forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

ABC2019 wrote:if it is to say that man is at least partly responsible for global warming, no i do not deny it for my part.

According to the consensus of 99% of climatologists, the "at least in part" is too much, but hey, you are not hermetic at least

The Second Principle for a closed system is a fairly complicated concept, a reminder does not hurt https://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/sit ... opi.htm#31

(divided since Science-and-Technology / capillarity-the-c-is-of-the-anti-gravity-t16290-90.html )

izentrop wrote:

ABC2019 wrote:if it is to say that man is at least partly responsible for global warming, no i do not deny it for my part.

According to the consensus of 99% of climatologists, the "at least in part" is too much, but hey, you are not hermetic at least

I used to believe only what is scientifically proven (see homeopathy). Therefore :

a) a survey on the opinion of scientists has never been considered as a standard of proof in science (except in climatology where the debate has been largely confiscated by journalists, politicians, and philosophers who do not practice them even science)


b) do you even have serious proof of that? what is the methodology for saying that 99% of climatologists exclude that part of the warming is natural?

The Second Principle for a closed system is a fairly complicated concept, a reminder does not hurt https://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/sit ... opi.htm#31

that's the basis .

Just make a simple calculation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial era and what has been emitted since by the combustion of fossil fuels ... Not even need the advice of climatologists.

ABC2019 wrote:a) a survey on the opinion of scientists has never been considered as a standard of proof in science (except in climatology where the debate has been largely confiscated by journalists, politicians, and philosophers who do not practice them even science)

I love this sentence!
The opinion of 99% of scientists does not count because in climatology, journalists, politicians and philosophers agree (them who were not recently) with them and relay their opinion.
Wonderful of bias, bad faith and worthlessness.

I used to believe only what is scientifically proven (see homeopathy). Therefore :

in short, in the event of a fatal disease, you would rather die than treat yourself with H. How what fanaticism can go far, very far! Put one word in the ear of the 157.000 cancer deaths who have had this chance each year, and who have believed in what was scientifically proven.
Fortunately, not everyone is like you, otherwise what a slaughter!

Janic wrote:

I used to believe only what is scientifically proven (see homeopathy). Therefore :

in short, in the event of a fatal disease, you would rather die than treat yourself with H. How what fanaticism can go far, very far!
Fortunately, not everyone is like you, otherwise what a slaughter!

As if Homeopathy treated (and / or cured) deadly diseases ...

As if Homeopathy treated (and / or cured) deadly diseases ...

Despite your good will in this area, you still have a long way to go, but you are on the right track. At most, I would advise you to read the impressive library dealing with this subject [*] and you will certainly be surprised. It is not effective only for small sores as some claim. But at each day at a time et do not put the cart before the horse.
[*] not like ABC who stubbornly refuses, which shows his refusal to know, but not his refusal to denigrate!

izentrop wrote:Just make a simple calculation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial era and what has been emitted since by the combustion of fossil fuels ... Not even need the advice of climatologists.

it went from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, but I don't see how that proves that there was no natural component in the warming.

For information, here is the curve of the rate of warming (not temperature but its variation / year,) smoothed over 50 years



while CO2 has only increased steadily: the rate of warming was almost the same in the first half of the 50th century as it is now, then it almost canceled out between 70 and XNUMX, then increased again

If there is no natural component added to the CO2, how do you explain that?

Another graph on temperature reconstruction by Greenland ice cores



here again I would like to know how to explain this graph if it is only the CO2 which intervenes.

And no, it's wrong to say that 99% of climatologists exclude a natural component of global warming, you will not find any study anywhere that has not shown that.

The real study showed that 97% (not 99%) of the articles that cited a cause of global warming, cited the anthropogenic component, but that absolutely does not mean the same thing.

GuyGadebois wrote:Wonderful of bias, bad faith and worthlessness.

to say that 99% of climatologists exclude a component of natural variability in global warming?

Yes I agree

Thank you, you spoiled my subject !!