No scientific consensus on climate change

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28933
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5651

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View Obamot » 06/03/21, 14:11

Maybe wirbelwind262 either! : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
thibr
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 723
Registration: 07/01/18, 09:19
x 270

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View thibr » 30/05/21, 10:09

like what they are not bad in anticipation of the oil tankers : Shock: since 1982
1 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View ABC2019 » 30/05/21, 12:17

thibr wrote:like what they are not bad in anticipation of the oil tankers : Shock: since 1982

It's not a feat, I can predict roughly the concentration and temperature in 40 years: in my opinion around 500 ppm and around 1,8 ° C

No need for a computer for that ...

On the other hand, what these graphs do NOT show are the climatic consequences on storms, precipitation, droughts, neither in forecasts, nor in current data ... ask yourself why (the reason being essentially that there is no has nothing to do).
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View ABC2019 » 31/05/21, 20:04

A study of traces of soot in Antarctic ice cores concludes that fumes and aerosols were significantly higher than what was believed before the industrial era, probably due to the agricultural practices of burning by the people of Africa and Africa. 'America

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/31/ ... te-change/

suddenly the variation in aerosol (cooling the climate) would have been overestimated, and consequently the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated, which could help to explain why models adjusted to the past seem to overestimate the current warming.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13828
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1545
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View izentrop » 01/06/21, 01:18

ABC2019 wrote: and as a consequence the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated
This is taken out of your hat, it concerns the southern hemisphere, which you do not specify and the conclusions of the study are far from reaching yours. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... c1379.full
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View ABC2019 » 01/06/21, 07:12

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote: and as a consequence the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated
This is taken out of your hat, it concerns the southern hemisphere,

the article quotes another study arriving at the same conclusion for the northern hemisphere
Hamilton et al. (18) also suggested greater PI fire activity compared with the PD, based on several BC records from the Northern Hemisphere.


what you do not specify and the conclusions of the study are far from reaching yours. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... c1379.full

we should not read English the same way then:

The negative aerosol radiative forcing can, in part, cancel out the positive forcing of increasing greenhouse gases and contribute to the uncertainty of total radiative forcing. An overly large aerosol cooling implies that models might overestimate TCR and ECS to reproduce historical temperature response (41). A recent study using one of the latest-generation CMIP6 climate models (E3SM) suggests that reducing both the magnitudes of negative aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity yields a better agreement with the observed historical record of the surface temperature (42).


it's still funny your reaction and it illustrates well the "warmist" thought biases: normally a study showing that a danger is less serious than expected should make you happy, instead of that like that decreases the reasons for s' panic you seek to discredit her ...
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13828
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1545
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View izentrop » 01/06/21, 07:52

"might", "suggests" ... only guesses. Let's wait to find out what climatologists think.
And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.
ABC2019 wrote: of "warmist" thought
What do 99% of scientists share, don't you feel a little isolated?
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View ABC2019 » 01/06/21, 08:52

izentrop wrote:"might", "suggests" ... only guesses. Let's wait to find out what climatologists think.

it is marked in the article what they think of it!
And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.

that did not prevent you from finding her obviously ...
ABC2019 wrote: of "warmist" thought
What do 99% of scientists share, don't you feel a little isolated?

I don't think I am questioning anything that is shared by 99% of scientists, so I am with them and I don't feel isolated at all. But just among climatologists, there are several very renowned, who have had leadership of institutions or important experiences (Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, etc ...) who do not share the catastrophist vision, without deny any of the scientifically proven facts (ie they admit that CO2 is anthropogenic and causes warming, so they are well counted in those "99%"). You make up consensus numbers when it suits you, but that's not about this article.

The article cited here does not question anything scientifically, it just says that on a poorly known point (the importance of aerosols), the results show that they were more important than what we thought and that suddenly the sensitivity of CO2 would be lower than estimated, while remaining within the "very wide" range of IPCC estimates. There is nothing that questions what 99% of scientists think, that I do not dispute. It's just that it's not going in the direction of the worst possible estimate of warming that's all.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13828
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1545
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View izentrop » 02/06/21, 01:51

ABC2019 wrote:
izentrop wrote:And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.
that did not prevent you from finding her obviously ...
The first but not the second link on the northern hemisphere https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05592-9#Abs1 and it doesn't say
ABC wrote:the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated
Rather underestimated, since aerosols have a cooling effect ...
This suggests that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols * emitted abundantly by industry and transport over the past decades has been overestimated. Indeed, if the pre-industrial atmosphere was already rich in aerosols, the difference with the current atmosphere is smaller and therefore the additional cooling effect less important. “We know that aerosols in the atmosphere have always had a significant impact on climate, but until now, the influence they historically had has been underestimated,” says Dr. Douglas Hamilton, lead author of the study ....

* Not to be confused with greenhouse gases (GHGs) of anthropogenic origin - also originating for a large part of industrial activity - which have a warming effect and which, on a global scale, exceeds the cooling effect aerosols, hence global warming. In other words, the latter mask part of the warming associated with GHGs. https://sciencepost.fr/loccurrence-des- ... s-estimes/
"Funny" that it escapes you this kind of reasoning, the crack of physics : Shock: : roll:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




View ABC2019 » 02/06/21, 07:04

izentrop wrote: and it doesn't say
ABC wrote:the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated
Rather underestimated, since aerosols have a cooling effect ...
This suggests that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols * emitted abundantly by industry and transport over the past decades has been overestimated. Indeed, if the pre-industrial atmosphere was already rich in aerosols, the difference with the current atmosphere is smaller and therefore the additional cooling effect less important. “We know that aerosols in the atmosphere have always had a significant impact on climate, but until now, the influence they historically had has been underestimated,” says Dr. Douglas Hamilton, lead author of the study ....

* Not to be confused with greenhouse gases (GHGs) of anthropogenic origin - also originating for a large part of industrial activity - which have a warming effect and which, on a global scale, exceeds the cooling effect aerosols, hence global warming. In other words, the latter mask part of the warming associated with GHGs. https://sciencepost.fr/loccurrence-des- ... s-estimes/
"Funny" that it escapes you this kind of reasoning, the crack of physics : Shock: : roll:


think a little more ...
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 121 guests