zlacker

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+(OP)
Which war? Or wars?

>>pvalde+(OP)
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

>>pvalde+(OP)
We could measure the effect of historical wars which exploded a much, much larger quantity of explosives than any current conflict, and assume that the current impact isn't any larger than that.

Like, the intensity of current wars isn't even comparable to that of WW1 or WW2 battles.

>>crucia+M1
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.

>>Peteri+o2
Or we can be smarter and understand that ecology does not work in absolute terms, most of the time all is relative and buffers are very important

The climate change can be expressed a the result of A+(B+C+D...) factors

Lets assume that A is some allegedly --hypothetical-- effect of the wars exploding bombs and releasing heat in the low atmosphere. If we claim that in World War II the value A was higher and nothing happened (So nothing will happen now), we are forgetting that the "everything else" part was much lower in WWII. Just the number of vehicles circulating was abysmally lower. This invalidates our guarantee, because all in ecology is relative to the current updated situation.

Ecosystems create buffers, the expect results are: not changes/very minor changes seen (buffer worked) or catastrophic change happens (buffer fell). Small amounts of energy released in one ecosystem could trigger noticeable effects in how the energy moves around the planet. As "how the energy moves around the planet" is too long, we created a shorter name for this: "Weather"

>>pvalde+53
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.