The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[GuyGadebois]

[ABC2019]

except that if you look at the video there is no overall quantification on the part of agriculture and reforestation in greening - as usual in this kind of literature, full of partial figures and difficult to interpret, in general because we only want to keep the part that makes the most anxiety buzz. (Bis)

[phil12]

https://blogs.letemps.ch/dorota-retelska/2020/05/27/la-siberie-est-touchee-par-une-vague-de-chaleur-exceptionnelle-35c-au-mois-de-mai/

If there is an exceptional phenomenon of 10 ° C above the averages, it is that it has nothing to do with CR, the phenomenon would have been just as exceptional without CR. It's weather, not climate, the climate is averages over 30 years, we are told enough.

Of course there is no connection between global warming and disruption

[ABC2019]

https://blogs.letemps.ch/dorota-retelska/2020/05/27/la-siberie-est-touchee-par-une-vague-de-chaleur-exceptionnelle-35c-au-mois-de-mai/

If there is an exceptional phenomenon of 10 ° C above the averages, it is that it has nothing to do with CR, the phenomenon would have been just as exceptional without CR. It's weather, not climate, the climate is averages over 30 years, we are told enough.

Of course there is no connection between global warming and disruption

I don't know what you call "deregulation", it's quite subjective, but no a priori there is no obvious relationship, I don't see why excursions compared to the average should be stronger with 400 ppm than with 300 ppm (knowing that we agree that the average is going up).
There are other possible phenomena to explain larger variations, for example a lower solar activity in recent years which increases the variability of the circum-polar current. I'm not saying it's the right explanation, but we can't rule it out either.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758621/

[GuyGadebois]

except that if you look at the video there is no overall quantification on the part of agriculture and reforestation in greening - as usual in this kind of literature, full of partial figures and difficult to interpret, in general because we only want to keep the part that makes the most anxiety buzz. (Bis)

Gngna no number, gngngngn ... pffffff. Wouldn't you like a little double blind shot, by any chance?

Indeed, the two Asian giants which total 9% of the surface of the emerged lands, represent 33% of the greening on the planet since the year 2000. China - 6,3% of the emerged lands - contributes even for 25% to this greening. 42% of this greening comes from the expansion of forests and 32% from cultivation in China while in India 82% of greening comes from cultivation and only 4,4% from forests.
However, the authors emphasize that the change in land use by human activities has been the main factor in greening since the year 2000. And this has mainly resulted in cultivation; 6 of the 7 green areas designated on the map are because intensive agriculture has taken place.

[ABC2019]

I had read all of this, after which I wrote my post. We only talk about China and India without talking about the rest (what about the boreal regions), we count regions without saying their relative area, etc ...

[GuyGadebois]

I had read all of this, after which I wrote my post. We only talk about China and India without talking about the rest (what about the boreal regions), we count regions without saying their relative area, etc ...

Yes and ? They speak of China and India because it is in these two countries that greening has been particularly observable since 2000.
Here, have fun, there are numbers:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 019-0001-x
You're welcome.

[ABC2019]

I had read all of this, after which I wrote my post. We only talk about China and India without talking about the rest (what about the boreal regions), we count regions without saying their relative area, etc ...

Yes and ? They speak of China and India because it is in these two countries that greening has been particularly observable since 2000.
Here, have fun, there are numbers:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 019-0001-x
You're welcome.

Thank you, I have no doubt that these figures exist, I'm just saying that this kind of article does not give a clear idea of ​​it, because it only gives partial figures selected we do not really know how ( but all in all to be able to say "you see it's not good"!)

[GuyGadebois]

Of course, it's just made to say "you see that it's not good" (sic) ... Fake news, lies since anthropogenic warming does not exist even if it does not doubt the figures exist. We know the song.

[GuyGadebois]

I put the link back because "Mister Chiffres" certainly shouldn't have bothered to take a look, it's full of diagrams, figures, references, graphs, in short everything that should appeal to a competitive scientist:
And in addition, translated:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 019-0001-x