
>Was it the same for all series?
Exceptions (as mentioned in Briffa et al., 2001, JGR paper on our
age-banded reconstructions) are:
(1) because Overpeck et al. provided only 5-yr mean values, the
instrumental data were converted to matching 5-yr means.
(2) because Crowley and Lowery's series had reduced high-frequency
variability (due to their use of some lower-resolution proxies, and the way
they combined these with the higher-resolution ones), the instrumental data
were smoothed with a decadal filter. Plus we omitted the period 1901-1919
from the calibration. Crowley and Lowery omitted a similar (perhaps a bit
longer?) period when they did their calibration. I shortened and moved the
omitted period to 1901-1919 because that seemed better when calibrating
against warm-season temperatures (which is what we put into the 2001 JGR
paper). In our recent Science piece we calibrated against annual
temperatures, but I still left it as omitting 1901-1919 from the Crowley
calibration (because that's what my program does!). Omitting a period
because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to
do. I think Crowley and Lowery make some weak arguments to justify it,
though I'm not convinced by them. But they did omit some data, so we do
the same (with some concern). I'm also a little hesitant about being too
critical, because one might view our use of a calibration period that ends
in 1960 as being a similar thing - we omit the post-1960 period because of
the apparent decline in high-latitude tree-ring density!
Anyway, for both Overpeck et al. and Crowley and Lowery, the calibration is
effectively fitting against the low-frequency trend. There's no need to
express the implications of this, since you covered that already in your
reply to Mann & Hughes.
>Just to be clear here, I thoroughly dislike the pre-1900 instrumental
>data. That pre-1900 warming back to 1860 or so is very suspicious. No
>large-scale pure proxy estimates have ever been able to reproduce it. Only
>the MBH series does because it includes instrumental data.
I have similar concerns, but little expertise to be authoritative in
attributing it to changes in thermometer exposure. It, as you probably
know, is particularly noticeable in the warm season and over land. Given
the location of the, e.g., the density tree-ring network I really feel it
is preferable for us to reconstruct land, warm-season temperatures rather
than going for the entire land & marine, annual NH mean. Yet it choosing a
more optimal and defensible thing to reconstruct, we are penalised by the
early summer warming. Given the apparent density decline, we're being
squeezed from both ends of the record - and 1881-1960 seemed the best
period to choose.
>Thus, recalibrating the proxies using pre-1900 observed data may be
>biasing the results. That is why I did not use the pre-1900 data in my
>calibration. Phil would probably disagree strongly with me here, perhaps
>you and Keith too, but that is my opinion. Also, how did you express all
>series as anomalies from the observed 1961-1990 mean when not all series
>extended out to 1990 (e.g. Briffa1, Mann)?
I haven't checked, but I'd guess that *none* of the calibrated series have
a zero mean over 1961-1990. But their mean over the calibration period
(1881-1960, except for Crowley & Lowery - see above) will be forced by
calibration to match the mean of the instrumental temperatures over the
same period. Since the instrumental temperatures are expressed as deg C
anomalies from the 1961-90 mean, the calibrated reconstructions have the
same units.
>I honestly dislike such short anomaly periods in any case, especially when
>the data are trendy. It unnaturally distorts the visual expression of the
>data (my opinion anyway).
Yes - I've been playing around with calibrating the proxy records against
each other (rather than against instrumental data) over earlier and much
longer periods - it really highlights the similarity of the decadal-century
variability (in many cases due to the common proxy records, of course).
>Finally, can you send me the unfiltered observed land-only data that you used?
File is attached.
Best wishes
Tim
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
C'est de la reconstitution de la température moyenne globale pour les 2 derniers millénaires et concernant l’hémisphère Nord. Sources : https://www.researchgate.[...]igh-resolution_proxy_data
et sa version pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/Highly_variable_Northern_Hemisphere_temperatures_r.pdf
également publiée dans la revue nature, et ce en 2005 par Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko & Wibjörn Karlén.
Source :
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03265
et sa version pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/Highly_variable_Northern_Hemisphere_temperatures_r.pdf
également publiée dans la revue nature, et ce en 2005 par Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko & Wibjörn Karlén.
Source :
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Petite rappel utile
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Autre rappel concernant le GIEC.
utiles à la compréhension des changements climatiques d'origine humaine, de leur ses impacts potentiels, et les options d'atténuation et d'adaptation.
C'est ça le mandat du GIEC.
S'ils ne racontaient pas la fable du réchauffement climatique anthropique, ils n'existeraient tout simplement plus. C'est leur seule raison d'exister.
Et il n'y a rien de plus dangereux qu'un organe, un organisme qui joue sa vie.
Car il est prêt à tout pour conserver son existence.
Et le GIEC l'a parfaitement démontré à plusieurs reprises, quitte à trafiquer des études, à mentir ouvertement, à faire des prédictions qui se révèlent fausse, qui se sont révélés pour beaucoup d'entre elles fausses, à tenter de discréditer et de mettre sous le tapis les scientifiques qui contestent leur narratif.
utiles à la compréhension des changements climatiques d'origine humaine, de leur ses impacts potentiels, et les options d'atténuation et d'adaptation.
C'est ça le mandat du GIEC.
S'ils ne racontaient pas la fable du réchauffement climatique anthropique, ils n'existeraient tout simplement plus. C'est leur seule raison d'exister.
Et il n'y a rien de plus dangereux qu'un organe, un organisme qui joue sa vie.
Car il est prêt à tout pour conserver son existence.
Et le GIEC l'a parfaitement démontré à plusieurs reprises, quitte à trafiquer des études, à mentir ouvertement, à faire des prédictions qui se révèlent fausse, qui se sont révélés pour beaucoup d'entre elles fausses, à tenter de discréditer et de mettre sous le tapis les scientifiques qui contestent leur narratif.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
Les plus grands glaciologues :
Il n'y avait pas de glaces ou presque dans les Alpes il y a 6000 ans, alors que les niveaux de CO2 étaient bien inférieurs (~280 ppm) à ceux d’aujourd’hui (~420 ppm).
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
2 géophysiciens ont publié un ouvrage. Ce dernier est consacré au stockage du CO2 (Amundsen et Landro, 2023).
Source : https://www.researchgate.[...]diation_in_the_Atmosphere
Publié dans ResearchGate
sur le sujet : From Arrhenius to CO2 Storage with Physics-based Educational Models for Radiation in the Atmosphere
Publié par Lasse Amundsen et Martin Landro
Sur format pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/CO2Preview.pdf
Source :
Publié dans ResearchGate
sur le sujet : From Arrhenius to CO2 Storage with Physics-based Educational Models for Radiation in the Atmosphere
Publié par Lasse Amundsen et Martin Landro
Sur format pdf : file:///C:/Users/33601/Downloads/CO2Preview.pdf
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
Envoie des publications scientifiques qui prouvent le contraire on t'écoute
50 pages au total.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.
ça impacte la couche d'ozone qui elle a à voir avec le réchauffement bordel c'est du niveau CM2
Partout dans le monde, il fait plus chaud que dans le reste du monde à ce qu'il parait.
Batman sera toujours là pour faire régner la justice sur les topics de onche.