CO2 storage of coal at source

[Christophe]

I don't even know why I'm still spending time answering him ...

That's the question I was asking myself, precisely ... to generate traffic? Otherwise, no interest.

Since when does responding to trolls generate traffic? No, it disgusts the readers ...

Rather, it is a question of scientific credibility!

[ABC2019]

I don't even know why I'm still spending time answering him ...

That's the question I was asking myself, precisely ... to generate traffic? Otherwise, no interest.

Since when does responding to trolls generate traffic? No, it disgusts the readers ...

Rather, it is a question of scientific credibility!

yes there it is, it is a question of scientific credibility.

For example a former director of the museum who comes out that the rise in water has been multiplied by 5 for 20 years and is worth 5 mm per year (therefore must have been 1 mm / year 20 years ago), while the data shows that



Doesn't that worry you about scientific credibility?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Already 1,08 ° C

According to the latest report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), unveiled at the opening of COP26, the planet has already warmed by 1,08 ℃ since the industrial revolution. According to the WMO, at this rate, the average global warming will be "well above 2 ℃" by 2100. The level of the oceans also reached a new record in 2021. From 2013 to 2021, the rise of the oceans accelerated at a rate of 4,4 mm per year, mainly due to melting glaciers.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/scie ... -doses.php

[ABC2019]

Already 1,08 ° C

According to the latest report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), unveiled at the opening of COP26, the planet has already warmed by 1,08 ℃ since the industrial revolution. According to the WMO, at this rate, the average global warming will be "well above 2 ℃" by 2100. The level of the oceans also reached a new record in 2021. From 2013 to 2021, the rise of the oceans accelerated at a rate of 4,4 mm per year, mainly due to melting glaciers.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/scie ... -doses.php

Did you mean 4,4, it's the same as 5, and multiplied by 5 in 20 years, that means it was worth 0,9 mm / year 20 years ago?


in addition, we can clearly see that it fluctuates over the short term, so by taking a judicious interval, we can find values ​​that are quite different from the average - but the average is 3,4 mm / year.

(hint: look at the rise between 2000 and 2005)

[Christophe]

You are an ABC moron and no longer being a liar and an impostor calling others incapable !!

+80 mm over 20 years (2000 to 2020) is indeed the order of magnitude of + 5mm / year!
and +20 mm over 10 years (1990 to 2000) is indeed the order of magnitude of + 1mm / year!

Between 2014 (70) and 2019 (95) we took +25 mm or just 5 mm / year!

We can clearly see the trend of accelerating the rise on the curve since 2010!

Are you a physicist but you don't even know how to see and extract a trend curve and you stick to averages? The cow is extremely serious!

Ah but let me guess, are you going to argue that the measurements have been more precise since 2010?

TDC!

[ABC2019]

You are an ABC moron and no longer being a liar and an impostor calling others incapable !!

+80 mm over 20 years (2000 to 2020) is indeed the order of magnitude of + 5mm / year!
and +20 mm over 10 years (1990 to 2000) is indeed the order of magnitude of + 1mm / year!

Between 2014 (70) and 2019 (95) we took +25 mm or just 5 mm / year!

We can clearly see the trend of accelerating the rise on the curve since 2010!

Are you a physicist but you don't even know how to see and extract a trend curve and you stick to averages? The cow is extremely serious!

Ah but let me guess, are you going to argue that the measurements have been more precise since 2010?

TDC!

aheem, how to say ....

do you see the curve posted above? it is not RIGOROUSLY straight, so that means that the slope is not constant.

So it fluctuates around an average, the average is indicated, of 3,4 mm / year. But as it fluctuates well you have periods when it is stronger and periods when it is weaker. So you will find by "cherry picking" periods where it can be 5 mm / year .. and just after periods where it can be 2 mm / year. But the average is 3,4 mm / year over the period shown.

In fact, there is a small acceleration measured over the period since 1993

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022

but 0,08 mm / year ^ 2 which makes an increase of 1,6 mm / year in 30 years so + 50% ... not + 500% in 20 years as Gilles Boeuf claims!

Taking into account this acceleration, it would be + 65 cm in a century - explain to me why that would make humanity disappear? I remind you that during the last deglaciation, the sea level rose by 100 meters , and that humanity has apparently survived very well, without modern technology and without satellites. Even because people are not stupid, when the sea rises, well they move away from the shore: smart, right?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

On the other hand, the curve of your bullshit, it is rigorously and constantly straight, to such an extent that we can even speak of a curve!

[Christophe]

On the other hand, the curve of your bullshit, it is rigorously and constantly straight, to such an extent that we can even speak of a curve!

Ptdr! ABCile is exponential !!!

[ABC2019]

On the other hand, the curve of your bullshit, it is rigorously and constantly straight, to such an extent that we can even speak of a curve!

Ptdr! ABCile is exponential !!!

thank you for these well-argued answers to what I'm saying

on the part of the puppets, that does not surprise me, since they only know how to do that. But frankly, Christophe, you still try to understand and do quantitative analyzes more often, so I don't know why you go off like that from time to time. How can you think that humanity will disappear because the sea rises 3 CENTIMETERS EVERY 10 YEARS? see what it feels like, THREE CENTIMETERS?

that people who have had the recklessness to settle very close to the shore see their houses flooded, being more or less reimbursed, ok, it's sad, that also happens for earthquakes, but IT CANNOT NO CASES TO DISAPPEAR HUMANITY, WHICH SURVIVED SEA LEVEL VARIATIONS OF 100 METERS.

And how can you speak of "70 ° C in 50 years" when the warming measured and published everywhere is at the worst 0,18 ° C per decade and that it is only 0,9 ° C IN 50 YEARS? How can you go from 0,9 ° C more to 30 ° C more, SERIOUSLY? and how can you think that humanity is threatened with 0,9 ° C OVER?

you will still only find insults to answer?

[Remundo]

And how can you talk about "70 ° C in 50 years" when the warming measured and published everywhere is at the worst 0,18 ° C per decade and that it is only 0,9 ° C IN 50 YEARS? How can you go from 0,9 ° C more to 30 ° C more, SERIOUSLY? and how can you think that humanity is threatened with 0,9 ° C OVER?

you will still only find insults to answer?

Hey funny!

Do you think how many humans will die when there is heatwaves in Europe lasting 10 days at over 50 ° C (in 10 years?) ... at 60 ° C (in 20 years?) ... at 70 ° C (in 50 years?)?

Are you getting poop out of your mouth on purpose?

GillABC2019 ... who doesn't give a damn about the world again ...

There is no incompatiblity in having a transient heat wave located at X0 ° C and a global warming of X ° C / 10 years.

And the dialectical crook amalgamates the two while thinking of discrediting his interlocutor.

Undrinkable.