Global warming: already screwed up?

[bham]

Seen here:
http://www.boursorama.com/conseils/deta ... ws=3988942

Global warming: the UN sounds the alarm
The debate on global warming continues to gain momentum: according to a draft report currently drafted by the UN, a major natural disaster will occur if measures are not taken in the next 15 years to contain the gradual rise global average temperature ... According to United Nations experts, if carbon dioxide emissions do not drop significantly by 2020, phenomena dramatically affecting the planet's balance such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap or increasing ocean acidity will take an irreversible turn ...

The report recalls that the global average temperature increased by almost 0,75 degrees compared to 1900; but, above all, it could, in the absence of drastic measures, increase by an additional 3 degrees by the beginning of the next century; Indeed, the gradual thawing of Siberian permafrost would result in releases into the atmosphere of very large quantities of methane, a gas generating much more greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide ...

The report therefore recommends accelerating the pace of development of “clean” energies, foremost among which are biofuels. He also advocates - and this is less politically correct ... - an increased use of nuclear energy.

But, in any event, UN scientists anticipate a multiplication in the coming years of extreme climatic phenomena, foremost among which are episodes of prolonged drought and hurricanes ...
All this will accentuate - naturally ... - the imbalances currently characterizing the markets for agricultural raw materials (supply contracting even as demand increases and gradual and concomitant disappearance of world stocks). Of which act.

[Capt_Maloche]

Yes and so ?

The "big ones" do not care, and will be too happy to see the planet depopulate by making more money, all in the shelter of bubbles for millionaires boosted.

[jean63]

Yes and so ?

The "big ones" do not care, and will be too happy to see the planet depopulate by making more money, all in the shelter of bubbles for millionaires boosted.

Not wrong: see Hervé KEMPF's book "How the rich destroy the planet", it is perhaps on sale second hand on 2Xmincher or price minister or ebay ..... to read ABSOLUTELY.

[Targol]

In my humble opinion, the pseudo debate as to whether it is man, solar activity or a little of both that is responsible for global warming has little interest.

The essential; and that, no scientist (except those paid by Exxon) contradicts it, it is that the concentration of GES in the atmosphere increases in a dizzying way.

If nothing is done, even if the solar activity decreases, we will soon find ourselves in the position of the frog in the pan.

So, we have 2 solutions

• either we do nothing by hiding behind cosmic phenomena to justify our ever-increasing appetite for disposable crap
• either we act in a way responsible and thoughtful by asking the question of whether the happiness that advertisers tout (or sell) which consists in replacing the emptiness of our social exchanges by an accumulation of objects as polluting as useless is really what we are looking for.

Personally, I have no problem making my choice. I still have to remove a few fingers that get stuck in the gears of the machine (which is not so simple) and my life will finally be in accordance with my principles ...

[zac]

I still have to remove a few fingers that get stuck in the gears of the machine (which is not so simple) and my life will finally be in accordance with my principles ...

Hello

smash with a hammer and they will come out more easily a living fox with 3 legs is better than a dead fox in the trap

@+

[agukha]

In my humble opinion, the pseudo debate as to whether it is man, solar activity or a little of both that is responsible for global warming has little interest.

Not that little anyway, for example if we learned that human activities have in fact almost no influence and that warming is only due to the period of natural warming in which the Earth is currently, accentuated by the effects of the sun in recent times, it would still change the vision of things!
(I'm not saying it is necessarily the case eh;))

So, we have 2 solutions

• either we do nothing by hiding behind cosmic phenomena to justify our ever-increasing appetite for disposable crap
• either we act in a way responsible and thoughtful by asking the question of whether the happiness that advertisers tout (or sell) which consists in replacing the emptiness of our social exchanges by an accumulation of objects as polluting as useless is really what we are looking for.

It is an opposition not necessarily necessary between consumer society and respect for nature. It is not because I am unable to build a house that it is impossible to do. It would just be necessary to find (impose?) A way of doing things without necessarily wrecking nature and rejecting behind (or above) the remains.

[Targol]

-> agukha
You are generally right (although I did not necessarily understand your image on the house ).
What I meant to say is that if global warming is pushing people to question a relatively short-term unsustainable model (*), long live global warming.

For years, Western systems have preached excessive individualism.
In this context, arguments such as "excessive consumption risks increasing inequalities and reducing resources for future generations" have no impact.
On the other hand, if you say "If you do not calm your frenzied consumerism, the climate, at home, in 10 years, it is the Sahel", there, that makes you think.

(*) permanent growth in a finite world = right in the wall in the short term

[jlvx]

I refer you to the site "skeptical climate", and as I am a quiche, I leave it to the experts to provide you with the link.

This site is powered by scientists, and until proven otherwise not paid by EXXON (or BUSH).

For them, in very very summary,
1 / climatic warming, very real, is one of the cycles like the earth has known several since 650 000 years (or more, but the ice cores have been studied until this date
2 / despite the very real increase in anthropogenic GHGs (CO2, CFCs, Methane), the effect of these GHGs in the greenhouse effect (fortunately it exists because otherwise we would be called Mars, and would not be not there to discuss it) is at most 2%, which is probably too much, but good ..;
3 / in the famous 650 years ago, the concentration of CO000 has already reached current levels, before using fossil fuel (yes, that's not a reason to pollute ...)
4 / even if it is to go against the meaning of the single thought (naughty hominid on two legs, beast and villain), it would be better to study more deeply the phenomena of cloudiness, the effect of volcanoes, sea currents etc ..., because here, it is not the drop in oil consumption that will help us;
5 / the surface warming since the start of the industrial revolution has not been constant, there was even a period of decline (admittedly slight) between 1950 and 1980 (from memory)
6 / contrary to what the press says (because the RC is a subject "blessed bread" in the genre ouh! Make me (even more) afraid), all scientists, including climatologists (the real ones?) Are not d 'agree with the explanation of the RC
7 / if we knew how to model the projected climate for 40-50 years or more in such a long term, it would be known (see weather forecast for a few days, despite the use of computer resources and insane models in gigantism)
8 / reread the press of the years 1970-1980, the fashionable subject at the time was the occurrence, very likely around the year 2000, of an ice age, or at least of a strong cooling of the Earth... (yes, yes, forecast well done ...)
9 / not all alpine glaciers "melt"; They have known and know variations since the dawn of time.
The smallest, and exposed to the south are currently melting very quickly (yes, those!)
10 / in the 40s, circumpolar circulation by sea was possible following the melting of the Arctic ice

etc

Debate ?

PS I swear, Ma'am, I don't work either for EX ... or for GW Buisson,
I do have a holy horror of single thinking,
and in addition, so much the better for the awareness, if allows to accelerate the post-oil period and the behaviors more respectful for nature and less polluting (even if the "official" explanation is not as supported as it seems to be).

[bham]

.... either we do nothing by hiding behind cosmic phenomena in order to justify our growing appetite for disposable cakes[*] either we act in a way responsible and thoughtful by asking the question of whether the happiness that advertisers praise (or sell) which consists in replacing the emptiness of our social exchanges by an accumulation of objects as polluting as useless is really what we are looking for. [/ List]

Personally, I have no problem making my choice. I still have to remove a few fingers that get stuck in the gears of the machine (which is not so simple) and my life will finally be in accordance with my principles..

I really like your Targol prose !! and subscribe to it.

[bham]

I refer you to the "skeptical climate" site, and as I am a quiche, I leave it to the experts to provide you with the link ..........

http://www.climat-sceptique.com/

It seemed to me that there was now a consensus in the scientific community to link global warming to human activity. But hey, I agree with you that we must keep a critical mind by being wary of any single thought.

So imagine that this site is right when it says that human influence on global warming is negligible. Well in this case, I agree to maintain the hypocrisy which consists in saying the opposite. Because if it can finally make it possible to modify the general behavior of man vis-à-vis his environment, well it will always be that won.