Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?

[ABC2019]

More and more alarmist studies follow one another.

it will not be a question of living in a world a little warmer (some even say more pleasant while believing themselves already at the beach), but on a planet unlivable for humanity! This is the new alert published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). https://www.notre-planete.info/actualit ... non-retour

Not to mention the growing dead zones, the drop in oxygen and the acidification of the oceans.

this is an article from 2018, in addition to any quantitative estimate, that blabla with an almost incomprehensible scheme ...
In fact, the simulations listed by the IPCC show no strong non-linear feedback.

[GuyGadebois]

that blah with a pattern almost incomprehensible ...

Agad'bien aud 'below the image, there is a text that explains you.

[ABC2019]

that blah with a pattern almost incomprehensible ...

Agad'bien aud 'below the image, there is a text that explains you.

the text is just as incomprehensible ....

[GuyGadebois]

that blah with a pattern almost incomprehensible ...

Agad'bien aud 'below the image, there is a text that explains you.

the text is just as incomprehensible ....

When it suits you, you become as stupid as the ones you screw up ...

[ABC2019]

Agad'bien aud 'below the image, there is a text that explains you.

the text is just as incomprehensible ....

When it suits you, you become as stupid as the ones you screw up ...

ah you do like Janic now, you recognize the bullshit of those you defend?

Well, I'll explain to you why the figure of the article is totally stupid. It represents a potential surface supposed to illustrate the equilibrium position of the Earth as a function of time. We don't really know what the second axis is, maybe the surface temperature, let's admit. At each instant, the cut at t = Cste gives a portential curve whose minimum is supposed to represent the equilibrium temperature. We see that this curve changes over time, which can only represent the action of man (in particular anthropogenic CO2) which changes the climatic conditions and the equilibrium condition. It may seem superficially correct even if it is simplified, but there is a big catch: the surface is UNIQUE that is to say that it is the SAME curve which is supposed to represent the TWO possible stories of the Earth between an Earth stabilized at moderate temperature and an earth which turns towards a very hot state. Now it is quite impossible if the modification of man was responsible for the change in the surface, there should be as many possible surfaces as there are trajectories (i.e. an infinity), not a single surface.

In short, the figure is made by people who have understood nothing about the dynamics of systems.

[izentrop]

Well, I'll explain to you why the figure of the article is totally stupid. It represents a potential surface supposed to illustrate the equilibrium position of the Earth as a function of time. We don't really know what the second axis is,

In figure 2 it represents the stability of the system https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/825 ... gures-data.
We are moving towards an increasingly hot and very stable climate where it will be difficult and long to get out of it. This is also what the IPCC says.

[ABC2019]

Well, I'll explain to you why the figure of the article is totally stupid. It represents a potential surface supposed to illustrate the equilibrium position of the Earth as a function of time. We don't really know what the second axis is,

In figure 2 it represents the stability of the system https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/825 ... gures-data.
We are moving towards an increasingly hot and very stable climate where it will be difficult and long to get out of it. This is also what the IPCC says.

yes and I will explain to you why this figure has no meaning. If the surface evolves over time, it is necessarily because of anthropogenic modifications, otherwise it would remain constant (symmetry by temporal translation, ie it would be a "cylinder"). But suddenly it is absurd to want to represent two different trajectories with the same surface as it is represented.

[GuyGadebois]

ah you do like Janic now, you recognize the bullshit of those you defend?

QED. It was just a denunciation of your duplicity.
Ps: Your "explanation" of the sketch is stupid and confirms.

[Paul72]

Once is not custom I agree
the diagram is very simplistic and has no interest ... the interactions of the "Earth" system, are very complex and not at all shown here. In fact there is a multitude of paths that can lead to a "greenhouse earth" balance, and we can say that we are doing everything we need to multiply the possible paths with our activities by acting on all the sub- systems both (GHGs, destruction of the biosphere, aerosol pollution but also in soils and waters, both surface and deep and oceanic, etc.)
We are really doing everything we can to completely unbalance the system. If we only acted on one parameter (for example CO2) it might be a little more readable. but this is a mess, those who work on it and have to lay the IPCC reports are really very very brave as the job is huge !!!!

On this subject, in the first reports of the IPCC the tipping points towards the unknown of the Earth system were estimated at around 3-4 ° C of warming at least, in the last it is between 1,5 and 2 ° C

[ABC2019]

Ps: Your "explanation" of the sketch is stupid and confirms.

Once is not custom I agree
the diagram is very simplistic and has no interest ...

ah thin ... would the consensus crack?