No scientific consensus on climate change

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13782
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1534
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by izentrop » 02/06/21, 10:31

ABC wrote:think a little more ...
Anyway, the effect on the RC is negligible, or even zero, or even worsens, when we see the gigantic fires that appear even in places like the Nordic countries ...

In 3, we can see that it works in both directions:
The right side of the graph, positive, corresponds to soot carbon, resulting from incomplete combustion (unburnt), which will absorb solar radiation and therefore heat the atmosphere (positive radiative forcing).
There is also an additional warming effect when this soot settles on snow or ice and darkens it, thus decreasing the reflection of the surface (change of albedo) which reinforces the solar absorption and therefore causes an acceleration. of cast iron. https://bonpote.com/forcage-radiatif-a- ... %20More%20
Image

I repeat, you have to be miro not to see it. : roll:
1 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by Exnihiloest » 02/06/21, 11:41

izentrop wrote:... Anyway, the effect on the RC is negligible, even zero, or even worsens, when we see the gigantic fires that appear even in places like the Nordic countries ...
...

Human activity is everywhere today. The vast majority of fires are man-made. But it does not weigh heavily on a global warming effect, compared to volcanoes.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by ABC2019 » 02/06/21, 12:03

izentrop wrote:
ABC wrote:think a little more ...
Anyway, the effect on the RC is negligible, or even zero, or even worsens, when we see the gigantic fires that appear even in places like the Nordic countries ...

that's not the question, the study shows that the effect was more important before what we thought. So the variation between before and now is LESS important than what we thought, so aeorosols have a forcing weaker than we thought (the forcing being the variation compared to the pre-industrial period).

So since the negative forcing of aerosols is weaker, for the same temperature variation, it is because the positive forcing of CO2 is also weaker (the sum being constant).

This is what is said in the article.

For fires in Scandinavia you have data since when?
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: 13782
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1534
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by izentrop » 02/06/21, 13:12

ABC2019 wrote:For fires in Scandinavia you have data since when?
I did not speak about this country in particular, but Siberia, Sweden, the arctic circle, well it's no secret that the mega-fires are a recent phenomenon. https://bonpote.com/doit-on-sattendre-a ... limatique/
The Arctic is burning like never before - and that's bad news for climate change.

Wildfires have blown along the Arctic Circle this summer, incinerating the tundra, blanketing Siberian towns in smoke and ending the extraordinary second season of the fires in a row. By the time the fire season wore off at the end of last month, the flames had emitted a record 244 megatonnes of carbon dioxide - up 35% from last year, which also set records. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by ABC2019 » 02/06/21, 14:03

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:For fires in Scandinavia you have data since when?
I did not speak about this country in particular, but Siberia, Sweden, the arctic circle, well it's no secret that the mega-fires are a recent phenomenon. https://bonpote.com/doit-on-sattendre-a ... limatique/
The Arctic is burning like never before - and that's bad news for climate change.

Wildfires have blown along the Arctic Circle this summer, incinerating the tundra, blanketing Siberian towns in smoke and ending the extraordinary second season of the fires in a row. By the time the fire season wore off at the end of last month, the flames had emitted a record 244 megatonnes of carbon dioxide - up 35% from last year, which also set records. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y


I'm not asking you for headlines and high-sounding articles, that I know you're going to find, I've been asking you since when we had statistics?
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)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 15171
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4432

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 02/06/21, 15:09

(And Bozo to ask for something more than what we give him as a good dervish ...)
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13782
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1534
Contact :

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by izentrop » 02/06/21, 15:20

ABC2019 wrote:I'm not asking you ...
I am not at your service and do not do it for the old indecipherable grigous, but for those who have a little critical spirit.
Suddenly, it makes me discover quality information sites like this https://bonpote.com/comment-calculer-son-empreinte-carbone/ which is really well documented : Wink:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by ABC2019 » 02/06/21, 15:58

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:I'm not asking you ...
I am not at your service and do not do it for the old indecipherable grigous, but for those who have a little critical spirit.

everyone has their own conception of critical thinking, eh, I ask how long we have had data when we talk about "records" :).

Hey, I just broke my longevity record again, do you think it's due to CO2? : Lol:
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)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by Janic » 03/06/21, 08:34

owiii ... again! : Oops:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: No scientific consensus on climate change




by Exnihiloest » 03/06/21, 18:42

izentrop wrote:...
Suddenly, it makes me discover quality information sites like this https://bonpote.com/comment-calculer-son-empreinte-carbone/ which is really well documented : Wink:

The kind of completely useless stuff, except to understand that the correlation between CO2 production and standard of living is the result of cause and effect relationships.
And as CO2 is not a pollutant, all life on earth depends on it and the more there is, the better the plants proliferate, making CO2 to improve one's standard of living is also an ecological bonus.
0 x

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 78 guests