unpeusecenID wrote:There is a phenomenon of climate inertia on the globe, in particular because of the oceans.
The average global temperature should not be expected to follow CO2 perfectly and instantaneously.
The IPCC was created because of the rapid temperature/ppm correlation.
Correction of negligence:
My graph uses an annual cycle to represent the periodicity of 120a, it is a simplistic parabola, also out of step with the classic view of the temperature at Vostok! Shocking for connoisseurs but intuitive and sufficiently representative of the resulting parameters, I should have specified.
The previous warming reading (130a) is linear, so "insolation" in the hot zone appears "constant". The hottest of a warming (B) is only the reflection of an accumulation, no thermal recovery possible.
unpeusecenID wrote: in the analogy of the saucepan and the fire below, putting the fire on hotter, very quickly (anthropogenic CO2), does not cause a proportionately rapid rise in temperature.
And yet, in the hypothesis of impact volcanism, a volcanic parasol stops the initiated warming and stabilizes the temperature (12a according to my calculation). The day when this parasol disappears, the sunstroke is no longer attenuated and it is the return of the warming before the dryas-r! A pseudo catch-up with the increase in the level of insolation and warming.
There is already a warming trend since the dryas-r (weakening of the volcanic parasol for me) amplified by the anthropogenic and probably by the sun (increased insolation?).
Could an astronomical combination also explain this long stability?
Look for error and forgetfulness.
pacien- wrote:When we look at the correlation with the temperature we notice that for the last cooling there is an amplitude of 10° for 70ppm, whereas with the explosion of CO2 of 200ppm the temperature only rose by 8°, it should already be 3 times more important logically (8+16°), the IPCC invokes inertia.
Do not forget the share of CO2 in the greenhouse effect:
+4° with a 25% share, 16°/4 (approximate, expected in 100a, +1,2° actual).
+1,2° with 8% of my calculation, 16° * 0,075; which proves the IPCC right.
Is the % on the net (20-25%) fancy?
Ahmed wrote:profoundly modify behaviors that threaten in various ways the living conditions of living beings on Earth.
The last calculation gives you "right" for the greenhouse effect, you have to explain that to the Chinese and US!