The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[phil59]

Guys, your 2 opinions interest me ...

Even if you are contradictory, that's precisely what interests me ...

After each to make their choice, even if I prefer Obamat in his reflections ....

To have only one point of view is necessarily to miss something ...

[Obamot]

Thanks, that's nice...

Note that I am open to anything, as long as we remain intellectually honest ...
Then you have to place the cursor between “what is tolerable, ethical and fair VS what is not ..."

And who says placing the cursor, appeals to a judgment based on achievements ...

BUT !
It's not because "we would detect new deposits looking for oil ever deeper, find other alternatives (shale gas ...) [/ size]”That we could say:
- ”after me the flood, do not deprive ourselves until the next peak ...... "

It does not make sense. It's behaving like looters.
While we could switch to thermodynamic solar ... Photovoltaic ... And be called "declinologists”While I am much more open and visionary than these starlings No then!

And honestly ...
Gargle with the word “science”By betting on nuclear fusion, which has NEVER proven itself to date, it's puffing.

[Obamot]

... but hey, in absolute terms, if, and only if, the merger fulfilled all the promises it suggests, why not?

... the problem is that with it, we would hardly solve the situation of a “society that has migrated to extractivism” at some point ...

... there would be a real debate to relaunch, I will rather focus on thermodynamic solar power to migrate to another model.

... currently, if we admit that the growth-based model is leading us into a wall (and it is leading us there ...)
... what would be the most viable transitional model? If it would not be an intermediate model, which could be decreasing without slowing down “activity” ... since it would be well that the future model be ”emancipatory”For the people!

... it would also be well to get out of the “class model” (also without a future).
... it's not simple, It must be said that the problem is on the scale of the stakes!

[Paul72]

...
Especially since, whatever the skeptics may say, the uncertainties about the climate for the next 100 years depend essentially on the emission curves - capture of greenhouse gases.

Climate sensitivity is constantly being reviewed. At this level of "understanding" of the climate, we are at the level of astrological forecasts.

Indeed, we are always ahead of the most pessimistic forecasts. It promises us a brighter future.

[Paul72]

Such evidence is only you who does not see them!

You should stop your phishing, because we don't care!

Or if you believe it, you're an expert in the roundabouts.

He's a Galileo upside down: alone against all ... To be completely off the mark!

[Obamot]

Upside down? then there would be some truth if:
- the electrons did not circulate in orbit but flat in all directions at ground level like billiard balls on their carpet.
- they should then be slowed down to prevent them from exploding the sides (bands) of the game plan.
- but he would have to review all the properties of electrons or else slow them down with a gas while praying very very hard

What fits with the expression "round flank"
“Tire au flanc” also works for operetta physicists (to make Remundo laugh)

[ABC2019]

...
Especially since, whatever the skeptics may say, the uncertainties about the climate for the next 100 years depend essentially on the emission curves - capture of greenhouse gases.

Climate sensitivity is constantly being reviewed. At this level of "understanding" of the climate, we are at the level of astrological forecasts.

Indeed, we are always ahead of the most pessimistic forecasts. It promises us a brighter future.

sorry but for someone who refers to LA SCIEENNNCE, it seems to me that you are uttering a large number of untruths:

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comp ... ervations/



climatocatastrophists always react as if Nature wanted to punish us for our sins by making CR and its consequences always worse than we think, when there is of course no reason for that.

[Paul72]

Sorry but even there, curves with margins without probabilistic indications, it is not very useful for us. It is precisely according to the strongest probabilities that the curves are smoothed to be readable for the greatest number. It's the climatologist's job too. It's the same when we make a weather forecast: the computer will output a whole bunch of forecasts with small variations, then the most redundant forecast will be retained and smoothed out by the meteorologist, also according to his expertise.

PS: this is also why I prefer to have confidence in a scientific community of climatology experts than in an average person and not competent, who has the evidence and like me, is not able to understand all the subtleties and the complexity of the field (fields besides, and the IPCC is precisely there to synthesize the various fields in order to have a global vision).

[Exnihiloest]

Climate models are wrong and climatologists are incompetent.
This is what physicists often say, in more diplomatic terms, who know how to predict the exact date and time of an eclipse 40 years in advance while the others are double to triple wrong on a prediction. temperature at 5 years. Worse than that, the article shows, the increasing complexity of the models widens the uncertainties so that today's forecasts are less precise than those we thought we had yesterday!

In a new paper, two physicists seek to come to the aid of climatologists who do not understand the maths of their discipline, by making accessible to them a different mathematical approach known for a long time but not by the latter.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-harnessin ... imate.html

"The authors argue that a new approach is urgently needed because current climate models typically fail to perform two important tasks.

First, they cannot reduce the uncertainty in determining the average global surface temperature after a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.. This number is called equilibrium climate sensitivity and in 1979, it has been calculated between 1,5 and 4 degrees Celsius. Since then, uncertainty has increased. Today, it is 1,5 to 6 degrees despite decades of improvement in numerical models and huge gains in computing power over the same period.

Second, climate models struggle to predict tipping points, which occur when a subsystem, that is, a sea current, an ice cap, a landscape or an ecosystem, suddenly and irrevocably changes from one state to another.

These types of [...] events pose a major threat to modern societies. Yet they are not predicted with sufficient precision by the high-end climate models on which the IPCC assessments are based..

These difficulties are based on the fact that the mathematical methodology used in most high resolution climate calculations does not reproduce the chaotic behavior well in a deterministic way...."

Professor Lucarini said: "We present a self-consistent understanding of climate change and climate variability within a well-defined, consistent framework. [...] the idea is that if we use the conceptual tools that we discuss in detail in our article, we might hope to help climate science and climate modeling take a leap forward.. "

Will physicists be heard? Judging by their past attempts, probably not. With climatology, we are less in science than in politics, activism, even obscurantism. The fable still has long days before it ...

[Exnihiloest]

The recent publication by Margaritelli and colleagues (Persistent warm Mediterranean surface waters during the Roman period) shows that not only was the Mediterranean 2 ° C warmer in Roman times, but that in addition the temperature variations of the past were clearly faster than those which, according to the Intergovernmental Gang of Carbocentric Crooks, would destroy The Planet.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67281-2