Global warming hogwash?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3

Global warming hogwash?




by Alain G » 09/09/13, 17:26

As I have always thought global warming is an invention of a minority of biased researchers invoking the cataclysm of man over nature, certainly man sacrifices the little blue ball by sacking nature but the warming does not seem to be for nothing more than a natural cycle of our climate.

The proof here:

In 2007, the BBC reported that scientists were alarmed about the possible total disappearance of ice from the Arctic ice cap in the summer 2013. But exactly the opposite has happened, since the Arctic ice has grown by 60%, which is a million and a half square kilometers.

After the record of the 2012 summer, which had been marked by significant melting, the uninterrupted ice sheet stretching from Canadian islands to Russian coasts is almost half the size of Europe, and it is expected to continue develop with the arrival of the winter freeze period which should begin in a few days. As a result, the passage that allows the Pacific Ocean to communicate with the North Atlantic was condemned throughout this year, forcing vessels to change their routes.

The Daily Mail reports that a leaked report by the United Nations-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that scientists say the world is heading for a period of cooling that does not occur. will not finish until the middle of this century.

In general, some leading climate scientists now agree on the existence of a pause in global warming since 1997, and this change of opinion has important implications. Indeed, the alarmist predictions that had been made so far, that the Earth was warming more and more, mainly because of human activities, resulted in billions of dollars in expenditures for the major economies that embarked on the fight against this global warming.

The IPCC is expected to meet during this month for a crisis meeting, and in October it is expected to issue its fifth evaluation report, a study that it issues every six or seven years. But the documents that the Daily Mail has obtained show that the governments of the countries that finance the IPCC are asking it to introduce more 1500 changes in the section of the report entitled "Summary for leaders", which they believe it does not would not explain this pause in climate change well enough.

For governments, two crucial questions now arise:

- What will be the exact impact of rising carbon dioxide levels on rising temperatures?

- What is the proportion of additional 0,8 ° C temperature gained over the last 150 years attributable to the production of greenhouse gases attributable to human activity?

More and more indications point to the existence of cycles that govern the level of Arctic ice. Data revealed by climatological historians showed that the ice had melted massively in the 1920 and 1930 years, and that it had recovered during a period of intense frost that had ended in 1979, the year in which the IPCC warned of the beginning of the melting of the sea ice.

However, the British daily The Guardian claims that its colleagues The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph are being won over by unfounded optimism: "The two British newspapers focus on short-term rumors and ignore the rapid long-term death spiral of the Arctic sea ice level ".


Image

http://www.express.be/joker/fr/platdujo ... 195431.htm
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Jboul
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 31/10/13, 09:37




by Jboul » 31/10/13, 10:30

I do not know if it's very wise to compare the ice cap from one year to the next to say whether or not man is responsible for global warming. In addition, even if global warming is considered as an increase in global temperatures, this does not prevent the decrease of temperatures at the local scale (cf disappearance of the Gulf stream: http: //www.notre-planete.info /actualites/actu_784_debit_gulf_stream_circulation_thermohaline.php).

Finally, if the warming is a natural cycle what is blamed on man is the speed at which is warmed due to the significant increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 31/10/13, 19:19

As rightly says Jboul, it may be premature to conclude definitively in view of a variation over two consecutive years ...
Basically, it does not matter if the warming (or not!) Is anthropogenic or not, since it would be in our interest to act as if it were true.
This question of "global warming" obscures the real problem that you raised:
... the man sacrifices the little blue ball by destroying nature ...

Indeed, if we stick to the only question of a warming, it means that in its absence our way of life is desirable and must be continued ... Awareness modest enough, you concede it to me !
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Surfeurseb
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 79
Registration: 01/12/05, 11:51
Location: Britain
x 1

Re: Global warming hogwash?




by Surfeurseb » 31/10/13, 21:42

[quote = "Alain G"] As I have always thought, global warming is an invention of a minority of biased researchers (...) / quote]

Just, I thought it was the skeptics who were in the minority?

I must be too idealistic, but when I can read that a large proportion of the scientists in the field who are dealing with the issue think that there is a probability in 95% that the increase in the CO2 level causes a rise in the greenhouse effect, I tend to follow.

Problem: it goes against "business as usual". Could this therefore be a thesis of the evil ecologists who want to prevent you from living as you see fit (by consuming as much as possible)?

Seriously, these scientists act as scientists (not all, they are also men, with their flaws). All they say is that it is highly likely that the increase in the CO2 rate, largely due to man (fossil fuels, etc ...) is an influence on climate change .
The evolution highlighted for decades, no longer seems to obey natural cycles, recorded for example in ice multi-millennia, because much faster.

There is no absolute certainty, just a bundle of convincing convergent clues.

On the other hand, skeptical climatos seem convinced that there is no warming. Each study going in this direction is systematically considered at 100% as proof.

We need to be humble about this subject. "Pro-warming" scientists may be wrong, the future will tell, but the vast majority are wise enough to admit that they do not have absolute certainty.

Among skeptics, this humility seems to be lacking ...

As for mass media, you know enough about them to know that it does not bother them at all to say one thing and its opposite some time later. They will always be able to blame their source.
In addition, they are always content to touch the subject: their readers will for the most part be unable to see the flaws.

This is striking for the subject of Arctic sea ice extent. Only one year will conclude to a cooling? And the fact that the sea ice has never been so fine?

Let's stay humble! Climatology is not just anecdotal observations.

The real question, for me, remains rather, what are the most judicious actions?
Do nothing and observe?
Take action that may not be worth anything?
To limit the capacity of nuisance of the man on the nature?

Could global warming be just a pretext, to change things and mentalities, in "the right direction"? This is what some fear, because it calls into question their way of living, of earning money.

For me, warming or not warming, we will evolve, because we do not continue on a certain model of growth, totally disconnected from our environment.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 31/10/13, 22:59

Surfeurseb, you write:
For me, warming or not warming, we will evolve, because we do not continue on a certain model of growth, totally disconnected from our environment.

Reassure yourself, I understand perfectly what you want (too quickly) to say, but if this model of growth is open to criticism, it is good (but not only!) Because it is totally connected to our environment, to the point of destroy it!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 01/11/13, 12:19

Here is the evidence of warming greatly influenced by humans:

Image

: Mrgreen:
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain
Arnaud M
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 132
Registration: 31/08/05, 18:34
x 2




by Arnaud M » 08/11/13, 09:16

see the science and life of this month (November 2013) the global warming exists, and it is of anthropic origin (very broad consensus).

In 2007 Claude Allègre had published a well-publicized book about his doubts about the antropic origin (due to man), highly publicized, and a study of 6 months had shown that his arguments were false (never mediatized).

Today we know that warming comes from man (after all it's mechanical, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere instead of radiating it in space), the only doubts of scientists at the moment are when at the level of devastation that it will bring.

For me what is serious is that these last 10 the sun was down and de facto limited the increase in average temperatures (which are however the hottest ever seen since 1996). Today the sun is gone again ...
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/11/13, 19:33

Raymon, you write;
... the only doubts of the scientists at the moment are as to the level of the devastations that it will bring.

This is the nodal point of the case!
Ignoring the seriousness of the consequences makes it possible to do nothing and therefore make the worst possible! Logic thus throws doubt on the scientific uncertainty ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 09/11/13, 20:02

It is difficult to decide on the issue of global warming.
Climate is governed by unstable variables that are difficult to draw definitive conclusions from.

Nevertheless, thermodynamics teaches us one thing: the industrial human society is a very efficient system in the dissipation of energy.
Because in reality we are only that! Biological dissipative energy structures (I admit that this is not very poetic, especially to seduce a woman!)
The more the human being evolves over time, the more he reaches a high level of abstraction ... and the more he spends energy ...
Given the extent of our field of action (worldwide), it is logical to note global warming on a global scale!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 11/11/13, 15:59

The terrible typhoon haiyan which has just touched the Philippines is apparently one of the most violent meteorological phenomena recorded:

"Never before had we recorded winds at more than 360 km / h". "Never before on earth, we had never recorded winds at more than 360 km / h, explains Stéven Testelin, forecaster at Météo France. We can also say without a doubt that it is one of the typhoons. the most violent since we have been able to estimate the power of cyclones at sea, that is to say since the 1970s. Before that date, we were content to measure those that made landfall, because we had to it is difficult to estimate the intensity of the winds at sea. Among the most violent cyclones known to date, are Hurricane Camille which swept the Gulf of Mexico with winds at 305 km / hour in 1969 as well as Typhoon Tip in the Pacific Ocean also with winds at 305km / h. "


http://lci.tf1.fr/science/environnement/philippines-le-typhon-haiyan-pourrait-etre-le-plus-puissant-8308722.html

A cyclone is a thermodynamic phenomenon of a meteorological nature, it is neither more nor less than a means for the atmosphere to dissipate a maximum of energy.
the increase in the power and frequency of cyclones is an element that goes in the direction of the thesis on global warming.
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 157 guests