No scientific consensus on climate change

[Obamot]

Maybe wirbelwind262 either!

[thibr]

like what they are not bad in anticipation of the oil tankers since 1982

[ABC2019]

like what they are not bad in anticipation of the oil tankers since 1982

It's not a feat, I can predict roughly the concentration and temperature in 40 years: in my opinion around 500 ppm and around 1,8 ° C

No need for a computer for that ...

On the other hand, what these graphs do NOT show are the climatic consequences on storms, precipitation, droughts, neither in forecasts, nor in current data ... ask yourself why (the reason being essentially that there is no has nothing to do).

[ABC2019]

A study of traces of soot in Antarctic ice cores concludes that fumes and aerosols were significantly higher than what was believed before the industrial era, probably due to the agricultural practices of burning by the people of Africa and Africa. 'America

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/31/ ... te-change/

suddenly the variation in aerosol (cooling the climate) would have been overestimated, and consequently the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated, which could help to explain why models adjusted to the past seem to overestimate the current warming.

[izentrop]

and as a consequence the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated

This is taken out of your hat, it concerns the southern hemisphere, which you do not specify and the conclusions of the study are far from reaching yours. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... c1379.full

[ABC2019]

and as a consequence the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated

This is taken out of your hat, it concerns the southern hemisphere,

the article quotes another study arriving at the same conclusion for the northern hemisphere

Hamilton et al. (18) also suggested greater PI fire activity compared with the PD, based on several BC records from the Northern Hemisphere.

what you do not specify and the conclusions of the study are far from reaching yours. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... c1379.full

we should not read English the same way then:

The negative aerosol radiative forcing can, in part, cancel out the positive forcing of increasing greenhouse gases and contribute to the uncertainty of total radiative forcing. An overly large aerosol cooling implies that models might overestimate TCR and ECS to reproduce historical temperature response (41). A recent study using one of the latest-generation CMIP6 climate models (E3SM) suggests that reducing both the magnitudes of negative aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity yields a better agreement with the observed historical record of the surface temperature (42).

it's still funny your reaction and it illustrates well the "warmist" thought biases: normally a study showing that a danger is less serious than expected should make you happy, instead of that like that decreases the reasons for s' panic you seek to discredit her ...

[izentrop]

"might", "suggests" ... only guesses. Let's wait to find out what climatologists think.
And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.

of "warmist" thought

What do 99% of scientists share, don't you feel a little isolated?

[ABC2019]

"might", "suggests" ... only guesses. Let's wait to find out what climatologists think.

it is marked in the article what they think of it!

And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.

that did not prevent you from finding her obviously ...

of "warmist" thought

What do 99% of scientists share, don't you feel a little isolated?

I don't think I am questioning anything that is shared by 99% of scientists, so I am with them and I don't feel isolated at all. But just among climatologists, there are several very renowned, who have had leadership of institutions or important experiences (Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, etc ...) who do not share the catastrophist vision, without deny any of the scientifically proven facts (ie they admit that CO2 is anthropogenic and causes warming, so they are well counted in those "99%"). You make up consensus numbers when it suits you, but that's not about this article.

The article cited here does not question anything scientifically, it just says that on a poorly known point (the importance of aerosols), the results show that they were more important than what we thought and that suddenly the sensitivity of CO2 would be lower than estimated, while remaining within the "very wide" range of IPCC estimates. There is nothing that questions what 99% of scientists think, that I do not dispute. It's just that it's not going in the direction of the worst possible estimate of warming that's all.

[izentrop]

And then when we give a source, we give the link. Besides, Watts Up With That? do not give any and it is not the first time that they say anything about the climate.

that did not prevent you from finding her obviously ...

The first but not the second link on the northern hemisphere https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05592-9#Abs1 and it doesn't say

the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated

Rather underestimated, since aerosols have a cooling effect ...

This suggests that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols * emitted abundantly by industry and transport over the past decades has been overestimated. Indeed, if the pre-industrial atmosphere was already rich in aerosols, the difference with the current atmosphere is smaller and therefore the additional cooling effect less important. “We know that aerosols in the atmosphere have always had a significant impact on climate, but until now, the influence they historically had has been underestimated,” says Dr. Douglas Hamilton, lead author of the study ....

* Not to be confused with greenhouse gases (GHGs) of anthropogenic origin - also originating for a large part of industrial activity - which have a warming effect and which, on a global scale, exceeds the cooling effect aerosols, hence global warming. In other words, the latter mask part of the warming associated with GHGs. https://sciencepost.fr/loccurrence-des- ... s-estimes/

"Funny" that it escapes you this kind of reasoning, the crack of physics

[ABC2019]

and it doesn't say

the warming due to CO2 would also have been overestimated

Rather underestimated, since aerosols have a cooling effect ...

This suggests that the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols * emitted abundantly by industry and transport over the past decades has been overestimated. Indeed, if the pre-industrial atmosphere was already rich in aerosols, the difference with the current atmosphere is smaller and therefore the additional cooling effect less important. “We know that aerosols in the atmosphere have always had a significant impact on climate, but until now, the influence they historically had has been underestimated,” says Dr. Douglas Hamilton, lead author of the study ....

* Not to be confused with greenhouse gases (GHGs) of anthropogenic origin - also originating for a large part of industrial activity - which have a warming effect and which, on a global scale, exceeds the cooling effect aerosols, hence global warming. In other words, the latter mask part of the warming associated with GHGs. https://sciencepost.fr/loccurrence-des- ... s-estimes/

"Funny" that it escapes you this kind of reasoning, the crack of physics

think a little more ...