The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Exnihiloest]

Estimate of the impact of the Paris agreement on climate using IPCC models:

  "0.013 ° C in 2100"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 5899.12295

What efficiency!

It is not impossible that IPCC maneuvers to push the wheel and enforce emergency measures in Europe to almost zero efficiency and they know it, aim only to be able to shout victory after the cooling provided by some:
http://www.laterredufutur.com/accueil/l ... limatique/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 811000010X

[Christophe]

The title is deceptive right?

[izentrop]

Not only the title. Nothing but climate-skeptical publications. The Nasa stuff comes from reinformation.tv https://www.debunkersdehoax.org/reinfor ... ur-le-vih/ It's not the same thing but it says a lot about this chain.

Nils-Axel Mörner is adored by his climate-realistic friends https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques.wo ... -de-porto/
Not to be confused with https://climatorealiste.com/

Bjorn Lomborg is atypical too https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribu ... 96957.html

Exnihilo, you favor climate confusionism

[Exnihiloest]

Not only the title. Nothing but climate-skeptical publications. The Nasa stuff comes from reinformation.tv https://www.debunkersdehoax.org/reinfor ... ur-le-vih/ It's not the same thing but it says a lot about this chain.

Nils-Axel Mörner is adored by his climate-realistic friends https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques.wo ... -de-porto/
Not to be confused with https://climatorealiste.com/

Bjorn Lomborg is atypical too https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribu ... 96957.html

Exnihilo, you favor climate confusionism

You are given facts, and because you classify those who provide them as "climate-skeptics", you claim that they should no longer be taken into account.
If I adopt irrational position, I would be saying that there is no warming since it is the climate-activists of the IPCC who affirm it!

The thermal energy of the earth comes mainly from the sun, and the sun has a cycle of 11 years alternating a period of very high activity (visible by the multitude and extent of sunspots) and a period of low activity (more no sunspot).
This difference is not trivial and can be easily seen. All radio amateurs know that the highs of the activity allow them contacts on higher and higher frequencies, even allowing to receive in North America the TV signals of North America above 50 MHz, while in low activity, even 13 MHz frequencies can not always be used. This is the direct result of the solar activity on the ionization of the upper atmosphere layers, which varies enormously according to the amount of energy received.

These cycles are not constant, the maximum height of the activity depends on the cycles. After the big peaks of the 80 years, NASA's predictions of solar activity show a decline, and contrary to IPCC forecasts, NASA's forecasts are correct, for example the last max of the the 24 cycle has been well predicted.

NASA says it affects the climate:
"the solar-plus-ozone change leads to increased tropical stratospheric warming in the mid-to-upper stratosphere during solar maximum conditions."
"Total solar irradiance changes, though of small magnitude, do appear to affect sea surface temperatures (SSTs)"
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

It does not seem to me that NASA is a misinformation organization.
To claim that the decline in solar activity, and thus the amount of energy received by the earth, would have no impact on the climate, is a wish.

[izentrop]

To claim that the decline in solar activity, and thus the amount of energy received by the earth, would have no impact on the climate, is a wish.

the Sun varies according to a cycle of about eleven years, but between its periods of high and low activity, the variation of energy which it sends on Earth hardly exceeds 0,1%. Not enough to explain the earth's temperature fluctuations: to move the low-temperature thermometer from 0,85 ° C - the increase in temperature since the pre-industrial era - it is necessary to introduce considerable energy into the climate system. Extra energy that the star of day seems unable to provide, even at the height of its form ... https://www.lemonde.fr/cop21/article/20 ... 27432.html

There are many other decryptions.
You have no other more serious argument

[Christophe]

Sorry I do not understand the purpose or interest of this subject ...

Especially since there is another more complete good: climate-change-co2 / analysis-on-warming-climate-anthropogenic-t7605.html

If you want to show that our efforts to fight against the warming are (almost) in vain agree but I do not question the human responsibility please ...

[sen-no-sen]

There is a very broad consensus on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, the question of solar activity is obviously taken into account and it does not appear that it would be at the origin of the measured changes.
However it is good to remember this point:climate-realistic, climate-skeptical or pastry chef can matter, we are going through an ecocidal phase and this one is undeniable.
To the extent that ecocide is caused by a very strong increase in the level of entropy and that this is mainly due to the deployment of fossil fuels, it is urgent to decarbonize our societies.
The fable, or the scam instead is in the recovery of ecological issues to revive the economic system.
It is clear that the Sustainable growth is a magnificent mystification largely borne by all the incredible international conferences that serve only to sell contracts to multinationals and inflated the ego of our dear politicians in free fall in the polls ...

[Exnihiloest]

Sorry I do not understand the purpose or interest of this subject ...

Especially since there is another more complete good: climate-change-co2 / analysis-on-warming-climate-anthropogenic-t7605.html

If you want to show that our efforts to fight against the warming are (almost) in vain agree but I do not question the human responsibility please ...

The interest is to show that there are effects passed over in silence, scientists of value rarely or never relayed by the media, scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals, with analyzes and measures that contradict the theses that we are being criticized, organizations like NASA that are much more moderate in their opinions than the IPCC, faults, uncertainties and holes in our climate knowledge that show that global warming can not be asserted as peremptorily as it is the case now as to its anthropic origin or its evolution in the distant future.

If you agree that our efforts to fight against global warming are (almost) in vain, you can not believe that the IPCC would ignore it. Yet he has pulled out all the stops to fix it and convinces the politicians that it is possible, which then is a manipulation, with the consequence that politicians embark on useless but expensive measures that penalize people. If we do not trust them on this point, why this blind trust on others?

It saddens me to see that everything is admitted uncritically, that there is only one story, that none of the IPCC conclusions are validated by independent teams, which can not be seen anywhere else in science.
It would hurt me even more than an ecologism for me misunderstood, exploits this state of affairs, in order to pass its solutions often overpriced and not necessarily greener, which can be a remedy worse than the bad for society in addition to being an intellectual sham.

[moinsdewatt]

The title is deceptive right?

It is your role as moderator to change the titles and to prevent the negationists from acting .......

Personal as a moderator in another forum I will not let that happen.

[Janic]

It saddens me to see that everything is admitted without critical thought, that there is only one sound of bell ,.

I would not have said better. Critical thinking is a commodity so rare that few use it on all subjects that concern us.
I am, all have realized, particularly interested in the field of health, and if there is one area where the critical spirit is almost absent, it is one of those because only a sound of bell is admitted and defended, it is the official speech (coming from lobbies of all kinds) so not independent.

none of the IPCC conclusions are validated by independent teams, which is not seen anywhere else in science

that none of the conclusions of (.....)is not validated by independent teamssince only official speech is credible by right by authoritarianism.

which is not seen anywhere else in science

what naivety! Science does not belong to anyone, but "scientific" views abound.