10 years to save the climate?

[izentrop]

The annual increase of the observed concentration CO2 is only half the annual emission into the atmosphere of CO2 produced by fossil fuels.

Okay (although this is the first time I hear this) but where does the rest of the increase CO2 then?

Sequestered?

nearly half of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted since the beginning of the industrial era was sequestered.

But I did not understand everything: https://climatorealiste.com/co2-anthropique/

In oceans and vegetation that prefers fossil carbon to atmospheric carbon. It is known that trees grow faster since the industrial era.

[izentrop]

I did not think it was at this point:

During the twentieth century, Europe has warmed by about 1 ° C, while its rate CO2 increased over 30% from 295 parts per million (ppm) to 1900 400 near ppm Nowadays. Same thing as to atmospheric nitrogen deposition, which increased from 2,5 9 to kilograms per hectare per year over the same period.

Due to the growing availability of these two nutrients, tree growth continues to accelerate, especially since the 1960 years. This is revealed by Thomas Rötzer's team at the Technical University of Munich, according to an analysis conducted on historical records, the first of which goes back to 1872 for Germany. According to their calculations,the common spruce (Picea abie) would grow, by volume, 32% faster than 1960, the beech (Fagus sylvatica) 77% faster!

http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/ ... vite,50088

[Christophe]

The annual increase of the observed concentration CO2 is only half the annual emission into the atmosphere of CO2 produced by fossil fuels.

Okay (although this is the first time I hear this) but where does the rest of the increase CO2 then?

Sequestered?

M'enfin, that does not answer the question!

Michel Petit says that half of the CO2 releases are not human, ok ... And you answer (conditionally) that half of the CO2 would have been sequestered ... well but that does not answer at all at the question!

[Christophe]

I did not think it was at this point:

(...) According to their calculations,the common spruce (Picea abie) would grow, by volume, 32% faster than 1960, the beech (Fagus sylvatica) 77% faster!

http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/ ... vite,50088

That still does not answer the question ...

But it's cool, well the world is saved then Just enough beeches to plant!

Hey hop, another conditional ... another study confirms this? 77% faster this should be seen (and of many) on the results in silviculture ... (price of beech, rotation of the cultures ...). So let me be very skeptical about these numbers!

And then, obviously, the increase in the average temperature and the variations in rainfall, are not mentioned as "probable causes" (My Mom told me that a plant grows faster when warm and when it is well watered. ..)

[Ahmed]

As you write very accurately, Christophe, The growth of plants (here, trees) is multifactorial; Moreover, what counts is the limiting factor and therefore nothing serves to increase a sufficiently present factor relatively to others...

[izentrop]

But it's cool, well the world is saved then Just enough beeches to plant!

You have omitted the conclusion

On the other hand, this acceleration could disturb the other forest species (plants, animals), whose rhythm is modeled on that of the trees.

For Ahmed, global warming is also multifactorial.
The isotopic analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere is one.

Basically, you're climate-friendly. You doubt that man burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming?

[Christophe]

Basically, you're climate-friendly. You doubt that man burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming?

Do you make sophistry there? From reverse psychology?

I am still waiting for the isotopic analysis curve which shows the only 50% of fossil origin ...

[izentrop]

Excuse me, I thought
Ce https://climatorealiste.com/co2-anthropique/Link seemed to answer your question.

Not the curve requested but indirectly by calculation. We know the global production of CO2 fossil, their lifetime in the atmosphere, measure the ratio of CO2 atmospheres, finally with other data, it is deduced.
To learn more Michel Petit had given a link and why not write to him.

I used a tablet to answer. The forum It fits very well, however, clicking on the small arrow to open the last message is difficult, a larger link would be top.

[Mathilde]

Are the effects of global warming have become less harmful or is it the opposite?

It's hard to see the effects on a daily basis, it is better to specialist advice http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1450

Totally agree. However, the effects of this change are already felt, here and elsewhere;) The seasons have become very unstable, among others.

[izentrop]

And then, obviously, the increase in the average temperature and the variations in rainfall, are not mentioned as "probable causes" (My Mom told me that a plant grows faster when warm and when it is well watered. ..)

It goes without saying that a serious study takes into account all the factors (climate, temperature, chemistry, reliable data from different sources: coring, writing ... and what do I know) to deduce the right information.

Just amateur level, you cut a beech of 200 years. Streaks represent the annual tree growth, not correlated with the amount of rainfall, the number of sunny hours weighted and the temperatures, 50 years before and 50 years after 1960 to realize the evolution.
The climate factor is not what has varied the most on these 100 years (supposition on my part).

The seasons have become very unstable, among others.

Impression or reality? The melting of glaciers is indisputable, but the instability of the seasons is difficult to assess.