Get out of the idolatry of nature and the contempt of humanity

[Christophe]

Correlation is not proof of cause and effect.

Blabla... did you suck a zyzy this morning?

CO2 was much more important in the past of the earth, before the man appeared on earth.

Yes, before the biosphere concentrated it and buried it in the form of fossil fuels...

Anything else DC?

[Exnihiloest]

...
Blabla... did you suck a zyzy this morning?

Vulgarity of redneck who finds himself like a round of flan facing a rational argument.

CO2 was much more important in the past of the earth, before the man appeared on earth.

Yes, before the biosphere concentrated it and buried it in the form of fossil fuels...
...

And yes. There are cycles. Nature made man, man uses fossil fuels. CO2, it goes, it comes. The "climate deregulation", what a joke! Nothing has ever been "settled" in the past of the earth.

[Obamot]

You show yourself foul wherever you can Ex-nuhulard-Mengele:
health-pollution-prevention/cleft-lip-palate-lip-lip-t17205.html#p501419

But do you at least understand that people read you and realize how infected you are?

And why would you want to extricate humans from nature when they are part of it?

[Christophe]

And yes. There are cycles. Nature made man, man uses fossil fuels. CO2, it goes, it comes. The "climate deregulation", what a joke! Nothing has ever been "settled" in the past of the earth.

And?

What was the Earth's average temperature at those times?

I'm starting to think you're really dumb...

[Exnihiloest]

And yes. There are cycles. Nature made man, man uses fossil fuels. CO2, it goes, it comes. The "climate deregulation", what a joke! Nothing has ever been "settled" in the past of the earth.

And?

What was the Earth's average temperature at those times?

I'm starting to think you're really dumb...

By the way, it's about time you started your introspection.
You still don't understand "Correlation is not proof of cause and effect"?
And even if it did, studies show it's probably the opposite: warming causes CO2.

As for the high temperature, we see that it did not result in the destruction of the earth at all. On the contrary, the earth has lived very well at these temperatures and this high level of CO2. The IPCC has it all wrong again.

[izentrop]

... and also the increase in CO2 is due to what at this time? (1900 - 1940)

but compares the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperatures over this period, compared to the contemporary period.

Also compare the technical means to obtain precision stats from then to those of today.[quote ="exni"] studies show that it is probably the opposite: warming, cause of CO2.[/quote ]You can't read them well, the evidence all converges on

CO2 causes warming (and not the other way around)

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Scien ... French.pdf

[Obamot]

... and also the increase in CO2 is due to what at this time? (1900 - 1940)

but compares the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperatures over this period, compared to the contemporary period.

Also compares the technical means of obtaining accuracy stats from then to those of today.

studies show that it is probably the opposite: global warming causes CO2.

You must not have read them well, the evidence all converges on

CO2 causes warming (and not the other way around)

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Scien ... French.pdf

Knowing that man is only responsible for about 1.x% of greenhouse gases (excluding the half that is naturally reabsorbed) you can go against the laws of physics with words Izentrop, but not with facts it doesn't have the same success.

It is therefore the warming that causes the release of Co² of the seas, and not the other way around. You can experience it...

In the middle of summer, take an unopened bottle of sparkling water from the fridge, open it to release the pressure and close it by placing it in direct sunlight, and when it's really hot you reopen it and you'll see... fine if the Co² did not come out by increasing the pressure to the max... (well you can also try without opening the bottle at the start, but the pressure will only be stronger). Then you compare with a bottle that has remained cool... And there will be no excessive pressure because the pressure will not have risen!

Then you do the opposite, but immediately creating an unfavorable situation, you take an unopened bottle, but you don't open it to release a little pressure, and put it directly in the sun, after a few hours. .. In the hypothesis that you suggest, either:
- “that it would not be the increase in temperature which would release the Co²"

...well the pressure in the bottle should remain constant... right...?

But I bet if it's very hot the bottle will even have increased in volume, the Co² released forcing the PET to warp, and if you open it carelessly, you might get a kick out of it, but if you put it back in the fridge, it'll be back to normal.

If the experiment works, it is the proof that it is the action of the temperatures which acts on the Co2 and not the reverse.

______________
However, I usually say that anthropogenic warming should not be taken lightly, not being either a climato-thing, or a climato-thing... all studies must be pursued without a peremptory, dogmatic position, political or ideological and above all to stop the plundering of resources...

[Janic]

08/06/22, 18:43
Janic wrote:

.... the spirit of lies ...

dumb

It is an invective without any reality, tossed about by intolerant people against those who express ideas opposed to those for which the former militate.

i.e. you, other narcissist than ABCile

Failing to be able to answer on what is said, the intolerant militants attack the people who express them here.

elementary my dear Nullard! As I said earlier, most of those who speak on this forum are not specialists in the subjects expressed. So these are only opinions, points of view where no one is more right or wrong than others. So beyond the subject it is the individual claiming to know better or more than the others who is called into question while on the "scientific" level the opinions of the es-specialists are divided.

The less able they are to oppose intelligent arguments to the presented evidence of facts or logical reasoning, the more they insult.

clearly you think you are the only one to oppose intelligent arguments (proof of your narcissism, too!) and to be able to present facts or logical reasoning that only you consider to be such. Grant at least that you are not a world exclusive and that others (from their point of view too) can recommend the same arguments and opposite or simply different facts

"Disdain for humanity", these are demonstrations by example that Janic gives us on a recurring basis. Respect for humanity begins with civility.

ah, ah, ah! The so-called respect of individuals who think they are respectful by not using popular language.
The very title of the subject shows that you have no respect for life by idolizing humanity by despising "nature" without which you would not even have existed, for the greater good of humanity precisely. You really have to be dumb not to see it!

ps; example of your civility:
With Brexit, they remain conditioned by European laws to be able to do business there, without having any say in them, the idiots...
They believed that it would be enough for them to leave Europe to restore the British Empire, they still believed in it! The idiots...
Recently in a report on English fishermen, they complained that they had been promised mountains and wonders with Brexit, that they had been fooled, and that it would have to be done again, they would be against Brexit! The idiots... is it the beam against the straw?

[ABC2019]

... and also the increase in CO2 is due to what at this time? (1900 - 1940)

but compares the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperatures over this period, compared to the contemporary period.

Also compare the technical means to obtain precision stats from then to those of today.[quote ="exni"] studies show that it is probably the opposite: warming, cause of CO2.

You must not have read them well, the evidence all converges on

CO2 causes warming (and not the other way around)

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Scien ... French.pdf[/ Quote]
on the one hand I winced at the use of the word "exclusively", as if it were the only possible cause. I did not say that CO2 does not cause warming.
On the other hand it's completely stupid to say "not the opposite": of course if , the opposite is also true, it is precisely attested by the CO2/temperature correlation of the past, where there it was the contrary, it is obviously not anthropogenic CO2 that caused the warming since there was none.
And since these are two different things, the ∆T/∆CO2 ratio is precisely very different, it is much lower now than during the paleoclimatic variations, precisely because it does not measure the same thing: in one case it is the sensitivity of temperature to CO2, in the other the inverse of the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature. The two have no reason to be equal.

[izentrop]

I was responding to Exnihiloest.

it's completely stupid to say "not the opposite": of course if , the opposite is also true, it is precisely attested by the CO2 / temperature correlation of the past, where there it was the opposite

Yes, but with what time scale?
It takes time for carbon sinks to absorb all this very stable CO2, diluted in a large volume of air (0.4 ppm).
The day we manage to cancel the emission / absorption ratio, it will be "a long time" before the balance before the industrial era https://www.carbonbrief.org/explication ... nt-nulles/