The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 25/01/21, 19:53


Well yeah, off topic ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming [-98 ° c]




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 25/01/21, 19:54

Exnihiloest wrote:ž
The record for cold on earth has just been broken in the Antarctic: -98 ° c
https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/envir ... -decouvert

The old record (-89 ° in 1983) is shattered!

I am more and more terrified of global warming! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

You confuse it with the weather ... you have said it enough. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Samarion24
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 87
Registration: 28/12/20, 20:16
x 28

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by Samarion24 » 25/01/21, 20:00

Climate change ... CLIMATE CHANGE
0 x
Butterfly flapping in Brazil can cause tornado in Texas
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by ABC2019 » 25/01/21, 20:06

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:

Well yeah, off topic ... : Mrgreen:


no, it's right in the subject ... all "collaborators" then no?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 25/01/21, 20:08

ABC2019 wrote:no, it's right in the subject ...

Do you know how to read and understand a subject title? : Mrgreen:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by ABC2019 » 25/01/21, 20:30

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:no, it's right in the subject ...

Do you know how to read and understand a subject title? : Mrgreen:

Yes
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by eclectron » 25/01/21, 23:57

ABC2019 wrote:yeah "collaborator" and "resistant" is there no moral notion for you?

As long as you know there is an RCA and an inevitable end to fossils, you know the whole problem.
Therefore your conscience is forced to make a choice.
BAU or transition.

I don't care where you are, it's up to you, even if I have an opinion on the matter. : Wink:

ABC2019 wrote:
eclectron wrote:When will we have to dare to introduce renewables to replace fossils?
When will it be necessary to change the economic model to move towards a more sober and truly sustainable one?
When is the right time for you?
Because that's just the problem: WHEN?

well introduce ENR we do not?

Are you serious ?
Do you sincerely believe that the dose and rate of current renewable energies is able to fill the fossils?
We wouldn't do anything if we would be the same.
You don't answer WHEN you have to transit in real life, so as not to be impacted very negatively by the contraction on fossils, you who claim to be big on the figures?

ABC2019 wrote:Once again, those who post on the internet that it is absolutely necessary to change models and leave fossils (when they are not creating blogs or youtube videos), that makes me laugh a little. You have to change the model, but I continue with my little comfort, I surf the internet, and I watch my videos, I have the right anyway! ?

Yes still your legendary casualness.
I do not believe that you clearly understand the terms of what should be changed to go sustainable.
No wonder since it's a concept that you hate.
You then adopt a binary cartoonish vision, a bit like our dear president: Amish or 5G.
But sustainable is neither one nor the other, there have been renewable energies, science and technology since the Amish way of life.
In addition, to oppose activists not to change the form of society is quite simply dishonest because it is impossible to change society alone in your corner! Be a little serious in your remarks.
The sustainable is not individual autonomy, it is a change of society, otherwise it does not work. Already explained ...
It takes a time for exchanges between people, a time for the maturation of consciousness before it evolves, if it evolves one day?

ABC2019 wrote:And then I remind you of some disturbing truths ...

Here I am touched in the heart! : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
Ouch here you point the corruption of the spirits by the money, even on the nicest ones, it is to say if it is necessary to change "economic framework", to pass to the durable and to the equity.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by ABC2019 » 26/01/21, 04:47

eclectron wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:yeah "collaborator" and "resistant" is there no moral notion for you?

As long as you know there is an RCA and an inevitable end to fossils, you know the whole problem.
Therefore your conscience is forced to make a choice.
BAU or transition.

to the extent that there is an inescapable end of the fossils, the transition is inevitable, it is not a choice, one cannot escape it.

The choice is therefore not that there; it is to know if we exhaust all the fossils of the ground, or if we leave some in the ground which one does not touch. In short it is to know how much fossils are burned before the "transition". There is no transition in existence, which is inevitable.

And to decide that, it is not morality that we need, it is numbers; from what quantity of fossils do we consider that burning more brings more disadvantages than advantages? it is not a question of morals, it is a stupid question of cost benefit calculation.

And it is this kind of calculation that should lead to saying things like "the limit is at 2 ° C". I have nothing against the principle of such a limit, me, if it stems from an argued reasoning,

I'm just asking: where do you come from that the limit is 2 ° C, from what figures "? And until it has been clearly explained to me, I have no reason to take my word for it. It's not morality, it's common sense.

It's like vaccines, if you don't trust the tests that have been done you are probably going to refuse to be injected, and if you trust you will accept. But to have confidence, you have to have seen the test results, and believe them, otherwise how can you have confidence?

Well, it's the same: I'm just asking someone to show me what we used to decide on a limit, it doesn't go any further.


Are you serious ?
Do you sincerely believe that the dose and rate of current renewable energies is able to fill the fossils?
We wouldn't do anything if we would be the same.

baj if I think that the rate of growth is sufficient to replace fossils if we manage to continue it. The problem is not there, it is just that renewable energies are insufficient to replace fossils.

In Iceland, for example, they produce much more renewable electricity per capita than the total energy needs per capita of all Western countries (yes yes, check ...). And not even intermittent, wind or solar (obviously solar in Iceland is not the best), no, geothermal energy and hydraulics, perfectly controllable. They don't need to make a transition, they've already done it and far more than necessary (in fact they are using their huge surplus to power big aluminum and ferrosilicon factories).

So they don't need to develop anything, they don't give a damn about solar energy and the price of PV, they absolutely don't need nuclear power and gen IV, they already have a lot of renewable energy. it is necessary. And yet they produce more CO2 per capita than the French; whereas it is an island devoid of fossils and they must import everything by boat, without any economic interest.

is that there is something wrong, right?

So what?

You don't answer WHEN you have to transit in real life, so as not to be impacted very negatively by the contraction on fossils, you who claim to be big on the figures?


if it was possible to transit without being impacted very negatively, the answer seems absolutely obvious to me, it is: immediately, and as quickly as possible (starting with Iceland which does not need anything more) .

If we don't do it, it's because we don't know how to do it without being impacted very negatively. And if we do not know how to do without being impacted very negatively, the answer to your question is on the contrary; as late as possible, as long as the disadvantages of fossils do not outweigh their advantages. Hence the first question I ask, how do we determine this moment and on what basis?
But sustainable is neither one nor the other, there have been renewable energies, science and technology since the Amish way of life.

this is wrong, there is absolutely nothing sustainable in renewable energies, because all renewable energies without exception, after water and windmills built with wood and ropes, are made with fossils, and no one 'proved that they could be built without.

The sustainability of renewables (and nuclear) is a legend, nobody knows how to do them with renewable energies alone

Otherwise the fossil problem would have been settled long ago.

In addition, to oppose activists not to change the form of society is quite simply dishonest because it is impossible to change society alone in your corner! Be a little serious in your remarks.


why do you want to change society if renewable energies can replace fossils without being negatively impacted? not being negatively impacted, that means that we can continue to live as before, but with renewable energies, right?

if people can do the same thing with renewable energies as with fossils, they don't care to transit, when they plug in their electrical devices, they take their car and their plane, they don't care how that works, they just want it to work and cost them the same price, and they don't care about the rest.

You cannot argue that we can replace fossils with renewable energies without negative impact and "at the same time" that it is very difficult to accept, it is totally contradictory.

I let you choose between the two, I have my opinion.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by eclectron » 26/01/21, 12:28

ABC2019 wrote:
renewables are insufficient to replace fossils.

Yes. Hence move to an economy that is truly resource and energy efficient, often called a sustainable economy : Mrgreen: (vs profitable).
This not to piss off the big capitalists (even if it will…), but simply to ensure an optimal level of comfort of life for all, compared to the available resources.
Finished the "I buy I throw away", simply to maintain the money machine.

ABC2019 wrote:In Iceland They don't need to make a transition, they already did

And no, since you yourself say that they produce a lot of CO2 per capita.
So what transition? It is well underway but not completed.
So why is that?
Well, because it is more profitable in certain positions (vehicles and various machines) to call on the global carbon industry and the global carbon energy that goes with it.
They could decide to build a factory for 'various vehicles and machines', manufacture 'vehicles and various machines' running on renewable electricity as the primary source (then battery or hydrogen)
Do you see the investment for this small country? And who to sell these vehicles to next? given that worldwide fossils are used for vehicles and various machines?
So status quo, they 'decide' * to follow the global movement, global competition requires, profitability requires.
* the invisible hand of the market decides for them.


ABC2019 wrote:if it was possible to transit without being impacted very negatively, the answer seems absolutely obvious to me, it is: immediately, and as quickly as possible

Phew!
The problem is that the very negative impact comes later (contraction on fossils and RCA) and that transit requires time and effort, especially in the current economic model, since it must above all be profitable. It doesn't matter whether one thing is better than another, it's profitability that decides.
So the moral of capitalism? there is none, you have to be profitable, period, otherwise it does not exist.
Yes, there are still a few idealistic political M / F who try to counter the law of the market and impose a dose of renewable energies. Obviously this is an unsurpassable trauma for you : Lol: , while soon, for lack of fossils, this will be our only salvation.

You still do not meet the cost of the rising seas due to the RCA?
Especially if, as it started, we continue to consume BAU fossils.

ABC2019 wrote:Hence the first question I ask, how do we determine this moment and on what basis?

If you ask me the question personally, it's right away, knowing that it will already take a long time to manufacture renewable energies and dismantle the economy.
The fossil and the RE will intersect, it is not binary.
RE, quantitatively will not be able to support the current type and level of economy (and it is good for resources and nature) therefore if we persist in keeping capitalism, this will lead to a drastic drop in the level of life. (and that's too bad, there was no way to keep capitalism)
It will still be better than when there are no more fossils, an RCA at the top and no EnR set up as you do not want it but as your activism leads us there.

Therefore only "the sustainable as much as possible" (no dogmatism in my case) would allow an honorable exit:
Optimal living comfort with regard to available resources and energy.
The sooner this is put in place, the more we reduce the RCA and its negative impacts, we maintain an optimal standard of living and above all we conserve fossils for critical positions where we do not know how to do without them.

ABC2019 wrote:there is absolutely nothing sustainable about renewable energies, because all renewable energies without exception, after water and windmills built with wood and ropes, are made with fossils, and no one has proven that you could build them without.
The sustainability of renewables (and nuclear) is a legend, nobody knows how to do them with renewable energies alone

Strange not to say absurd remark.
In a carbon-based economy, profitable like that, we do not try to prove that we can produce renewable sources only with renewable energies (which do not exist).
I dunno… thoughtful.
Why would anyone try to do this expensive demonstration?
You show that the price / profitable criteria are not the right ones to make survival decisions that are essential for the far-sighted and that i will be essential for the cicadas.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2




by ABC2019 » 26/01/21, 15:33

suddenly everything you say would be as valid even if the fossils did not produce CO2 by burning? (or if the CO2 did not absorb in the IR and did not disturb the climate)? or does it change something, and what?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 121 guests