This is well understood no? https://twitter.com/xrportsmouth/status/1176416097354076163?s=21 …https://twitter.com/XRPortsmouth/status/1176416097354076163 …
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Surely it just means ice takes a long time to melt.
Sea level was 6 to 9m higher in Eemian period (130000 years ago) and global temperature several degrees higher, but CO2 was only 280ppm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Science is supposed to be consistent. There are multiple temp data sets & multiple versions of each with different baselines & trends. They come with error bars and are adjusted every few years. Nothing is consistent
IPCC modelling only goes to 2100. But Ice Sheets melt over centuries to millennia. 24 meters SLR (+7/−15m) (68% confidence) relative to the present is on its way, in time. We won't live to see it. Pity those who do:https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209 …
And temperatures 3 oC warmer. So both sea levels and temps (given already at 1.1 oC) suggest the view that Net Zero by 2050 will achieve 1.5 oC is extremely unlikely. We need COP26 to go further and faster, following the lead of business - such as Mitie 100% EVs by 2030
Temperature appears to be driving CO2 in that chart, not other way around
What you need to know about climate science is that pretty much every aspect - temp records, co2, model projections are constantly being adjusted - but there's always a supposed Concensus that at any point in time the science is settled.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.