Weather consequences of global warming on your life (and faster than you think)

[ABC2019]

(I'm still finishing this discussion on the climate)

you said

Just one downside: methane emissions are not just the fart of cows, it is beyond measure the melting of permafrost.

so the wording suggests that you are talking about emissions current , I don't believe that the melting of the permafrost generates volumes "out of all proportion" with the burps of cows, I was just asking you if you had figures a little more precise than that on the current contributions?

(and "millions of tons" isn't a lot actually...)

[ABC2019]

(I'm still finishing this discussion on the climate)

you said

Just one downside: methane emissions are not just the fart of cows, it is beyond measure the melting of permafrost.

so the wording suggests that you are talking about emissions current , I don't believe that the melting of the permafrost generates volumes "out of all proportion" with the burps of cows, I was just asking you if you had figures a little more precise than that on the current contributions?

(and "millions of tons" isn't a lot actually...)

if not sorry but I started watching your video and I did not hold until the end. I ask you for figures, and you throw me an hour-long video where a competent scientist tries to explain to an influencer who lives in a consumer society (he says it himself) the basics that anyone with a background scientist and is interested in the subject already knows ... There are almost no figures, as soon as we approach things like the mass of the atmosphere or the sequestration of carbon, it seems completely dropped ... so in short, that absolutely does not answer my question - moreover when she talks about methane she is talking precisely about agriculture and emissions due to mines. Maybe she does a verse about the dangers of permafrost later, I didn't go that far, but it's still science fiction anyway. Even the very climato-orthodox Realclimate site, controlled by IPCC climatologists, says so; and in a much more reasoned way than what is said in the video:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... t-methane/

[izentrop]

so the wording suggests that you are talking about current emissions, I do not believe that the melting of permafrost generates volumes "out of proportion" with cow burps, I was just asking you if you had figures a little more precise than that on current contributions?

You're right, I went a bit too far there.

You do well to add "current emissions", because indeed VMD puts particular emphasis on breeding and losses at the mining level. These two issuers can be regulated by targeted incentives.

Huge amounts of countless emissions of methane, a very hot greenhouse gas, are being released by 'super-emitters' around the world, satellite observations show.

Scientists have only recently worked out how to detect methane emissions from space, but what they've seen since has taken them by surprise. The greenhouse gas, which is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is leaking from gas pipelines, oil wells, fossil fuel processing plants and landfills all over the world. It is often released by negligence and improper operations; in many cases, emissions are not accounted for in mandatory greenhouse gas inventories.

https://www.space.com/satellites-discov ... -emissions
We therefore only know how to detect these “super-emitters” recently and they can already be sanctioned and rectified.

The fact remains that the task for the new generations is immense and that if nothing is done quickly and seriously, the "positive counter-reactions" will become uncontrollable, as the video says. The fratricidal wars also...

[izentrop]

the US is responsible for 15% of annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the world (more if we count the cumulative historical emissions). The average American emits 2,5 to 3 times more CO2 than the average Frenchman, who is already well off the mark.
The dominant environmental ideology in the United States is that of "green growth" followed by climate denialism maintained in particular by the Republican Party as well as evangelists for whom "it is not man who controls the climate, but God "....

Yes this is it https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... reme-97905

[ABC2019]

The fact remains that the task for the new generations is immense and that if nothing is done quickly and seriously, the "positive counter-reactions" will become uncontrollable, as the video says. The fratricidal wars also...

as long as there are no numbers, it's just bullshit, not science; What does it mean to "do nothing quickly and seriously"? what is the action to be done, quantitatively, what quantified consequences does it have on the climate, and what quantified consequences on the economy?

climate-freaks complain that covid has done a lot more than the climate, but the contrast with covid is striking: with covid, we were bombarded with precise figures, number of cases, projections, rates of effectiveness of vaccines, it allowed to discuss.

On the climate, there are only vague speeches agitating fantastic fears, and the rise in hairpin of particular meteorological events which have no statistical significance, even if it means contradicting themselves. For example, it is said that warming increases by 7% per °C the humidity of the atmosphere, so that there will be more precipitation, so why should that be the cause of the drying up of a lake?

[izentrop]

warming is said to increase by 7% per °C atmospheric humidity

It's you who is saying it

why should this be the cause of the drying up of a lake?

There are stats that back it up
https://meteofrance.com/changement-clim ... echeresses

[ABC2019]

warming is said to increase by 7% per °C atmospheric humidity

It's you who is saying it

why should this be the cause of the drying up of a lake?

There are stats that back it up
https://meteofrance.com/changement-clim ... echeresses

it does not confirm that it is due to RC, and it remains contradictory with the fact that a warmer atmosphere contains more humidity. In reality, if the phenomenon is real, it is rather due to a modification of the atmospheric circulation system which could move the precipitation zones, but not to an overall decrease in precipitation which has no reason to exist. In short, if it rains less somewhere, it will rain more elsewhere. But in fact when you read the article, you see that it is the soil droughts that have increased, but not the meteorological droughts (rainfall), so it could be other factors such as changes in vegetation cover, changes in urbanization, etc. who play.

After that I'm not saying that it's impossible for it to happen with the RC. I'm just saying that it's not an obvious consequence, and that the link with the RC is not that obvious to prove, since these variations have already occurred in the past and can be due to other natural cycles, which are very poorly understood. To use everything that happens in weather in the world to say that it is due to RC is scientific opportunism.

[izentrop]

to say it's due to RC is scientific expediency.

Says the self-proclaimed expert...

[ABC2019]

to say it's due to RC is scientific expediency.

Says the self-proclaimed expert...

You don't need to be a climate expert to recognize a scientific approach. Saying "my theory predicts that" and seeing that it happens is not necessarily proof that it is correct, especially when the predictions are vague and concern many possible events; For example, if I tell you "the entry of Pluto into the constellation of Taurus will increase natural disasters", and I give you all the natural disasters as "proof" that my predictions are correct, obviously you will laugh. And yet you are not a climatologist.

Think about what it would take to really test my theory, and tell me if it's done as far as RC is concerned.

[izentrop]

Pedant! Qualifier that must often be attributed to you