The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

@Ahmed You said it yourself: "Everything must change so that nothing changes". Alas, I think we will have to be satisfied with it.

[ABC2019]

we see that you know how to juxtapose words and lyrical flights, but you don't know how to align a calculation, obviously you don't know the technical subject of HVDC, and your ideas are perfectly vague, at the crossroads of nihilism and backwardness .

+1 And then if "ecology" does not have to be ruinous, for the moment it does not have to be profitable, any more than schools, high schools, hospitals or nurseries ... "L 'ecology' means spending as quickly as possible, while you can still do so so as not to be ruined and unable to change anything when it is too late.

when we do that, there are always smart kids who know how to take advantage of it to get rich at the expense of gogos, are you aware of that?

[Exnihiloest]

...
Basically, there is no solution in the current economy, which aims only to maximize profits ...

Consumers, too, are looking to buy at the lowest price to maximize their profits. Everyone is looking for their interest.

We see that not only material contingencies are denied, but those of human psychology as well. To get past it, you need a dictatorship, because of the crash of ideologies, because a dictatorship only lasts from a few years to 1 or 2 generation, then people understand what they missed at the beginning, and do not want more.

[Exnihiloest]

@ Guy: The danger is that ecology is recovered by the economy for its own benefit, therefore in absolute contradiction with its objectives.

I see there a little confusion between ecologism and ecology. A science has no goal, it is knowledge. And this knowledge is not recovered: the green industry does not make a product from this science, for example to promote ecosystems. What is recovered is the ideological message around ecology, the one perpetually uttered by environmentalists. It has become a commercial argument: "my product is natural", "my product does not make CO2", "my product is recyclable" etc. etc.

The conceptual weakness of ecological currents explains this drift, all in all quite similar to that observed among socialist currents which have only succeeded in transforming agrarian societies into state capitalisms ... It would be good if these currents ceased to exist. to position as a simple inverted mirror of what they criticize (with accuracy, on the merits), because it is an untenable position in the long term.
As for the unconditional admirers of our techno-industrial societies, they commit a serious epistemological error by using as criteria of appreciation the characteristics and concepts which serve to define the object of their fascination ...

I'm still waiting for the alternative ... and don't see it coming. I don't even see the slightest hint of a sketch. Among intellectuals pouring into politics in the noble sense, it is nothingness, the time of the Marxes and the Sartres is over. And among others who imagine a new society, it is so childish and in denial of material and human realities ... it is on the level of the eternal paradise of Christians. Our "techno-industrial" societies produce many more ideas than they will ever have, they are the ones who transform the world, not them.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

According to Magnaglobal projections, ad spend is expected to reach $ 600 billion in 2021. (Stastista.com)

For the fifth year in a row, global military spending increased in 2019 with trade amounting to $ 1 billion. (Businessinsider.fr)

No, indeed, there is nothing to do ... there is no sub, the ecology is ruinous.

[eclectron]

...
Basically, there is no solution in the current economy, which aims only to maximize profits ...

Consumers, too, are looking to buy at the lowest price to maximize their profits. Everyone is looking for their interest.

Of course, but it is a mistake in the long run, because of the finiteness of everything.
This is why we have to get out of the profitable paradigm.

We see that not only material contingencies are denied

This is exactly what happens with capitalism, the finitude of resources is "amnesia", as are the long-term consequences of profit as the engine of society.

We see that not only material contingencies are denied, human psychology too.

Human psychology adapts to the framework in which it evolves.
The frame is profit, people think of profit in order to survive in the (imposed) frame, even if it doesn't make sense, even if it leads into the wall.
Thinking outside the box is difficult to imagine as the conditioning is centuries old.
Is reducing the senior executive to dictatorship a serious and objective approach to the subject?

[Exnihiloest]

...
Of course, but it is a mistake in the long run, because of the finiteness of everything.
This is why we have to get out of the profitable paradigm.
...

We need this, we should that ... etc etc are words that are useless. The question is not to know what should be done to achieve a long-term utopia, it is sterile intellectual masturbation, nor what "state of mind" one should have, an odious idea coming from a desire for standardization of minds.

People are what they are, you have to live with them. The question is that of which practical method to use to arrive at which practical result in the short term, even in the medium term, and which can generate a consensus among people of very different mentalities.

It is this pragmatism which makes the strength of the current "system", at least of what you see as a system and which for me is not one. As long as you do not enter into a philosophy of action, you will not see the world change in anything through your interventions, you must at least bring your grain of sand (because I do not believe that you are will see oil, even elbow, to the machine ). If you believe that your words are this grain that will end up germinating in the minds, what is wrong with yourself.

[Exnihiloest]

The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2, which the warmist trouducosphere tells us that it has a scientific consensus to support, does not have it at all. The only consensus is found among climatologists paid to study the impact of humans on the climate, such as the IPCC.

But among physicists and astrophysicists, in particular, doubt is always present. We regularly read their very critical studies on the work of climatologists.
The big difference between physicists and climatologists is that the former take the time to verify theories by experiments and observations, that is to say that they make real science, the one that can reject a theory that cannot be not sticking to observations.

Thorstein O. Seim and Bogar T. Olsen of the Institute of Physics of the University of Oslo have produced an experimental device to validate the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide according to the formulas used by the IPCC.
Their experience is detailed in this publication:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

Conclusion:
"The results of our study show almost identical heating curves when we switch from air to 100% CO2 or to an Argon gas with a low concentration of CO2. Nevertheless, we observed the absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to backscattering of CO2.
The modification of the observed backscattered radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2,4 to 4 K using Stefan Boltzmann's law. But we only observe a very slight increase in temperature due to the backscattering of CO2. This indicates that the warming, due to IR backscattering of CO2, is much less than assumed from Stefan Boltzmann's law or the forcing equation. (1a) and (1b).
Almost identical heating curves for all three gases indicate that thermal energy transfer is determined only by the temperature of the rear wall of the rear chamber. Without additional heating of the rear chamber walls, the air temperature cannot rise. These results could call into question the basis of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our installation has unexplained heat loss which negates the effect of the increased backscattered IR and prevents higher temperatures in the back chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this can be the case."

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It is true that a system as complex as that of global warming can be explained in the laboratory with a small metal box, a halogen lamp and two scientists who mumuse.

[ENERC]

...
Basically, there is no solution in the current economy, which aims only to maximize profits ...

Consumers, too, are looking to buy at the lowest price to maximize their profits. Everyone is looking for their interest.

Of course, but it is a mistake in the long run, because of the finiteness of everything.
This is why we have to get out of the profitable paradigm.

It takes more than that: the site https://www.wwf.ch offers a site for evaluating our CO2 emissions. The questionnaire is rather well done and fairly comprehensive.

I was voluntarily very virtuous in my answers (no plane, I eat organic food, few km by electric car, solar electricity, very few clothes and shoes, no restaurant, wood / solar heating ... .) well I get to 5.84 tons of CO2. (the Swiss average is 13.51 tonnes and the world average 7.41 tonnes).
By putting myself in the place of the almost perfect green, I will emit in this situation 3x too much CO2 to be in a sustainable situation in the long term.

This shows that the target of 1-2 tons of CO2 / inhabitant / year will be reached either in a long time if we are not under strong constraints, or quickly if we take the climatic wall head-on (big loss of crops in the world level -> famines -> wars and millions of deaths).