Obamot wrote:...
According to the "moderate" opponents of the uptrend and who do not refute it, Vincent Courtillot, professor of geophysics has shed some light here >>> that is relevant and which tends to demonstrate that there is no expected cataclysm. While stressing that human activity has an impact. Its opinion is interesting in that it refutes the dominant thesis with arguments themselves too scientific. And it also shows some flexibility that we thought impossible (finally will see ...)
...
In the video linked above is offered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXeRbbM2AjY, at 15:17 pm, Courtillot says: "... we took the minimum, maximum and average temperature of each station [44 European weather stations] every day of the year throughout the twentieth century. Here you see the average of these stations is Europe's climate change ... "and the graph appears (15:29). And the great speaker goes on to general surprise, its curve does not correspond to those of the IPCC, and "there is no climate change in Europe from 1900 to 1985" (15:36) and blah blah.
Have you discovered the first tip? Yes, there, between 15: 17 and 15: 36?
The graph shows the curve of the "temperature minimal daily average "for Europe (not that of the average or that of the temperature maximale, they were probably less well suited to the "demonstration") and Courtillot affirms that it is "the average of these stations, is climate change in Europe [...] there is no climate change in Europe to 1900 1985".
Well done, he did not lie for "average", not specify that it was "minimal", and he quickly and well concludes with two crude false statements that all the audience will record, but not dispute in the immediate future. ! The image is good, the sound is good, the video is recorded, the "message" will come through and be broadcast! What mastery of the media!
Courtillot still confuses his audience a little more, and in passing gives a lesson to physicists (16:33) on the units of physics and the average temperature. What class to dare to address an almost true, but stupid remark in the context of the study of global warming, to scientists with such aplomb (and emotion: "this uncertainty that torments me myself"; 16:54; what an honest man).
Then he goes on the curve of the "temperature minimum average "of the United States which appears at 17:12 (hey, this one is not" daily ", but" moving average over 3 years ", and it is still" minimum "or" minimum "; me j I forgot my statistics lessons a bit, but he, an illustrious member of the Academy of Sciences, knows very well what soap he is giving us).
[Aside: Before proceeding, note that the minimum temperature of a day (including Courtillot the great geophysicist, just show us the average curves) usually occurs (except when a warm front arrives before or after a cold front arrives the sunrise) in the morning just before sunrise, so at a particular time of day. Indeed, a region of the Earth (Europe or the US, for example) will not pick up infrared radiation (heat) when the sun is above the horizon but at the end of the night, it's been hours that this area has not received, making it a very special moment. Without being an expert, I doubt that the curve of the average daily minimum temperature is not the same as that of the average daily temperature, and also differs from the average daily maximum temperature curve, the average daily temperature at sunset sun, etc.
I lost you? Him too!
I would like to compare the minimum, medium and maximum temperature curves of the study Courtillot to verify this intuition, but I bet if I asked him, he did not give me ... End of aside ]
And, in addition to the intermediate neck effects discovered above, Courtillod compares (at 17:33) his curves of "Average daily minimum temperature"with those of the IPCC which are curves of"anomalies in global temperature 1906-2005 (continental-year averages)"(their title appears at 14:39, when presented alone).
Read the paragraph above again. Yes, there are big differences between 1900-1985 "mean daily minimum temperature" curves and 1906-2005 "global temperature anomalies (decadal continental averages)" curves, you read that right!
But at 17: 33, when comparing the titles no longer appear, it's more visual and convenient.
This is the second tip! Courtillod compares apples with bananas, sauerkraut garnished (by him) with Niçoise salad, something that could have been compared with the incomparable. From this improbable comparison he allows himself to conclude that the IPCC curves are "wrong" (17:48), oh, "this curve is not very wrong" (he is magnanimous, is he? And we move on to the singular, in the anger, normal for such an emotional being), "she has a very undervalued uncertainty", etc.
Bravo, well packaged, great master of manipulation which I'll never ankle (in this area).
A moment to talk nonsense (2 31 minutes seconds, but it was prepared) hours to prove that it is false (yes, I was well taken 2 hours)!
I hope you appreciate the effort.