Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by izentrop » 26/02/20, 12:46

Well no, without human intervention, we would be in a period of instability moving towards an ice age, so on the top of the curve, as shown at the bottom http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/faq/cy ... iaires.php
Last edited by izentrop the 26 / 02 / 20, 12: 48, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by GuyGadebois » 26/02/20, 12:46

Paul72 wrote:Once is not custom I agree : Lol:
the diagram is very simplistic and has no interest ...

Its interest is that a 5 year old child can "read" it. It goes without saying that it is not intended for specialists but is only a superficial popularization effort aimed at making an idea, a trend understood. Nothing specific there. A bit like in the series "for dummies".
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by ABC2019 » 26/02/20, 12:48

Paul72 wrote: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


we wonder where it comes from, none of the most recent IPCC curves (report on 1,5 ° C precisely) shows the slightest tipping point above 2 ° C ...


Image

they just say that some effects are stronger with 2 ° C than 1,5 ° C ... thank you, we would not have suspected !!! : 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)
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by Paul72 » 26/02/20, 12:49

izentrop wrote:Well no, without human intervention, we would be in a period of instability moving towards an ice age http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/faq/cy ... iaires.php


not before at least 50000 years, but yes ... and it would have been fairly easy to prevent for the time being by playing with the albedo !! : Lol:
0 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by ABC2019 » 26/02/20, 12:50

GuyGadebois wrote:
Paul72 wrote:Once is not custom I agree : Lol:
the diagram is very simplistic and has no interest ...

Its interest is that a 5 year old child can "read" it. It goes without saying that it is not intended for specialists but is only a superficial popularization effort aimed at making an idea, a trend understood. Nothing specific there. A bit like in the series "for dummies".

no he has no interest, it is completely false and does not represent anything of reality.

It's just that when we start talking about climate, we're just in the comm, and scientific rigor no longer matters.
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: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by izentrop » 26/02/20, 12:54

ABC2019 wrote: none of the most recent IPCC curves (report on 1,5 ° C precisely) shows the slightest tipping point above 2 ° C ...
Normal, we have not yet acted so that the curve is reversed to limit the bad things ... except the coronavirus : Mrgreen: : Twisted:

I find the figure very representative. We are on the edge of the abyss :(
Last edited by izentrop the 26 / 02 / 20, 12: 57, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by GuyGadebois » 26/02/20, 12:56

ABC2019 wrote:
GuyGadebois wrote:
Paul72 wrote:Once is not custom I agree : Lol:
the diagram is very simplistic and has no interest ...

Its interest is that a 5 year old child can "read" it. It goes without saying that it is not intended for specialists but is only a superficial popularization effort aimed at making an idea, a trend understood. Nothing specific there. A bit like in the series "for dummies".

no he has no interest, it is completely false and does not represent anything of reality.

It's just that when we start talking about climate, we're just in the comm, and scientific rigor no longer matters.

Said the guy who constantly says that scientific rigor cannot be the order of the day, that scientists are wrong when faced with the multitude of possible scenarios regarding climate projections ... What a puppet! : roll:
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by Paul72 » 26/02/20, 12:58

Paul72 wrote:
izentrop wrote:Well no, without human intervention, we would be in a period of instability moving towards an ice age http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/faq/cy ... iaires.php


not before at least 50000 years, but yes ... and it would have been fairly easy to prevent for the time being by playing with the albedo !! : Lol:


AND the article is not up to date: we now know that it is the regression of the boreal forest that allowed a sufficient increase in albedo to cause glaciation, and not the increase in snow cover alone. it may be a detail a priori, but it is important to try to understand what is happening today.
0 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by izentrop » 26/02/20, 13:02

Paul72 wrote:we now know that it was the regression of the boreal forest that allowed a sufficient increase in albedo to cause glaciation, and not the increase in snow cover alone. it may be a detail a priori, but it is important to try to understand what is happening today.
Source?
0 x
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: Global warming: natural variability vs anthropogenic influence?




by Paul72 » 26/02/20, 13:08

ABC2019 wrote:
Paul72 wrote: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


we wonder where it comes from, none of the most recent IPCC curves (report on 1,5 ° C precisely) shows the slightest tipping point above 2 ° C ...


Image

they just say that some effects are stronger with 2 ° C than 1,5 ° C ... thank you, we would not have suspected !!! : Lol:


It is not only the temperature that is affected by global warming and the various anthropic pressures ... we are talking about a change from a forest to a savannah, from a savannah to a desert, from semi-arid zones to deserts, from a tundra or taiga to a marshy area, from tropical monsoon areas to a dry area etc ... And this is where the difference between 1,5 ° C and 2 ° C becomes significant. The more scientists study these complex systems, the more they estimate the tipping points to another state (necessarily more degraded) downward. That's what you have to understand.
Just take the example of Australia, the African and Indonesian rain forests, even the boreal forests: they are already in the process of crossing or going through the seesaw (Australia, it's done, the forests will no longer return to their initial state, it's over). And yet the warming is only half of the certain minimum (0,8 ° C for 1,5 ° C to come whatever happens, and certainly 3 ° C if we keep going)
0 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 97 guests