Analyses on anthropogenic global warming

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
Evaluation
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 58
Registration: 02/11/16, 16:22
Location: cosmopolitanie
x 7

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Evaluation » 04/11/16, 21:43

Janic wrote: The question is rather: what are the effects of non-submissions?

Good question that will remain in the state of question as long as it will not be lived intimately.
The mind can calculate at will.

Janic wrote:it is an illusion of the mind to believe in one's freedom (which, moreover) because to every cause there is an effect whose ins and outs escape us systematically.

There is indeed no freedom possible by this way which is endless.
The path of freedom is precisely in the realization of the illusion of oneself.
among others:http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/fr/enseignements/instructions/
0 x
Earthquake
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 78
Registration: 17/10/16, 14:53
x 15

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Earthquake » 17/11/16, 00:42

After pages and pages of climate-skeptic and climate-convicted arguments, here we are in spiritual discussions on god and free will which should have been "split" from this thread, because they are not lacking in interest but are not 'have only a distant link with its subject.

If all the speakers (still alive) of this thread now agree with the validation of> 97% of the community of climatology scientists to admit the reality of anthropogenic global warming, econologie.com could close it ...

Ha ha, I'm kidding, some certainly want to republish for an umpteenth time a seemingly unstoppable climate-skeptic argument from 1995-2010, an already disputed video of a spawn of the kind or, next year, based on indisputable figures showing a "cooling" (figures which will naturally follow the end of the El Nino effect 2015-2016), arguments which "will prove" that we are heading towards a new ice age!

I'm listening.

Yours ...
0 x
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!
User avatar
Evaluation
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 58
Registration: 02/11/16, 16:22
Location: cosmopolitanie
x 7

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Evaluation » 17/11/16, 10:16

Terremoto wrote:After pages and pages of climate-skeptic and climate-convicted arguments, here we are in spiritual discussions on god and free will which should have been "split" from this thread, because they are not lacking in interest but are not 'have only a distant link with its subject.

If all the speakers (still alive) of this thread now agree with the validation of> 97% of the community of climatology scientists to admit the reality of anthropogenic global warming, econologie.com could close it ...

Ha ha, I'm kidding, some certainly want to republish for an umpteenth time a seemingly unstoppable climate-skeptic argument from 1995-2010, an already disputed video of a spawn of the kind or, next year, based on indisputable figures showing a "cooling" (figures which will naturally follow the end of the El Nino effect 2015-2016), arguments which "will prove" that we are heading towards a new ice age!

I'm listening.

Yours ...

This subject is doubly complex: The climate and the human being interacting with the subject climate.

Climate change is the subject of a scientific consensus, it is a fact.
Science is defined by 3 components: observation, experimentation and laws.
Scientists in charge of the climate file have not yet written the laws irrefutably describing the Earth's climate.
This is an iterative process of building knowledge, current legislative proposals for past and future observations of climate. And so on.
Even if the consensus is today 97%, presumptuous is that which could have absolute certainty as to the evolution of the future climate.

Since we must not separate the subjects, we once again approach the human psyche, which needs certainties to decide its action.
Better a false certainty to which everyone adheres, it's more reassuring than living with the vagueness of uncertainty.

Pending the enactment of laws in climate science, repeatedly validated by observation and experimentation, the human being always preferred to follow the general consensus stammering because it considers it more cautious and reassuring, than to live isolation with the uncertainty, rather anxiety.

Yet the only intangible base on which we can rely in any research, whether scientific or spiritual, is: I do not know.
The rest is nothing more than a house of cards of the knowledge of the day, which come and go according to the progress.

Sincerely yours.
0 x
Earthquake
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 78
Registration: 17/10/16, 14:53
x 15

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Earthquake » 19/11/16, 04:43

Evaluation wrote:Science is defined by 3 components: observation, experimentation and laws.
Scientists in charge of the climate file have not yet written the laws irrefutably describing the Earth's climate.

Just as medicine has not yet written the laws of health or disease, but is a construction of all that we know and do not know about disease, health, biology, micro-biology , genetics, physiology, surgery, neurology, nutrition, psychology, alternative medicine, etc. Not to mention all that we want to admit or deny according to all kinds of packaging.

How to worry about
the human psyche that needs certainty to decide its action.

Si
Better a false certainty to which everyone adheres, it's more reassuring than living with the vagueness of uncertainty.
Pending the enactment of laws in climate science, repeatedly validated by observation and experimentation, the human being always preferred to follow the general consensus stammering because it considers it more cautious and reassuring, than to live isolation with the uncertainty, rather anxiety

I do not understand well, if the human psyche needs certainty to decide its action, but if the certainty to which everyone adheres is anxiety-provoking, it would be better then to adhere to the false certainty, the stammering, in order to reassure oneself in the vagueness of uncertainty?

No, as far as the climate is concerned, many laws in each discipline are already certified and their conclusions are consistent with anthropogenic global warming, and our valiant scientists are just trying to reconcile them in order to validate global models that would allow predictions so that the homo sapiens consumptor recognizes that facts that are not clearly visible at the individual level should be taken into account in future decisions (radiant, but not too hot, nor irradiated). Phew!

Yet the only intangible base on which we can rely in any research, whether scientific or spiritual, is: I do not know.

In any research, maybe ... For god, that's probably true ... but when it comes to the climate, we've passed this stage, we've made discoveries, and we're trying to draw some conclusions ... Maybe we know enough to do this?

The rest is nothing more than a house of cards of the knowledge of the day, which come and go according to the progress.

To read you, I have the impression that we are backing away ...

Ah, an ultimate insolence ... to quote myself (it's harmless):
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post312425.html#p312425
0 x
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!
User avatar
Evaluation
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 58
Registration: 02/11/16, 16:22
Location: cosmopolitanie
x 7

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Evaluation » 19/11/16, 10:02

Terremoto wrote:I do not understand well, if the human psyche needs certainty to decide its action, but if the certainty to which everyone adheres is anxiety-provoking, it would be better then to adhere to the false certainty, the stammering, in order to reassure oneself in the vagueness of uncertainty?

The consensus is indeed anxious because an uncertain climate future is presented to us, it was not the purpose.

The brain exerts uncertainty and prefers to rally to a massively adopted position, that reassures him, even if this position is discovered erroneous thereafter, rather than live in the present, alone and with doubt, such was the intention .

Alone and with doubt being more anxiety-provoking than with the group adhering to an anxiety-provoking position.

... but when it comes to the climate, we've gone beyond that, we've made discoveries, and we're trying to draw conclusions ... maybe we know enough to do that?

It is human to act and think with the knowledge of the moment, therefore to engage with the knowledge of the moment.
The future will confirm the climate research of today.
I am not a climatologist to judge the absolute relevance of climate research.
In spite of everything, climatology remains a young science, unlike Newtonian mechanics, which is no longer criticized today.
I prefer to keep a little perspective on what is not within my competence and what is not yet a consensus 100%.

However, as a human being, I am inclined to follow the current consensus and adopt the prudential rules that flow from it.
As this subject is complex, it is not only the climate at stake in this subject.

To read you, I have the impression that we are backing away ...

From my point of view, it is better to keep a certain distance.
Sometimes, after the fact, we regret the lack of foresight of his commitment.
Each one being different, everyone reacts differently to the same situation.

Yours.
0 x
Earthquake
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 78
Registration: 17/10/16, 14:53
x 15

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Earthquake » 21/11/16, 23:26

Evaluation wrote:The brain exerts uncertainty and prefers to rally to a massively adopted position, that reassures him, even if this position is discovered erroneous thereafter, rather than live in the present, alone and with doubt, such was the intention .

The (enlightened) brain especially loathes unfounded certainties and prefers to rally to well-founded arguments, even if they are disturbing! The current consensus is disturbing and anxious, but where would be the "advantage" to deny it? Shirk our responsibilities and not worry about their consequences?

Doubt is healthy, and is an integral part of the scientific attitude; few current supporters of the climate-anthropic consensus (they are scientists) have never had a doubt, but almost all have recognized the anthropic contribution in this problematic.

I repeat myself, but doubt is healthy.

However, that the same person (Dupon-dt; Cambre, Duran) denies consensus by invoking doubt and, in order and disorder, but concurrently:
- the denial of the current warming of the global climate;
- the acceptance of this same global warming of the climate, but denying its anthropic causes;
- manipulated curves (without peer control without conflicts of interest) and therefore doubtful;
- aspects of misunderstood detail (the extension of Antarctic ice, local meteorological arguments having little relation to the global climatological arguments ...) that support their manipulations but do not postpone, after subsequent verifications, not in question the global trend;
- the lack of probity of 97% of the studies that support the consensus (yet controlled by peers without conflict of interest).

So, one wonders what are the motives of Dupon-dt; Cambre, Duran, and others?
How is it that their insults to the entire scientific community are so long at the top of Google or other search results (it costs money, I can not afford it)?
From there, since money is so important, who are their counter-current efforts being financed (and the good place of their media misdeeds)?

Is the consensus on anthropogenic global warming a conspiracy, embraced by 97% of (peer-reviewed) studies from scientific authors with something to say about climate? Or is this alleged plot the position of climate skeptics (few of whom have any "letters" in the field of climate)?

It is nevertheless unlikely that the position of the consensus (majority, but not unanimous) promoted by 97% of the studies is the work of a conspiracy of the scientists who would be at the origin of it, knowing that the plots are historically and generally promoted by minorities opposed to this or that consensus; conspiracy: "theoretical account which claims to be coherent and seeks to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy understood as the fact that" a small group of powerful people is coordinating in secret to plan and undertake an illegal and harmful action affecting the course of events"" https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9orie_du_complot.
When it comes to climate consensus, we are a long way from a "small group of powerful people" who can coordinate to plot and divulge false information.

On the other hand, the activity of the climatosceptics is much closer to this definition ...

It is human to act and think with the knowledge of the moment, therefore to engage with the knowledge of the moment.
The future will confirm the climate research of today.
I am not a climatologist to judge the absolute relevance of climate research.
In spite of everything, climatology remains a young science, unlike Newtonian mechanics, which is no longer criticized today.
I prefer to keep a little perspective on what is not within my competence and what is not yet a consensus 100%.


It's a bit contradictory ... Current medicine is also very "young", do you subscribe to it or do you have legitimate doubts in your eyes? Do you refuse the vaccines, the antibiotics? In what way does your doubting mind wait for proof, which would be the subject of "100% consensus"? Does this 100% consensus exist in any scientific field? No. So, according to your "human" position you would not "believe" in anything that is supported by science?

Oulà, you would then be a sacred specimen of humanity, be careful on your way to the woods that could burn you alive!

Come back to earth, continental drift (or plate tectonics), a theory put forward in 1912 by Alfred Wegener alone, waited until the 1960s before being admitted and obtaining a scientific "consensus", Newton's theories or Einstein also waited decades before being accepted by a majority of scientists (not 100%). 100% consensus simply does not exist and never has existed, in any discipline!

Do you think that it will be the same for climatosceptic theses, broken down by irrefutable data (and not theories or interpretations). Will they triumph in the next 50 years? Will their theses be validated one day or the other? This is extremely unlikely, since it is counter-current theses of the data, not theories supported by physically measurable facts (the data).

However, as a human being, I am inclined to follow the current consensus and adopt the prudential rules that flow from it.

So you agree with the action against anthropogenic warming? Excuse me for asking the question again, but your position seems to me full of contradictions ...

As this subject is complex, it is not only the climate at stake in this subject.

What else? Personal beliefs that do not want to take into consideration a massive consensus? The philosophy?

Each one being different, everyone reacts differently to the same situation.

Here we finally agree absolutely ...
0 x
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Janic » 22/11/16, 08:39

It's a bit contradictory ... Current medicine is also very "young", do you subscribe to it or do you have legitimate doubts in your eyes? Do you refuse vaccines, antibiotics? In what way does your doubting mind wait for proof, which would be the subject of "100% consensus"? Does this 100% consensus exist in any scientific field? No. So, according to your "human" position you would not "believe" in anything that is supported by science?
Excellent comparison! except that…. Very few people go back to the genesis of vaccines as antibiotics, but that's where the point is. These two means mentioned are only answers (whose credibility can be questioned) to the fear, to the anxiety of the populations before the disease, the suffering and finally the death.
It is comparable to the current ecology, which can appear to be anxiety-provoking, by underlining the responsibility of society as a whole, given its recent behavior (in the eyes of history), starting roughly with development. industrialist in a total indifference as to the inevitable consequences in terms of pollution (for example) or antibio-resistance (the two correspondents in search of the miracle of "science" at the service of the human). Except that acting in this way disempowered (and disempowered) each individual face his own behavior: fear of the disease and the miracle vaccine will "protect" against the evil micro / virus / bacteria; the antibiotic (for those who do a little anti = against linguistics, bio = life and therefore against life and not only against malicious viruses and others) without having to ask the question of why it includes its answer.
In fact, and indeed, "science" is an instrument at the service of powerful interests (which fund targeted and obviously oriented research) and not a neutral "science".
Brought back to global warming the same mechanisms are at play namely carrot and stick that will be and are alternatively used.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Ahmed » 22/11/16, 09:38

In the end, these two opposing attitudes, the majority and the climate-skeptical minority, unconsciously reflect (it is not a plot!) The deadly desire that represents the real dynamics of our society, a desire incarnated in finding technological solutions to the problems engendered by technology (I let you judge the relevance of the approach!) and which go from climate engineering to the so-called energy transition and togetherto continue to resort to fossil fuels.
In this context, taking into account the human nature of the RC must be understood as an opportunity to build new equipment. more conventional equipment and so dissipate a little more energy, or if one prefers, achieve to increase gains that structurally tend to stagnate. Psychically, this also realizes the possibility of this program reassuring, those, and there are many, who note the process of destruction of the conditions of life on earth.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Evaluation
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 58
Registration: 02/11/16, 16:22
Location: cosmopolitanie
x 7

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Evaluation » 22/11/16, 11:54

Terremoto wrote:The (enlightened) brain especially loathes unfounded certainties and prefers to rally to well-founded arguments, even if they are disturbing! The current consensus is disturbing and anxious, but where would be the "advantage" to deny it? Shirk our responsibilities and not worry about their consequences?
----
Here we finally agree absolutely ...


Individual action ultimately has little weight, even if the result of the individual action is not zero.
This is the sum of non-zero action happens to do a little something.
One can only be humble about one's own power to make things happen.

Identifying yourself with a noble cause, "saving the planet", makes you feel less insignificant, it can justify an analysis bias on the climate issue.
I'm not saying that's the case, I do not know but it can.
If I have a question in general, is that I know quite well through the human being.
And since the human being does a lot of the world around us, I am suspicious of many things, including health.
This does not prevent me from treating me when needed but I remain critical of what is prescribed to me.

Money is not all about google, popularity matters too, we must believe that skeptics are popular.
People simply want a different story to make their opinion, which creates popularity.
It's possible that lobbies and money are behind some speeches, so I guess it works for the current 2.

No need for any particular conspiracy, the nature of the human being is enough to explain everything.
The human being is self-centered. Consequently, he conspires against all other human beings, themselves self-centered and finally against himself, to perpetuate this internal logic of self-centering.
There are groups of self-centered people, in agreement on one point (eg climate) and who think altruistic and selfless, as they are much to think and act for the good of all.
This grown up both by the cause to defend and the number.
Mass reassures, peers, all self justification.
I'm not saying 97% of climate scientists are wrong, or have reason, I just am not taking incompetence recognized on Climate subject and observation of human nature.

If I'm wary about is the man because climate subject passes through it.
Man is quick to pack on a subject, to take sides, to identify with a cause rather forget his personal contradictions and its insignificance.

possible consensus 100% expected from me?
99.9% suffice.
I quoted Newton, perhaps he should hang unhinged critics but his physical perfectly describes what it applies. There is no doubt, like what the consensus is possible.

Climate science and especially the recent global warming, are less simple to describe and formalize more the man who is what he is, I'd wait a bit before packing it.

If I'm careful about the discourse of global warming, I am equally by following its recommendations to combat it.
I am not taking up the cause and yet I act, I do not have any problem, it is the minimum risk management in a world of uncertainty.
Please do to see a contradiction or a problem only you can handle this.
0 x
Earthquake
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 78
Registration: 17/10/16, 14:53
x 15

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming




by Earthquake » 22/11/16, 17:58

Evaluation wrote:Individual action ultimately has little weight, even if the result of the individual action is not zero.
This is the sum of non-zero action happens to do a little something.
One can only remain humble about his own power to make things happen.
Or act in a non-zero way in order to set an example and bring others to also act for the same good reasons, which can change our actions from "non-zero" to a significant fundamental movement.

Identifying yourself with a noble cause, "saving the planet", makes you feel less insignificant, it can justify an analysis bias on the climate issue.
Buying the latest model of an object of much covetousness can also make it possible to "feel less insignificant" and "to justify an analysis bias on question X", for example, the damage caused by thoughtless overconsumption.

I'm not saying that's the case, I do not know but it can.
Again the doubt, an escape route many times used in these threads to say: "I do not care what everyone says, I doubt and it is my right, because it is an attitude validated in science"!

If I have a question in general, is that I know quite well through the human being.
The doubtful component resulting from "human failings" is fairly well removed in science by the research evaluation method (validation by peers without conflict of interest, cross-checking of the results of multiple, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary research, etc. .)

There are groups of self-centered people, in agreement on one point (eg climate) and who think altruistic and selfless, as they are much to think and act for the good of all.
This grown up both by the cause to defend and the number.
Mass reassures, peers, all self justification.
I'm not saying 97% of climate scientists are wrong, or have reason, I just am not taking incompetence recognized on Climate subject and observation of human nature.
Logic would however want that, "by incompetence" in one area or another, we trust the mainstream when it is widely founded and accepted, and that we retain doubts when the arguments opposed to this current are strong, well supported by data, even by precautionary principles on fundamental aspects which have not yet received a credible answer. In the case of global warming, the opposition does not present "strong arguments, well supported by data, or even by precautionary principles on fundamental aspects which have not yet received a credible answer". But we can still have doubts about the reactions of nature, a system that we do not yet understand in all its complexity.

possible consensus 100% expected from me?
99.9% suffice.
I quoted Newton, perhaps he should hang unhinged critics but his physical perfectly describes what it applies. There is no doubt, like what the consensus is possible.
In terms of Newtonian physics, we are in the field of fundamental laws that apply successfully in our physical dimension, outside the field of relativity, of the infinitely large and the infinitely small. It therefore has indeed reached a consensus rate almost 100% but no 100%. It would probably be good to not confuse consensus and unanimity ...

Compare rates consensus Newtonian theories that climate theories, more complex (but still subject to Newtonian principles) and never will be new basic laws is false.
Let us rather compare the theories of climatic sciences to theories of the health sciences, there, we obtain rates of certainty and doubt roughly comparable to those of climatic sciences, manipulated on the one hand by industries of opposing interests, of the other by proponents of all kinds of theories and "therapies" more or less based on empiricism, etc. But we can have doubts about the body's reactions, a system that we do not yet understand in all its complexity.

If I'm wary about is the man because climate subject passes through it.
Man is quick to pack on a subject, to take sides, to identify with a cause rather forget his personal contradictions and its insignificance.
The best "therapy", in this case, would be to make personal choices according to criteria that the individual considers valid. It is not a question of tilting to one side or the other of the scales for comfort, but to inform oneself up to his own limit of comprehension, to make choices and to draw the consequences, this which leads everyone to make decisions while remaining on the lookout for reasons to doubt their own choices.

Climate science and especially the recent global warming, are less simple to describe and formalize more the man who is what he is, I'd wait a bit before packing it.
All the alarm bells are from, how long are you going to wait?

If I'm careful about the discourse of global warming, I am equally by following its recommendations to combat it.
I am not taking up the cause and yet I act, I do not have any problem, it is the minimum risk management in a world of uncertainty.
Please do to see a contradiction or a problem only you can handle this.
I am relieved to learn that without taking sides or "doing and doing", you are still acting in the direction of an unsatisfactory 97% consensus.

This is commendable, and this myself pledge to return once again question my drinking habits (already half the habits of my fellow citizens, but still getting excessive to me since they would require several planets be sustainable).

Can we think that by giving half the time for emitting habits CO2 and other pollution would reduce 50% of its share in many problems?

50% off! Makers we have elected do not even dream ... So why expect them to provide quick solutions to problems already obvious?
0 x
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!

 


  • 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 178 guests