Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?

[ABC2019]

"Skeptical" studies are taken into account as soon as their methodology is not doubtful from a scientific point of view ...

There are no "skeptical" or "no-skeptical" studies, there are methodologically correct or incorrect studies.

The very notion of skepticism is included in the scientific method, it is only in the media and political drift of climatology that it has become an insult.

[Paul72]

"Skeptical" studies are taken into account as soon as their methodology is not doubtful from a scientific point of view ...

There are no "skeptical" or "no-skeptical" studies, there are methodologically correct or incorrect studies.

The very notion of skepticism is included in the scientific method, it is only in the media and political drift of climatology that it has become an insult.

One way of speaking of "studies" which would seek to minimize or even question the ultra-majority anthropogenic origin of global warming. for that the ""

[ABC2019]

One way of speaking of "studies" which would seek to minimize or even question the ultra-majority anthropogenic origin of global warming. for that the ""

already the fact of seeking to classify studies by the goal that they would pursue, it is anti-scientific. A study is a study, it does not have to be done for one purpose or another. It is the result of the study that will give the conclusions AFTER BLOW.

Doing a "for the purpose of" study is the best way to get biased results, one way or another. Climatology has largely been discredited as a science by entering the political field, like all the other sciences which have been mixed with political considerations in the past (and yes, we can reach the Godwin point, but not than).

[izentrop]

I move here:

Marc Andre Selosse says that thanks to plowing (and more generally, thanks to carbon emissions), we will avoid the glaciation that awaited us through the cycles of the Holocene. Do you know where he got it from? Because I do not have the feeling that anyone has sufficient elements to affirm this. Did I miss an episode? Sorry for the HS, but this is a subject that concerns me.

For that my bible is "the club of the argonauts" http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/faq/cy ... iaires.php

You must have read everything that is written before to understand, Milankovitch ...

Where are we ?
Boreal summer currently occurs when the Earth is near aphelion and the energy it receives from the Sun is at its minimum. In contrast, in winter, it is close to perihelion and the boreal winter is less intense. This is one of the conditions for the establishment of an ice age, and this is what some put forward a few decades ago to minimize the threat of global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. But the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is currently weak, and will decrease further over the next few millennia. On the other hand, the obliquity of the Earth's axis of rotation will decrease during the next ten thousand years, tending to decrease the contrast between summer and winter and thus favor relatively cool northern summers. Given these changes in orbital parameters, and pending the next transition from the summer solstice to aphelion, the current interglacial, the Holocene, could therefore be particularly long.

Superimposed on this situation of very slight forcing towards glaciation, a significant change in the composition of the atmosphere due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, a change of such magnitude that the risk of to see the ice caps advancing on our agricultural land is repelled to distant orbital configurations.
On the contrary, currently, and in spite of conditions which, without human action, would tend towards cool summers and consequently towards glaciation, the ice cap of the northern hemisphere is shrinking.

[izentrop]

If even the biggest polluters are worried

The world's largest fossil fuel financier has warned clients that the climate crisis threatens the survival of humanity and that the planet is on an unsustainable path, according to a leaked document.

JP Morgan's report on the economic risks of human-caused global warming said that climate policy had to change or risk irreversible consequences for the world. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... human-race

The study implicitly condemns the US bank's own investment strategy and highlights the growing concerns of large Wall Street institutions over the financial and reputational risks associated with the continued financing of carbon-intensive industries, such as oil and the gas.
JP Morgan has provided $ 75 billion (£ 61 billion) in financial services to the most aggressively growing companies in sectors such as fracking and oil and gas exploration in the Arctic since the Paris Agreement , according to an analysis compiled for the Guardian last year.
His report was obtained by Rupert Read, spokesperson for the Extinction Rebellion and professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia, and was seen by the Guardian.

[Paul72]

One way of speaking of "studies" which would seek to minimize or even question the ultra-majority anthropogenic origin of global warming. for that the ""

already the fact of seeking to classify studies by the goal that they would pursue, it is anti-scientific. A study is a study, it does not have to be done for one purpose or another. It is the result of the study that will give the conclusions AFTER BLOW.

Doing a "for the purpose of" study is the best way to get biased results, one way or another. Climatology has largely been discredited as a science by entering the political field, like all the other sciences which have been mixed with political considerations in the past (and yes, we can reach the Godwin point, but not than).

You did not understand or you pretend not to understand: it is the methodology that counts for a study to be admissible. the result or the intention does not count. we can very well try to show something and get a different result, if the methodology is flawless it's valid.
However, I would like to see a publication without bias of method or of false interpretation which would show that the current and future warming is completely natural ... Oh wait !!! there is none !!

And the more you scratch to refine the models and projections, the more you realize that each time you are still below reality. Climatologists who wanted to be cautious are forced to admit that it is rather the worst that is happening ...

[ABC2019]

However, I would like to see a publication without bias of method or of false interpretation which would show that the current and future warming is completely natural ... Oh wait !!! there is none !!

the fact that the warming has an anthropogenic component does not mean that it has been proved that it is "ultra majority" or that there is no study that points in the direction of a lower contribution

In my opinion, you absolutely do not know the studies and discussions on the subject; and you only get your knowledge from mainstream articles written by "committed" but non-scientific journalists (Huet, Foucard), who fill the public slack by letting them believe that CR is much more serious than what is thought, while nothing proves it.

I am wrong ?

[Paul72]

Indeed ... you are completely mistaken!

I will try to find the detail but the natural variants, (more or less), even taking the extreme cases where all positive or negative feedbacks add up (solar activity, El Nino, volcanism, etc ...), remain insignificant compared to the current warming signal.

[ABC2019]

Indeed ... you are completely mistaken!

I will try to find the detail but the natural variants, (more or less), even taking the extreme cases where all positive or negative feedbacks add up (solar activity, El Nino, volcanism, etc ...), remain insignificant compared to the current warming signal.

I can provide them to you, but the reasoning is biased. First of all, these are not "feedbacks" but natural forcings, it is not the same (at least for solar activity and volcanism). Then these studies look at the influence of these forcings in the digital models used, but that does not prove in any case that these models are correct and capture all the natural variabilities (in particular the oceanic cycles which are not correctly reproduced in the models).

[Paul72]

Roughly speaking, the forcing due to greenhouse gas emissions of human origin is evaluated from what I found at around + 1W / m²
Regarding solar energy, between the minimum and the maximum activity is +/- 0,14W / m², roughly the same for volcanic activity ... RIen that here we see that the share of responsibility of our emissions in the current warming is largely the majority. Even assuming that the sun is in a maximum of activity, going towards a minimum will only slightly reduce the current warming. And even stopping anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not allow an immediate halt to warming, as the radiative balance will not have returned to close to zero (by the time the system reaches a new "equilibrium")

a summary for the solar question:
https://www.encyclopedie-environnement. ... imatiques/