Flux continu

Cet organisme chargé de synthétiser les connaissances scientifiques sur le réchauffement climatique est mal connu, et donc critiqué.

Employés par le géant pétrolier Saudi Aramco, des institutions et des entreprises saoudiennes, 11 auteurs du prochain rapport du groupe d’experts sur le climat sont en situation de conflits d’intérêts impliquant Riyad. Ces cas révélés par l’Humanité et ses partenaires, dont le quotidien britannique The Guardian, illustrent l’infiltration profonde des intérêts du royaume wahhabite au sein de l’organisation intergouvernementale. Au risque de ternir son intégrité scientifique.

Guardian investigation reveals fossil fuel links of IPCC authors, with experts declaring the body’s conflict of interest policy ‘not fit for purpose’

Un État ou une entreprise peuvent-ils influencer le GIEC ? En théorie, c’est impossible, et pourtant. 11 chercheurs liés à l’Arabie saoudite figurent parmi les auteurs du prochain rapport de l’institution internationale, chargée de faire état des connaissances scientifiques sur le réchauffement climatique. Une enquête menée par l’Humanité, en partenariat avec le Guardian et quatre autres médias européens, révèle ces cas de conflits d’intérêts au sein de l’un des trois groupes de travail du GIEC.

Emerging climate extremes should draw public attention to human-caused climate change. We expect unusual sea surface temperature (SST) and global warming the rest of this year to make 2026 hotter than 2024, despite 2024 being a peak El Nino year, while 2026 is only the lead-in year of an emerging El Nino. Beware the “surprise” record high being blamed on an extreme El Nino on top of global warming otherwise consistent with IPCC estimates. Instead, record warmth provides additional evidence of high climate sensitivity and increased net climate forcing in the past decade. These two factors are driving an unusual increase in global SSTs with major consequences. If you bear with our discussion to the end, you will find some possible good news. Figures in this post are continually updated on our website.[2] We are now on Substack[3].

Current energy projections often envision an expansion of nuclear capacities to decarbonize future energy systems. However, this contrasts with the historic and current status of the nuclear industry, marked by techno-economic challenges for both light-water and non-light-water reactor technologies. Regardless, projections of strong nuclear growth have persisted since the 1970s. This paper investigates the “nuclear energy paradox” which shows the recurring divergence between historical projections and actual developments. A data compilation of long-term energy projections from international organizations such as the IAEA and the IEA as well as energy system models like GCAM and MESSAGE, as used in the IPCC, reveal a recurring pattern of high-growth projections for nuclear power. Such projections often rest on techno-economic assumptions such as substantial cost reductions. We propose the concept of nuclear imaginaries to show that these assumptions are embedded into techno-economic visions of nuclear power de

The growth rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing increased rapidly in the last 15 years to about 0.5 W/m2 per decade, as shown by the “colorful chart” for GHG climate forcing that we have been publishing for 25 years (Fig. 1).[1] The chart is not in IPCC reports, perhaps because it reveals inconvenient facts. Although growth of GHG climate forcing declined rapidly after the 1987 Montreal Protocol, other opportunities to decrease climate forcing were missed. If policymakers do not appreciate the significance of present data on changing climate forcings, we scientists must share the blame.

22 of the planet’s 34 vital signs are at record levels, with many of them continuing to trend sharply in the wrong direction. This is the message of the sixth issue of the annual “State of the climate” report. The report was prepared by an international coalition with contribution from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and led by Oregon State University scientists. Published today in BioScience, it cites global data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in proposing “high-impact” strategies.

– how climate scientists and the IPCC still won’t tell the truth about accelerating climate change.

Une bonne politique climatique repose sur une bonne science climatique. Et une bonne science climatique repose sur le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC*) depuis sa création par les gouvernements en 1988. Le GIEC est composé de dizaines de milliers de scientifiques issus de dizaines de pays, qui couvrent les multiples facettes du « pourquoi » et du « comment » du changement climatique. Il établit une ligne consensuelle dans des rapports (*) volumineux publiés tous les cinq ou six ans. Il a si bien rempli cette mission qu’il a reçu en 2007 le prix Nobel de la paix aux côtés de l’ancien vice-président Al Gore.