Study on the future cost of global warming

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by humus » 03/07/21, 18:22

Exnihiloest wrote:What simplicity!
On the one hand, there are many atoms which remain in the same form. Aluminum, for example, is easily recoverable, and that is what is done.
Then what is transformed can be the reverse.


It will have escaped you that to transform in the reverse, it is necessary to ......?
Energy that will go declining.

: Arrow: nawak2
: Arrow: Simplism 1st, Sophism 1st.

You definitely like distinctions.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by Exnihiloest » 03/07/21, 18:37

humus wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:What simplicity!
On the one hand, there are many atoms which remain in the same form. Aluminum, for example, is easily recoverable, and that is what is done.
Then what is transformed can be the reverse.


It will have escaped you that to transform in the reverse, it is necessary to ......?
Energy that will go declining.
...

And dishonest in addition! Was it helpful to truncate what now you're paraphrasing me with!
I mentioned energy just before:
"The only question is that of energy. However, fusion will be reality in 3 or 4 decades, therefore almost unlimited energy, allowing the atoms of the planet to be transformed and retransformed indefinitely.."
The energy will not decline, although environmentalists are doing everything to sabotage it.

The decline, I only see it in the way you think.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by sen-no-sen » 03/07/21, 18:49

Exnihiloest wrote:The energy will not decline, although environmentalists are doing everything to sabotage it.


Energy cannot decline due to the first principle of thermo. However, the decline in fossil fuels is inevitable, and we should (we are probably already there) suffer a 4th oil crisis.
It is because of this that the "ecologists", "the greens" and others, formerly marginal, now find a favorable echo in the media and in transnational political measures: because we must quickly make an energy transition (and by economic extension) to ensure the survival of the system.
It is on this point that you make an error of analysis: the ecologists are not vile reactionaries who will plunge our society into chaos, not in fact they are agents of the systems which will favor the maintenance of the current model.
As proof, EELV to vote very favorably in favor of the PMA for all, a shame for ignoble luddits of modern times! How do you explain that?
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by humus » 03/07/21, 18:53

Exnihiloest wrote:And dishonest in addition! Was it helpful to truncate what now you're paraphrasing me with!

I admit that I read you only superficially, so as not to pollute my mind too much, maybe I missed something. I will not read again to confirm or deny, again for pollution reasons.
I practice ABC2019 in the same way: no time to waste nitpicking on ramblings.


Exnihiloest wrote:The decline, I only see it in the way you think.

The decline is in the physical reality of the world, I just read the world as it is, I don't fantasize about it.

Regarding energy, I would like to have your optimism but you are unfortunately in the fantasy.
The merger does not yet exist on the ground in an operational manner.
: Arrow: Dreamer 1st
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14821
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 03/07/21, 19:14

Then he dares to come and talk about dishonesty with his future technological fantasies when we are not even screwed TODAY to make an EPR work correctly, neither us nor the Chinese! : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by Exnihiloest » 04/07/21, 17:59

humus wrote:...
I admit that I only read you superficially, so as not to pollute my mind too much, maybe I missed something.

Instead, ask yourself what you weren't missing, you'll save time.

The decline is in the physical reality of the world, I just read the world as it is, I don't fantasize about it.

The "reality" of the world filtered by your mind is no longer reality, it is "decline".
"decline" asserted peremptorily and agitated anyhow, without precision of what we are talking about, without quantification of anything, that makes no sense.

Regarding energy, I would like to have your optimism but you are unfortunately in the fantasy.
The merger does not yet exist on the ground in an operational manner.
: Arrow: Dreamer 1st

Nothing of the future exists operationally yet. Why then are you talking about the future?
Fusion is based on a scientific principle much safer than anthropogenic warming!
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by Exnihiloest » 04/07/21, 19:36

sen-no-sen wrote:...
Energy cannot decline due to the first principle of thermo. However, the decline in fossil fuels is inevitable, and we should (we are probably already there) suffer a 4th oil crisis.
It is because of this that the "ecologists", "the greens" and others, formerly marginal, now find a favorable echo in the media and in transnational political measures: because we must quickly make an energy transition (and by economic extension) to ensure the survival of the system.


We have reserves for longer than we need. And when there is no more, we find new deposits, or we extract them deeper. Fusion will already be commonplace long before the oil or gas runs out.

It is on this point that you make an error of analysis: the ecologists are not vile reactionaries who will plunge our society into chaos, not in fact they are agents of the systems which will favor the maintenance of the current model.
...

There are such, and they are very active, I also cited 3 recently, who expressed themselves in their publication, who want the abandonment of agricultural machinery for the return to muscular work of man and animals in agriculture.

And with others, it is worse, because they think wrong: they take at face value everything that the ambient catastrophism gives them and they believe that because they would be sincere, they would be right. Without wanting to abandon agricultural machinery for the return to muscular work of man and animals in agriculture, the measures they recommend would come back to the same thing. Sincerity has never been the guarantor of what it contains.

The current "system" can obviously be improved. And it has been improving for centuries. It is clear that there are weak points and things to be corrected, but it should be done without doing worse. It is the denial of past progress that makes the basic ecologist: he has become incapable of measuring the advantages against the disadvantages, and he is not only ready to sacrifice the acquired advantages to remove the disadvantages, a remedy worse than the evil. , but still to do it on the simple assumption of hazardous predictions of the future, such as catastrophic warming when climate models make false forecasts and do not converge. We are clearly no longer in the rational.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by humus » 04/07/21, 19:57

Exnihiloest wrote:We have reserves for longer than we need. And when there is no more, we find new deposits, or we extract them deeper. Fusion will already be commonplace long before the oil or gas runs out.

Reliable sources to back up your fantasies?
What mark is the crystal ball about fusion?
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by Exnihiloest » 04/07/21, 20:20

humus wrote:...
What mark is the crystal ball about fusion?

Einstein, 1905.
Not the funny ones of the IPCC!
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Study on the future cost of global warming




by sen-no-sen » 04/07/21, 21:04

The mastery of fusion is not for today, we will probably have to wait until 2070 to consider industrial production (which will probably not be global, far from it). Until then the only option is to mix everything.
However, the drop in production (not to be confused with exhaustion!) will create a long period of economic and social instability which is expected to extend for a long time.
Replacement solutions such as renewable energies are problematic because they depend to a large extent on an economy based on fossils, as for GEN4 nuclear power plants, we will have to wait at least 20 years before seeing the appearance of the first reactors dedicated to industrial production.
In this context, the notion of depletion is therefore quite serious, and I do not take into account other potential events which would eventually worsen the situation (conflicts, terrorism, pandemic, etc.).
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 95 guests