Limiting Global: How CO2?

[Exnihiloest]

... The advantage is that it is the longest series of measurements with the same methodology available. And this series is relentless ...

"relentless" but useless when we reverse cause and effect, as proven by analysis of data from Antarctic ice cores, which confirms that temperature causes variations in carbon dioxide concentration atmospheric.

https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/12 ... 7-2021.pdf

[Obamot]

For once we are in agreement again, I do not see why there are still some who discuss this point, (and I remind you that without wanting to drive the point home, your finesse of analysis was only over ten years , which is way too short to see anything ...)

[izentrop]

"relentless" but useless when we reverse cause and effect, as proven by analysis of data from Antarctic ice cores, which confirms that temperature causes variations in carbon dioxide concentration atmospheric.

https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/12 ... 7-2021.pdf

Ain't it still a sword stabs in the water

It has been brought to our attention that the article "The temperature-CO2 climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages" by Pascal Richet (Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 12, 97-110, 2021) does not may not have met the standard of fair and impartial peer review, concerns we take very seriously. Any decision we make regarding this article is motivated solely by our commitment to publishing ethics and scientific discourse. For the sake of transparency, we summarize the relevant aspects of the case in Copernicus' statement on the HGSS-2021-1 manuscript review process.

In light of the aspects mentioned in our statement and after speaking with the author, the HGSS Editorial Board and experts in the field, Copernicus Publications has taken the decision to temporarily ban access to the article. and perform a post-publication review, as recommended by COPE in such cases. The reports and results of this review will be published, and the article will be processed accordingly. Whatever the outcome, Copernicus Publications will carefully review the editorial practices and peer review process of HGSS. https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/12/97/2021/

Experts say it's "gloubi boulga" (access requires an account)

[Obamot]

Whether it be "validated or not due to a bogus artifact”Does not change absolutely nothing in the laws of physics, which tell us (without going too far) that:
- Like a bottle of sparkling water left in direct sunlight, the Co² emerges from the oceans during the Milankovich Cycle;
- So it is not the man who warmed the oceans who then released their Co² which then warmed the atmosphere to then change the angle of inclination of the Earth (which would not make sense) but the reverse ...!

YOU CANNOT WITH THE ANTHROPIC SHARE OF ONLY 0,66% bring out the rest of the oceans, that is to say the rest 99,33% of the Co² 'natural'.

To “boil” the oceans and so that the Co² so, you can't even imagine how much energy it would take.

The IPCC thesis on this plan is dead and buried.

However, the fact that there is a warming remains valid (no matter where it comes from ...)

[Forhorse]

For this to be true, the quantity of CO2 in the oceans would have to decrease (the CO2 passing from the oceans to the atmosphere, because these first heat up, and the quantity of CO2 present on earth [excluding anthropogenic contributions] being finite, what passes in the atmosphere is therefore "extracted" from the oceans, and therefore the amount of C02 in them should decrease)
Is that the case ?

[Obamot]

To answer this question in a scientific way, it would take direct evidence, I presume, and therefore having made measurements in the oceans for 40 years! I don't believe it exists.

On the other hand it is possible to verify it with measurements in the laboratory but physics gives us the answer, already by the considerable volumes (and there are other indirect means to see in the video of V. Courtillot, conference ã l 'University of Nantes.

[izentrop]

the quantity of CO2 present on earth [excluding anthropogenic input] being finite

There is a difference between the wood that is burned, which emits all its CO2 into the atmosphere and that which is left on the ground where only a part is exported into the atmosphere, serving as energy for insects, bacteria and fungi to make humus (very carbonaceous) serving as a fertile support for forest renewal. The natural process is more in the direction of storage by photosynthesis.

Water is also needed for this process to work and to constitute these carbon sinks, except if the temperature rises, the water evaporates, the vicious circle begins, as happens in the Sahel, Syria or the agriculture ended up not functioning any more.
For a long time, man has exploited peatlands which were carbon sinks.

Permafrost is also a sink for carbon and methane which is releasing GHGs into the atmosphere as the thaw caused by the excess of GHGs already emitted, so not just the oceans ...

"Wood energy", the closing of nuclear power stations, which must be offset by fossil fuels, only accelerate the runaway already underway.

[Obamot]

Well with the 0,33% emitted by humans, you would like to predict catastrophes for us, but on what reasoning do you base yourself to affirm it? On what scientific sources?

I mean except the mainstream ron-ron, because otherwise => trash.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The natural process is more in the direction of storage by photosynthesis.

For that it would be necessary that your favorite industries stop polluting the oceans, acidifying them and killing phytoplankton ... But considering that, drinking the words of the IPCC as one would (not) have a drink with glyphosate, you make the dead end on everything else: Deforestations, monocultures, spreading of poisons, concentration of livestock farming causing biologically dead zones in certain estuaries, development of GMOs impoverishing populations and requiring more and more inputs to barely function .... C 'is the main fault of the IPCC, accentuated by the Trump policy which, financed by finance, dreams of being able to develop technologies to "clean" our shit without changing the paradygm, helped in this by Bill Gates, Bransons and other Bezos. You also began to reveal yourself when you voted for the use of spreading "dust" in the atmosphere to cool it ... In fact, your pseudo ecological struggle is only there to hide your desire for future over-technologization.

[Obamot]

There are days when I wonder if the “funny” ones are not naive (u completely nazes?)