New IPCC report: we left for 1000 years!

[Capt_Maloche]

It's funny, but the more I advance in my reflection and my research on the subject, the more I doubt the primary impact of the role of CO2

CERTES, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just like water vapor I remind you, just find out how sweet it is in winter when the weather is cloudy 9 ° C variation still at this time

CO2 is one of the many parameters of the climate equation

CERTES, this policy will reduce our primary energy consumption, and I hope that the related taxes are used to invest on renewable instead of debt this totally illegitimate "tax" (see article 104 of maastricht or the state debt in the subjects of forum)

The impact of solar activity is, in my opinion, much more preponderant, and finally the IPCC experts have admitted having established their equations on a CONSTANT solar model, which is a mistake

in our period, the current T ° is exceptionally hot compared to the previous few thousand years http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/planett ... #id2456675



and we are in the cooling phase
see previous cycles, all 80 000 years around we had a favorable spike to man, which lasted about 10.000ans, and we are at the end of the one we live today

Except, if as some scientists say, we reject many CO2 to counter this cooling
(This is not a joke)

[Capt_Maloche]

Basically there is about 1600 x 10exp15 KW.h of solar energy emitted to the earth

30% are reflected in space
45% are transformed into heat and radiated out of the atmosphere
25% converted to surface and atmosphere

25 x 10exp12 KW.h reflected by the moon on our globe

Human activity represents 140 x 10exp12 Kw.h surroundings released into the atmosphere

And the energy saved because of the increase of the CO2 rate (in PPM) is the question to which our researchers must answer

it is a percentage of the 45 + 25% of solar radiation converted into surface and into the atmosphere

[Aumicron]

If it will change as it is more expensive, we will waste less ... and this is just the beginning ...

I have great doubts about that. Because despite the sharp increase in fuel prices since 1990, consumption is also increasing despite vehicles that consume much less.

[Christophe]

Consumption of what, from whom, from where exactly? In France it does not increase that much ...

And then everything is linked to the "purchasing power / price of fossils" ... we have already taken the lead on the forum About that...

If you increase purchasing power at the same time and the same proportions as the price of energy, the effect is inevitably nil ...

[I Citro]

If it will change as it is more expensive, we will waste less ... and this is just the beginning ...

I have great doubts about that. Because despite the sharp increase in fuel prices since 1990, consumption is also increasing despite vehicles that consume much less.

It's a big debate ...
I think that in fact, current vehicles do not consume less because:
- 1 / They are heavier
- 2 / They are more powerful (too much?)
- 3 / The traffic has become so much more dense that the average speed has decreased a lot, which has increased consumption.

On the ring road that I take every day, I see the considerable energy wasted by abrupt acceleration and useless because followed by energetic braking. Trying to smooth my speed, which prevents me from braking, I am a daily spectator of behaviors of motorists consuming probably 2 3 times more energy than their journey requires and this without saving time .. .

[highfly-addict]

...

CERTES, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just like water vapor I remind you, just find out how sweet it is in winter when the weather is cloudy 9 ° C variation still at this time

...

Oue, good ..... but no.

Greenhouse gases concern the climate, the effect felt locally under a cloudy mass is the weather: time scale and space radically different!

Clouds are precisely to water vapor, but droplets, H2O in liquid form so.

The softness in winter under the clouds is best explained by a moist and soft ocean air mass and by the mirror effect of the clouds in the infrared range which returns to the ground a part of the terrestrial radiations.

Moreover, if water vapor and CO2 are indeed both GHGs, their cycles are fundamentally different, a few weeks for H2O, a few decades for the CO2.

And we know relatively well the radiative forcing induced by the CO2, while the one of the water vapor is much more complex: formation of the clouds, positive or negative feedback according to their altitude: the studies are still in progress for a long time apparently it.

[Christophe]

a few weeks for H2O, a few decades for the CO2.

110-120 years for CO2 from what I had always heard.

For the water I'm not 100% agree that it's just weather because the burning of fossils creates water!

It transforms H2 stored in gaseous or "liquid" form into H2O by taking O2 from the atmosphere

The quantities of water "created" over 2 centuries are not necessarily negligible! To study...

[highfly-addict]

The orders of magnitude are not the same!

From memory, the total stock from fossil fuels is about 2 000 billion PET, or 2.10 ^ 10.

The total ocean volume is about 1,5 billions of Km3 or 1,5.10 ^ 18 tons of fleet.

8 orders of magnitude of difference .... so to speak that our direct impact on the cycle overall water is negligible.

[Lietseu]

See good people, how easy it is to hijack a post

I am campaigning for the roof terrace, liner in the sub-facade + slabs on plots, planters on the outskirts, you recover the surface of the lost roof (at the price of the m² nowadays), and more risks for the roof (except meteorites or war worlds)

Only terrace roofs with bitumen waterproofing MERDENT, sealing type liner or better, floating resin pose no problems. (provided that the expansion surfaces are respected), moreover the slabs on the stud protect the tightness of the direct aggressions.

http://www.toutjardindirect.fr/e_commer ... 3-c-27.htm

re here

Ben me, I have a doubt when the resistance of flat roofs in the face of strong winds ...
When I was a kid, I saw the whole surface of a flat roof come off and fail in the street ... it was good roofing ...

By cons what looks great is the fact of growing a few things on the flat roof and it seems that longevity is also at the rendezvous

But to prevent once and for all the risk of destruction by chemical agents and time, why not stainless steel sheets that cover the entire surface? (I would have proposed gold, but who would afford in these times of crisis?)


Meow

[Lietseu]

The weather is not warming up. We harvest earlier and earlier (3 weeks), but that's because the planet is getting "smarter" and the vines are going earlier.
My pear tree is 2 blooming but it's normal because today is 2 for the price of one.
The glaciers are melting everywhere (-25m per year on the one giving birth to the Ganges) but it's because the Ganges must give more water because there are more Indians so the smart planet adapts itself.
Those who are against global warming, instead of warming up, grab a gun, put it on your temple and cool down ... Go make a move for the planet and support the gun lobby by buying your last bullet.

No COMMENT or rather, if: + 10

Meow