The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by izentrop » 15/11/20, 16:29

ABC2019 wrote:it seems that it has especially decreased between 2000 and 2010 (hence the catastrophic predictions of a disappearance in 2012, then in 2016 ...)
It is indeed a classic bias for climate skeptics to select only portions of the curve to validate their arguments, without taking the curve as a whole.
Image
https://reseauactionclimat.org/reponses ... ceptiques/
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by ABC2019 » 15/11/20, 16:37

izentrop wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:it seems that it has especially decreased between 2000 and 2010 (hence the catastrophic predictions of a disappearance in 2012, then in 2016 ...)
It is indeed a classic bias for climate skeptics to select only portions of the curve to validate their arguments, without taking the curve as a whole.
Image
https://reseauactionclimat.org/reponses ... ceptiques/

well, go and draw the same thing with the extension of the ice floe ... in any case what is certain is that there was no exponential acceleration contrary to what was announced by some in the 2010s.
Image
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
Forhorse
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2485
Registration: 27/10/09, 08:19
Location: Perche Ornais
x 359

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by Forhorse » 16/11/20, 07:57

Yeah the disaster didn't happen exactly on the planned date so it's proof that it won't happen ... and that's scientifically sound!
1 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by ABC2019 » 16/11/20, 08:19

Forhorse wrote:Yeah the disaster didn't happen exactly on the planned date so it's proof that it won't happen ... and that's scientifically sound!

you still have the bad habit of quoting things that I did not say ... this is a strong enough sign of the unscientific nature of a discussion.
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
Forhorse
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2485
Registration: 27/10/09, 08:19
Location: Perche Ornais
x 359

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by Forhorse » 16/11/20, 13:35

Ah but I have never claimed to be a scientist. I'm happy to just listen to those who are and rely on consensus.
And in any scientific debate there are necessarily contradictory paths, that is part of the process.
But hey, when the contradictory paths are old croutons who have long passed retirement age, who speak out on a subject that is not theirs and / or whose arguments are anyway unmistakably dismantled by the majority, I have no reason to listen to them.

Anyway before climate skeptics denied global warming, now 99.97% admit warming it's hard to deny, so now they deny the consequences ...
Except that everyone is starting to see the consequences in practice, and even Americans are worried about them.

The blah "nothing proves that it will be serious" will not last long (it does not already take much except date errors in the predictions of the models) and therefore even when it falls there will be a new one. axis of negationism on the part of climate skeptics, I am not deluding myself.
0 x
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by Paul72 » 16/11/20, 14:04

Here I invite to watch this link, ABC this may answer some of your questions (at least partially) regarding the impact of natural disasters (not just related to RC)
Where we learn that if the trend is downward for mortality (despite an increase in the number of people affected, demography requires), the cost of disasters has exploded since the 2000s (variable depending on the year). We defend a little better, but that comes at a price.

https://www.planetoscope.com/Catastroph ... 0en%202011.
0 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by ABC2019 » 16/11/20, 14:46

Forhorse wrote:Ah but I have never claimed to be a scientist. I'm happy to just listen to those who are and rely on consensus.

OK, no worries about trusting scientists. . Could you just tell me what for you is part of the scientific consensus, and how we made sure that there is consensus?
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)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by ABC2019 » 16/11/20, 14:49

Paul72 wrote:Here I invite to watch this link, ABC this may answer some of your questions (at least partially) regarding the impact of natural disasters (not just related to RC)
Where we learn that if the trend is downward for mortality (despite an increase in the number of people affected, demography requires), the cost of disasters has exploded since the 2000s (variable depending on the year). We defend a little better, but that comes at a price.

https://www.planetoscope.com/Catastroph ... 0en%202011.


of course the cost is increasing, but there are three good reasons why it is increasing:
a) there are more and more people on Earth
b) people are getting richer and therefore have more and more to lose
c) there are also displacements of habitats which means that more and more people live towards the coasts, a priori more exposed

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoralisation

So if you want to be really scientific, you have to be able to separate these influences from those of RC. Do you think you have an answer to this question?
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
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by Exnihiloest » 16/11/20, 17:41

ENERC wrote:At least 20 pages rotten by climate skeptics ...

If there is an "official science" and your only argument is the argument of authority, tell us right away, we will know that we will no longer have to talk about science or present facts and logical relationships.

I remind you that science, unlike religions, is not a set of dogmas in which one should blindly believe.
I remind you that the scientific method, unlike religions, is based on doubt.
I remind you that science, unlike religions, evolves and that knowledge is reviewed from one era to another.
I remind you that science, unlike democracy, is not subject to the majority. If it was, Einstein's relativity would never have passed.
Finally, I would remind you that there are scientists who doubt the climate and its evolution as it is presented to us today, that they have solid, logical and rational arguments, and that entering into denial by brandishing its blinders and the fallacy of dishonor by association is much more an Islamist posture in the face of a caricature of Muhammad than a scientific attitude.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: The latest figures from global warming




by Exnihiloest » 16/11/20, 17:47

Forhorse wrote:Ah but I have never claimed to be a scientist. I'm happy to just listen to those who are and rely on consensus.

I doubt. From what I see, you only listen to those who talk about it, the media.
When you dissect their posts yourself, and not the only posts the media has directed you to, you can say you're listening to them.
When you are not a specialist in a domain, I understand that you rely on third parties who sort it out for you. It is still necessary to know a minimum on the subject, to know which of these intermediaries to trust.

Anyway before climate skeptics denied global warming, now 99.97% admit this warming

They have always denied "a certain warming", the one we were presented with. Only their detractors, by the fallacy of the scarecrow, conditioned you to think what you just said and which is false for the majority of them.

Forhorse wrote:But hey, when the contradictory paths are old croutons who have long passed retirement age, who speak out on a subject that is not theirs and / or whose arguments are anyway unmistakably dismantled by the majority, I have no reason to listen to them.
...

Image
About "old croutons","who express themselves on a subject that is not theirs","who are long past retirement age", this is Hoesung Lee, 74 years ago,, Chairman of the IPCC, who talks to us about the climate while he holds a bachelor's degree in Economic science !
Attachments
Hoesung_Lee2.jpg
Hoesung_Lee2.jpg (42.09 KiB) Viewed 1062 times
0 x

 


  • 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 158 guests