thejoker wrote:[...] belief that co² deregler climate while it represents less than 0,5% gas atmosphere [...]
A belief" ?
What is the connection ?
A belief does not need a scientific basis .. People who believe in some god do not need to be told
shows that exists...
CO2 (and not co²)
is a GHG : it's not a belief, it's a scientific fact!
It is this property of CO2 that allows, among other reasons, the Earth to show an average T ° fit for life in all forms that we know now ...
This property also requires that, very mechanically, an increase in its average content induces an increase in the greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, the relationship between the content of a product and its final action is not really relevant here. Other GHGs, whether they are partly of natural origin such as CH4 or N2O or else completely artificial like SF6 or Halocarbons also have an action on the greenhouse effect while their rates are measured in ppbv (part by billions in volume) is 0,0000001%!
This is not the only example where a small amount of substance is able to govern a system.
thejoker wrote:[...] confusion between the physical principle of greenhouse effect and radiation
It's funny that you say that when you have not even been able to understand what the greenhouse effect is!
Apparently you still think it's kind of "glass" in the atmosphere, right? Like a gigantic "cover" that would prevent hot air from escaping?
A little advice: educate yourself to look less con!
thejoker wrote:[...]thebtotal scence of information research on the theses that lays the sun as the only motor of the climate has very short term (not Theory Milankovic 19 ieme century ...)
(Svensmark is not really a beginner ....)
Ah ...
I think you did not understand me well.
It is obvious that the sun is at the base of major climate change since it is the
alone source of energy of our Earth, and that this source is subject to variations ...
It just happens that variations in solar input do not explain everything, and do not solve the problem related to the increase of GHGs in our atmosphere.
Moreover, the theories of Milankovik that you denigrate are still in the sense that you defend, so you should know: sun or no sun?
thejoker wrote:[...] the mania to believe everything that is written on wikipedia
Which report ?
Wikipedia is a
encyclopedia participative online and the information found there must be found in any encyclopedia of good quality (Universalis, etc. ..). Simply, since it is on the Net, it is convenient to share info ...
thejoker wrote:[...] mann curve while everyone knows that he rigged these sequences and does not give the source of his modeling !!
As for irreproducible PCs, as McIntyre and McKitrick will discover in the source code hidden in Mann's FTP site, the algorithm used is to refocus them around, not the average value of their entire series, but around the average value of the portion corresponding to the XNUMXth century, which "goes up" by two good orders of magnitude their weight in the final reconstruction, ie more weight than all the other series combined! Their particular shape will therefore be artificially imposed on the result.
[...]
Fun, I do not think I've ever talked about the Mann curve ...
Besides, you who reproach me for my "copy and paste", do you understand only one of Martin's sentences that you just quoted, just above?
thejoker wrote:[...] the will to seek only that which reinforces a theory assimilating Man has a predator for the planet (gaya ??)
I do not know who this criticism is for, but if you had a minimum of scientific knowledge in the environmental field (which is my case, I inform you without any kind of pedance), you would know that indeed, the vast majority of human activities do a great deal of harm to all the compartments of the terrestrial biosphere. It's not difficult to see, just read ...
Then, the fact of seeing in the Earth a kind of "super-organism" named
Gaia is more of the sweet fantasy post-baba-cool years, but hey, it does not hurt anyone if it leads to a lower environmental footprint of our activities ...
thejoker wrote:[...] finally know that since at least 2001 and the magazine fusion I am gausse fanas of the reheating
You see me very happy for you: get off well!
PS: why since 2001?
thejoker wrote:[...] you seem to be a good BIGOT, Benitier frog?
Ah? Amazing interpretation ...
thejoker wrote:[...] why believe in the mathematical modeling of life as a good Aristotelian in the depths of his cave?
What are you talking about quoting Aristotle? Do you know at least?
If it's the use of logic, it can actually be.
Otherwise, I do not see what comes to modeling life in there ...
The sun is not alive, the measurement of a temperature is not akin to a living phenomenon, the reaction of CO2 facing an IR radiation does not depend on the living ...
What does this sentence do here? Is it to look interesting?
thejoker wrote:[...] cele denotes a real fear of the sun of light and clarity !!
But yes but yes...
PS: Sorry for others the length of this post ...