Warming: a little cool, the wind turns

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by eclectron » 09/07/17, 12:36

Did67 wrote:What if the debate, instead of turning around curves, around "mathematical models" ... rather revolved around ethics?

My intention is rather action-oriented (as you do with your vegetable garden : Wink: ), individual for once, where pragmatism and ethics come together.
I think that we are unfortunately approaching a world situation where survival is at stake, more than in the "luxury" of ethics, which we must try to maintain despite everything.
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by Did67 » 09/07/17, 13:01

For me, "ethics" is not opposed to action (as your "wink" shows in passing!). Quite the contrary!

Ethics are what guides me in my action. This is the use I make of knowledge (when it is clearly established and founded). It is possibly, the use that I make of my "convictions" (when the knowledge is not clearly established).

The situation with regard to global warming is not clearly established, for me. The proof being that we can affirm one thing and its opposite, so great are the uncertainties about the past, and so imperfect is the modeling for the future. It is obvious that not all IPCC experts are perfect. They are men. At the heart of the issues. They have "egos", their "psychological profiles" and their flaws. The system needs to drain funding, so we can talk about it (when it is not the ego). To think that scientists are necessarily "honest" (or "ethical") is a delusion. They are men struggling in a system.

But my "conviction" is that CO² emissions contribute to warming, or accelerate it (if it is "natural"). It doesn't matter. Since then, ethics requires me to act to reduce my emissions - even if there is doubt, so as not to be responsible for having overlooked a non-negligible probability. That's enough for me. My vegetable garden is a carbon "sink" - hey, I would have to talk about it !!! An idea for a video!

Ex: E = mc² is a knowledge; I am unable to verify Einstein's calculations, but I think within their "range of validity" this is correct.

With that, some men have designed an atomic bomb ...

Others nuclear power plants (including that of Fessenheim, or the EPR today).

Or the explosives, if you want. It's chemical knowledge. You can make a tunnel to open up a valley or weapons like Daesh ...

I am allergic to religious thoughts. So, to find out what me I do, I still have the ethics. In my kitchen garden, I advanced. For energy, not enough (to my own taste), even if I bazardé my fuel boiler for a boiler pellet there 10 years already ...

That's what I meant.

You seem to "follow" me (here? On Youtube?), So you know how much I try to both explain what I know, to bear witness to what I do, to encourage others to evolve on their own vision of things (which I wish ethical). Without falling into the excesses of a "religious thought" as the Internet conceals so much! And even while constantly fighting against this "natural tendency" that I regret [You will watch the last minutes of the video shot and edited yesterday, which is being uploaded to Youtube, and you will understand what I mean there]
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by Ahmed » 09/07/17, 23:27

Absolutely! Ethics becomes a necessity all the greater as the perils are great. It is irresponsible to invoke methodological optimism, since the possibility of correction on this scale is nil and a disaster would no longer be limited geographically as was observed in the past, but would necessarily be total.
What you say, Did, experts of the IPCC, is also valid for those who dispute their conclusions: to exonerate human activity, it is to reinforce the dominant economic model of which these scientists are dependent ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by eclectron » 10/07/17, 01:12

Did67 wrote:For me, "ethics" is not opposed to action (as your "wink" shows in passing!). Quite the contrary!

]

Oh no that's not what I meant, the nod was to say that I appreciate the action that you operate through your garden.
I do not oppose either ethics and action in general but there are cases, especially in case of survival, where what we consider ethical in normal times can take second place.
For example, burning oil is not ethical according to your ethic, but if it is the only way to save lives, we do it.
It's everything I wanted to say. : Wink:
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by izentrop » 10/07/17, 08:47

You quote this excellent article because I wrote that compared to the curves taken from ice cores, the longest of which dates back to 800000, the atmospheric CO2 level has never risen as high as in recent years.

And this, despite the climatic variations due to the fact that the earth follows an elliptical trajectory around the sun, the inclination and the precession of its rotation (Milankovitch cycles).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4_bbojSeEU

Of course, this rate was much higher, but there was no life at the beginning. It could not be established because of extreme temperatures due to the formation of the earth.

The beginnings of the earth in minutes 4, with shortcuts like the disappearance of the dinosaurs, because the smallest survived, giving birth to the birds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekZrZ4c64w

Life has diversified little by little afterwards.
The appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere would have coincided with the appearance of cyanobacteria and the end of the Carboniferous with that of fungi capable of decomposing lignin.

Our ethics must change according to our knowledge, otherwise we go on the side of dogma.
0 x
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by eclectron » 10/07/17, 09:58

I do not have much time to watch your videos at this moment but I will.
To answer you about CO2, history and life:
Animal and vegetable life ... comes out of the water
Plants first ... 440 millions of years ago, the soil is colonized by plants such as mosses or lichens growing near the water. ...
We have to wait - 360 million years for animals that can actually move on Earth ... some kinds of reptiles colonize the land.

http://www.hominides.com/html/chronologie/chronoterre.php

it is thus shown that at the Carboniferous (300 million years), the CO2 content was probably as low as it is now. Then she rose until the Cretaceous (5 times the current value). Relatively high values ​​of CO2 content persisted during the Mesozoic period (from 240 to 100 million years). since this content decreases (from 80 to 0 million years).

http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/article/co2-depuis-4ga.xml
Life has survived these high CO2 conditions, since we are here to talk about it.
I am well aware that a rapid climate change is accompanied by losses, especially for a sedentary flora and fauna, I am afraid that one is obliged to do with these conditions now.

What worries me more is our structural dependence on fossil carbon energies, exhaustible by definition and especially the lack of anticipation of this deadline.
Concern and action that would support the reduction or stabilization of CO2, for the most anxious
So we meet but not for the same reasons.: Wink:
0 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by Exnihiloest » 10/07/17, 20:00

izentrop wrote:...
Our ethics must change according to our knowledge, otherwise we go on the side of dogma.

Ethics must change according to our knowledge. For that we need knowledge, and solid knowledge. But in terms of climate, this is not the case.
The curves of the evolution of the temperatures over the last thousand years, emanating from scientists, show enormous dispersions. You passed us one with a spectacular rise of temperatures towards 2000, I can pass you a dozen where the maximum of these last years does not exceed the medieval optimum, for example:
clim1000.jpg
clim1000.jpg (80.2 KIO) Viewed 2643 times

or this one:
clim1001.jpg
clim1001.jpg (41.37 KIO) Viewed 2643 times


So it is stupid to engage in actions against the CO2 while the subject is not under control.

Then we are presented with the warming as a catastrophe. This would be true if we were able to accurately quantify the increase in ocean levels and show a real risk for hundreds of thousands of people, or millions. Here again we are unable to do so, alarmist forecasts are always revised downward. Then it would be necessary to demonstrate how reductions of CO2 could impact the climate. This demonstration, we do not have it either, or with a precision as ridiculous as the rest. The anthropogenic CO2, it is 4% of the CO2, and it is believed that by playing on 4% weights, we will make the weight next to the rest of which 96% of the natural CO2?! Another nice scam.
The warming and the increase of CO2, of which we are not even sure that one is the cause of the other, they are concomitant, are not necessarily a catastrophe, it can be a chance. Even if some islands of the Pacific disappeared, the effect of the increase of the CO2, beneficial for the plants, would revive the planet, one can see it already. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Then I see that no one is consulted on the need or not to fight global warming, given the price to be paid. We may prefer a warming, and all the more so since this warming is always much lower than the forecasts of the IPCC of previous years. But despite the importance of the subject, and the scientific uncertainty, the opinion of the citizen is not asked. A referendum? Let's not think about it, the technocrats and the politicians have decided "it's bad for you, we will decide for you", and they hammer it on us with the media. The measures against global warming are a denial of democracy.

Finally to come back to ethics, ethics is a personal notion. Everyone has their own concept. But when it comes to acting at the level of a society, everyone's ethics must be shared, and there it becomes a moral. What I observe is that some present their personal ethics as if it is universal, obvious, and that everyone should share it. They always punctuate their speeches with "if you do not agree it is because you want to sacrifice our children, future generations, the planet, that you are paid by the nuclear industry, that of oil , that you have psy problems which force you to think as in the last century etc etc ... ". I am very wary of the ethics put to all the sauces. Ethics is for personal action. For political action, we need consensus.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by sen-no-sen » 10/07/17, 20:56

Exnihiloest wrote:
Then we are presented with the warming as a catastrophe. This would be true if we were able to accurately quantify the increase in ocean levels and show a real risk for hundreds of thousands of people, or millions. Here again we are unable to do so, alarmist forecasts are always revised downward. Then it would be necessary to demonstrate how reductions of CO2 could impact the climate. This demonstration, we do not have it either, or with a precision as ridiculous as the rest. The anthropogenic CO2, it is 4% of the CO2, and it is believed that by playing on 4% weights, we will make the weight next to the rest of which 96% of the natural CO2?! Another nice scam.


And if you planted yourself? What would you say to the future generation? "Well sorry guys I messed up, good continuation"! : Lol:
I guess you're not very young and so in a way the outcome of all of this does not matter to you, am I wrong?

There are two possible scenarios:
1)the RCA is bogus and we took action for nothing, result, nothing, but no disaster.
2)the RCA is a reality and we have not taken action despite a large number of indices, we are there in the context of endangering the lives of others.

Then I see that no one is consulted on the need or not to fight global warming, given the price to be paid. We may prefer a warming, and all the more so since this warming is always much lower than the forecasts of the IPCC of previous years. But despite the importance of the subject, and the scientific uncertainty, the opinion of the citizen is not asked. A referendum? Let's not think about it, the technocrats and the politicians have decided "it's bad for you, we will decide for you", and they hammer it on us with the media. The measures against global warming are a denial of democracy.


Be careful, choosing the largest number does not mean the right choice.
For example, a referendum on GMOs is worthy of interest because its last will end up in our stomachs at one time or another, and it is a right to eat what we want a fortiori with such an extensive biodiversity.
On the other hand, a referendum on petroleum taxation would be particularly dangerous.
If the citizen lambada had to decide the price at the pump, my little finger told me that the majority would decide to lower prices, which would have unfortunate consequences: more accidents and deaths, more pollution and sick, more of infrastructure expenses, traffic jams, etc.

The recent referendum on the NDDL airport demonstrates that the majority is not necessarily the most appropriate decision base.
A good democracy needs to be informed by non-partisan and objective decisions, which I think is very difficult in our time.

Measures against global warming are a denial of democracy.


At the time of today I still have not seen the shadow of an anti-warming measurebut only metrics aimed at developing a new economy based on renewable energies that will boost slow growth.
The use of oil and gas will still be the case for a long time, the goal of renewable energy and to help maintain global economic growth in a context of depletion the time required for the advent of a technology (certainly fusion) to move to the next phase:2.0 economism

Reconciling economics and ecology is not possible, it is two antinomic tendencies, the future humanity will have to make a choice.
An econology is only possible if the economy recedes in the face of ecology, which does not exclude social progress quite the opposite.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by Exnihiloest » 10/07/17, 22:25

sen-no-sen wrote:...
And if you planted yourself? What would you say to the future generation?

And you ?
because launching useless actions, such as those against global warming, is also a waste of resources, especially human resources.

To future generations, I have nothing to say to them because on the one hand I trust them, and on the other hand no generation has needed that previous generations work especially for them.
Progress does not come from pretentious comet plans that believe themselves capable of influencing the distant future of future generations, but of each generation's efforts to solve its own current problems. I will never be stupid enough to blame my ancestors for using coal, which smoked the cities and covered them with soot, or for clearing thousands of square miles of cool wilderness, for farming. . So I feel in perfect collusion with future generations, who in the same way will understand our current positions with, for example, oil and nuclear, and in the same way, will find better solutions than our level of advancement. scientist does not allow yet.

The recent referendum on the NDDL airport demonstrates that the majority is not necessarily the most appropriate decision base.
A good democracy needs to be informed by non-partisan and objective decisions, which I think is very difficult in our time.

Yes, very difficult, and then too, objectivity does not exist. That's why we vote.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Return to posts index Reply Like Re: Warming up: a little cool, wind is turning




by sen-no-sen » 10/07/17, 22:51

Exnihiloest wrote:And you ?
because launching useless actions, such as those against global warming, is also a waste of resources, especially human resources.


I have already mentioned: Whether or not the RCA is a reality does not change absolutely anything that needs to be done to protect the biosphere.
Reducing GHG emissions is one of its priorities, so we need to expand them.
By the way, what do you propose for the protection of the biosphere?

To future generations, I have nothing to say to them because on the one hand I trust them, and on the other hand no generation has needed that previous generations work especially for them.


This is an irrelevant remark in the sense that past generations have never had to deal with situations like the one we are going through.
Moreover if we stick to previous generations there is no place to trust anyone! :|

Yes, very difficult, and then too, objectivity does not exist. That's why we vote.


Absolute objectivity does not exist, but science makes it possible to approach it timidly.
Voting is valuable only if citizens think through global analysis and not short-term interest.
Moreover, the voting methods should already be able to express themselves correctly and the right questions should be formulated.
0 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 119 guests