marvin78
10 kW
You can read all you need to know in the linked papers. Stop asking stupid questions indicating you are only interested in stupid arguments.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is real or not?
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
Jack, i was not looking for an explanation of the possible causes of the annual variation, …
…….i was queering marvin78 on why he thinks Its “shortsighted” to expect to measure CO2 variations over short time periods .
Hillhater
100 TW
Not if the paper doesnt mention what you stated !
marvin78
10 kW
I said there are cycles involved which influence presence of co2 like plant growth and absorption of co2 in ocean water which will cause a drop in emissions now to not always be measurable directly in atmospheric co2.
Just because we lowered emissions during covid temporarily, temperature was still going up, still lowering the amount of CO2 our oceans can hold, for instance. There are many secondary and tertiary processes involved in atmospheric co2 levels.
None of them however point to anything which would deny human caused climate change.
Again, stop asking stupid questions just to start stupid arguments.
Last edited:
marvin78
10 kW
Nah I think everyone here knows the real issue with you
JackFlorey
100 kW
I guess you shouldn't have asked for an explanation of the annual fluctuations in the measured CO2 data then, eh?
There's really no doubt that disappearing of the Aral Sea had clear anthropological causes. Nobody is asking for a proof that it wasn't a natural process. Yet still there's a discussion about the lack of connection between recent climate changes and human activity, and people demand more 'proofs' no matter what evidence is presented. Do we need an adequately spectacular sign, like at least a continent should disappear or move to the other hemisphere, or there should be giant burning sentence in the sky saying 'You did it!'?
marvin78
10 kW
.. but but but that was just those pesky Ruski's with their cotton plantageons ( iirc )... aka more severe water mismanagement, not climate change?
Or is water mismanagement at that scale, fitting the definition of 'human caused ( local ) climate change'?
If that's true, I think I should point American's looking for proof to the current water levels in the Mississippi, Colorado and Rio Grande.
marvin78
10 kW
If current water levels in those rivers aren't 'climate change' then neither is the Aral sea. I think you might be mistaken my post with sarcasm, I was being serious.
Not that I don't agree, but that's the argument you will get from someone denying human caused climate change -> it's just bad water management.
The basins of the Amy Darya and Syr Darya were historically fed by glacier melt and snowfall. Both have decreased significantly.
link.springer.com
Not that I don't agree, but that's the argument you will get from someone denying human caused climate change -> it's just bad water management.
The basins of the Amy Darya and Syr Darya were historically fed by glacier melt and snowfall. Both have decreased significantly.
Assessment of Amu Darya Runoff Changes as a Result of Predicted Climate Change and Reduced Glaciation
The task of assessing the water resources of the Central Asian Rivers and their forecast under the influence of economic activity and climate change is very important in modern conditions. Water scarcity is the main factor limiting the development of states’...
link.springer.com
Hillhater
100 TW
Lets be clear….you stated..
…but we can clearly see the effects of seasonal variations on the measured monthly data records ,…every month, every year !
..so why would you think an annual reduction would not be noticed ?
marvin78
10 kW
If you could read, you would know by now.
JackFlorey
100 kW
He's sealioning you, dude. He doesn't care about the answers.
Hillhater
100 TW
what i read is you are just avoiding answering why the data contradicts your statement .
Hillhater
100 TW
Wrong !..
i care to get a sensible explanation to why he doesnt think a year with reduced emissions would not be detected in the measured data that year.
It's written in the paper, they have given some reason - not enough data and big variability made it impossible to isolate contributions from just COVID. Maybe they're bad at numbers, so if you feel the answers are right there, pls enlighten the poor scientists...
JackFlorey
100 kW
Yep, loss of the AMOC has long been feared as a result of warmer temperatures.
You'll see these paradoxical effects in several places. Here in coastal San Diego, warmer waters often means more/longer June gloom events - making things colder by keeping the days cloudy.
JackFlorey
100 kW
Very slightly. It's more mist than rain and almost never is enough to even count for .01" of accumulation, but it does have an effect on the coastal vegetation at least. Both from the slight moisture and from the reduction in sun drying out the soil.
marvin78
10 kW
NOAA isn't that worried 'just keep it under study'..
This one is a lot more alarmistic.
RealClimate: New study suggests the Atlantic overturning circulation AMOC “is on tipping course”
RealClimate: A new paper was published in Science Advances today. Its title says what it is about: "Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course." The study follows one by Danish colleagues which made headlines last July, likewise looking for early warning signals for...
www.realclimate.org
Without AMOC redistributing heat from the equator to Europe we're heading to another iceage ( for Europe ).
classicalgas
100 W
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 260
You're trotting out your usual bullshit. It's old, tiresome and has been squashed multiple times...? So its the “willfully ignorant” who believe in ffuel being the cause of CO2 increasing ..?.
You are makeing an assumption that the increase in CO2 Is solely due to Fossil fuel use..ignoring any other possibilities.
Also, you are assuming that CO2 is the primary cause of “climate change”…ignoring any other possible causes
Neither of those has any proven basis in science.
There are many other possible causes for both atmospheric CO2 increase, and explanations for “climate change”, but some would prefer to simply believe in a “simple” theory that has become popular.
Hillhater
100 TW
And you are one of those with your eyes closed, fingers in your ears, ignoring actual science !
classicalgas
100 W
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 260
Please continue showing us what an ignorant fool you are.
marvin78
10 kW
No that is you. You never contribute science, you just regurgitate 'that's not proven' like a MAGA maggot thinking that repeating lies often enough might make them true.
There is not a single post from you anywhere where you link to actual 'science'.
Similar threads
