The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[eclectron]

suddenly everything you say would be as valid even if the fossils did not produce CO2 by burning? (or if the CO2 did not absorb in the IR and did not disturb the climate)? or does it change something, and what?

At first glance, it doesn't actually change anything.
With a slightly more refined approach, CO2, which implies an RCA, worsens the situation by destabilizing the sedentary people that we are.
To speak your own language: make the situation worse "by depreciating existing assets"

I find it unfortunate that the hype is focused on RCA.
We rarely talk about the finitude of resources, but that should be the major subject in the news, every day, maybe that would change.

Only honorable exit: 'sustainability as much as possible' and as soon as possible, if not even without calculating, it is worse.

[ABC2019]

suddenly everything you say would be as valid even if the fossils did not produce CO2 by burning? (or if the CO2 did not absorb in the IR and did not disturb the climate)? or does it change something, and what?

At first glance, it doesn't actually change anything.
With a slightly more refined approach, CO2, which implies an RCA, worsens the situation by destabilizing the sedentary people that we are.
To speak your own language: make the situation worse "by depreciating existing assets"

I find it unfortunate that the hype is focused on RCA.
We rarely talk about the finitude of resources, but that should be the major subject in the news, every day, maybe that would change.

Only honorable exit: 'sustainability as much as possible' and as soon as possible, if not even without calculating, it is worse.

well, we finally agreed, the real problem is durability, and the consequences of RCA are greatly exaggerated, and do not really add any constraint compared to that of the finite nature of the reserves.

[eclectron]

well, we finally agreed, the real problem is durability,

Yeah I've always been okay with that let's say before we know you

and the consequences of RCA are greatly exaggerated

It remains subjective, consequences there are already and it will get worse.
Is it super dramatic, I could not say but it already annoys people.
Some random examples:

They are suing Europe for insufficient action on the climate.
1 Portuguese for drought
1 German for rising waters
https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/093707-00 ... ntre-l-ue/

permafrost melting, effect on homes + RCA bonus
https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/100061-00 ... t-fondait/

, and do not really add any constraint compared to that of the finite character of the reserves.

For my part, it is difficult to estimate whether the effects of RCA can be considered negligible, although its effects are not zero as shown above.
The peak of conventional oil passed in 2008 should by itself, push us to move towards sustainable quickly.
(the other peaks are not so far away ...)

So semi okay, no doubt?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Two thieves in a fair, isn't life good?

[eclectron]

Two thieves in a fair, isn't life good?

I am not sure

[eclectron]

For example here I think ABC and I will not agree.

Janco, in substance around 29mn: GHG emissions will go through a maximum then
It will take thousands of years for the ocean to stop rising
Whatever we do on CO2 today, the climate for the next 20 years is already written.

So when you take glasses from the 'short term' brand, VAT is fine.

[ABC2019]

For example here I think ABC and I will not agree.

Janco, in substance around 29mn: GHG emissions will go through a maximum then
It will take thousands of years for the ocean to stop rising

that's not what he says at minute 29 ...

[Exnihiloest]

Several publications have found that the predictions of models from the past did not match the present and the recent past. This one finds that a type of recent model (CESM2), the cream of the models, is considerably mistaken about the past, in question the treatment of the feedbacks in the cloud layer.
In order to be simulated, small phenomena, including clouds considerably too small to be simulated, are approximated by much coarser parameters, tuned to fit the model output to observations over a chosen reference period.

But the evolution of the climate is terribly sensitive to these "small" objects, a weak error on the parameterization of the clouds translates into enormous errors after a certain number of iterations (and of course, the values ​​of parameters which plague the simulations do not are not retained by the "experts", and we also have no guarantees that the less improbable represent the future better).
The study published in Geophysical Letter shows that these models cool the past much too much.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 20GL091220
We find that the amount of cooling in the CESM2 simulation is much greater than what the observational evidence supports, indicating that the model's ECS is too large. We further find that the high ECS of CESM2 is caused by the processing of clouds in the model.

How can we buy into climate predictions when the models are wrong? Have been indoctrinated? Have given up all critical thinking? Have entered religion?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It was a press release from the AGU, sponsored for years by Exxon Mobil and today Chevron ... Well tried but still missed, Tryphon.

[eclectron]

For example here I think ABC and I will not agree.

Janco, in substance around 29mn: GHG emissions will go through a maximum then
It will take thousands of years for the ocean to stop rising

that's not what he says at minute 29 ...

Well don't hesitate to say what you understood and what you think