zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
Until the war is over, we can't know if exploding things non stop for two years is having a part in making the last years warmer.

The models could be incomplete, or obsolete

>>pvalde+fM1
The amount of energy accumulating in the oceans is equivalent to detonating five Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 25 years.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-020-9283-7

>>crucia+1O1
This does not change what I said.

We had past long time ago the question if is happening or not. What I'm discussing is the "how fast" part.

The sub-question is if the war or wars if you prefer (You all know what I'm talking about) are causing the current wave of claims "I'm worried now but I was not worried yesterday"

I assume that the war is making it faster, but the effect of this particular factor could be temporal. Artifacts happen in science all the time. We don't know if war is a modifier (and in that case if would be a temporary or permanent modifier). I personally suspect that it has an impact. I could be wrong.

>>pvalde+kP1
Certainly explosions and fighter jets result in a lot of GHG emissions. You seem to be suggesting that it might be significant enough to explain recent accelerated warming. That's how your comment reads.

My comment was mean to point out that the scale of warming is far more intense than two conflicts would produce.

I really hope the recent acceleration in warming can be traced to industrial methane emissions that could be stopped.