1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997,
despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how
could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the
cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of
the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the
temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2
emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the
Mean Global Temperature?
[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and
CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997.
From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate
as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost
negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased
rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we
know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent
increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing,
and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion:
p. 7)
3. The amount of CO2 of
the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total
CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C)
instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)
4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is
about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p.
10)
5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less
sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the
sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after
1950. (discussion: p. 12)
6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the
CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a
spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say
a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or
hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm
and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2
which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)
7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air
has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway
temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a
cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the
time. (discussion: p. 17)
8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the
data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or
subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely
known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been
observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and
at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year.
(discussion: p. 18)
9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is,
according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the
water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and
does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)
10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant
since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere
has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive
water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The
observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion:
p.22)
11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack
has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations.
(discussion: p. 24)
12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is
about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is
about constant. (discussion: p. 25)
13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may
suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a
depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion:
p. 27)
14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of
the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative
imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse
gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)
15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to
gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC
community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)
16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the
surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most
of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat
the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which
prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body.
(discussion: p. 32)
17. The temperatures have always driven the
CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment
of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical
temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)
18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for
Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of
cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the
first and encouraging results have been published in Nature.
(discussion: p. 36)
19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud
coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project
Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of
the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in
relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available
since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then
increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature.
(discussion: p. 37)
20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more
from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and
if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited
and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or
revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove”
attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom.
(discussion: p. 40)
21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction
of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed
since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)
22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization
nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of
the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written
under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of
the non-governmental pressure groups.
