The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Grelinette]

I haven't read it all, but this debate over who is the REAL responsible for Global Warming is stupid.

Each scientist, according to his field of research, his experience and his knowledge will probably explain a part of CR which will not necessarily be anthropogenic.

It can be the Sun, Greenhouse Gases (of anthropogenic origin or not), the Center of the Earth (of which little is known), the neighboring planets, the farts of cows, the wrath of the Gods, etc. .

The fact is that planet Earth is heating up and that it is upsetting and complicating our lifestyles as well as climatic phenomena, and compromising life on Earth, and our future. Of which act.

It is therefore quite reasonable to try to act ... and a priori, man can only act on the effects for which he is responsible, even if his responsibility does not necessarily represent the largest share of the current phenomenon. This is all the more simple as it suffices to moderate its destructive appetite a little.

In short, why endless debate on the origin of Global Warming angels sex Climate, while the only means of action that is within our reach and that of modifying our own behavior. That's all.

[Janic]

Janic, your ingratitude grieves me:?

you are right! Here I beat my guilt; I flog myself, I fast and ... I am very happy to be ungrateful!

this is how you respond to someone who teaches you that scientists are divided into two groups unequal in number and whose opinion reflects their moral character or not; is this not a scoop of the highest interest? In addition, it turns out that the ultra-minority defend a neutral opinion, astonishing, no *

that's true!

[Ahmed]

Grelinette, a complex system like the Earth's climate can only be described as multifactorial and what the debate poses is the respective importance of this or that factor; in this case, the anthropic factor, since if there is a cause on which it is possibly conceivable to act, it can only be the only one (as you explicitly suggest).
What complicates this debate are the implications: on the one hand, negationism represents the desire to persevere in the classical, causal model of the phenomenon, on the other, the recognition of human responsibility * underpins economic activism in favor of a reconversion of industrial activities within a new energy landscape (therefore an extension of the cause by other means); this only reflects the current phase change and in no way calls into question the operating model of our societies. Finally it is yet another rehash of the struggle between the old and the modern which eludes the real problems.

You write:

This is all the more simple as it suffices to moderate its destructive appetite a little.

Precisely, this is what is most difficult since this destruction is the condition of the functioning of economism: the production of abstract value via the placing on the market of more and more goods of less and less value ...

* This is only the case when alone climate change is highlighted, thereby excluding all the other consequences of exponential economism. This is important because it is a source of confusion with real ecological concerns.

[Exnihiloest]

...
The fact is that planet Earth is heating up and that it is upsetting and complicating our lifestyles as well as climatic phenomena, and compromising life on Earth, and our future. Of which act.

So it's reasonable enough to try to act ...

Exactly no! Because we have no way to do it so it will be a mismanagement that will weigh us down for nothing (not to mention that warming is not a bad thing).

The enormous cost and the total uselessness of energy restriction policies are explained there (scientific paper, in English):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 5899.12295
(at best, this will have an undetectable effect on global temperatures).

[Exnihiloest]

Another smoldering blow:
The amount of fossil fuels that humanity can burn (according to the IPCC) has suddenly been multiplied by more than 5 since the publication of AR5 in 2015! And so, by a magic wand in a science considered not long ago as definitive, humanity which had crossed mid-2017 the fatal threshold of no return can once again consider the punitive and ineffective exit scenarios from the crisis !

They really take us for fools , and when I see the general swallowing, I wonder if they are not right.

"Careful reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on 1,5 ° C global warming (RS15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5) and other scientific statements relevant. This article focuses on the RS15 declarations relating to carbon emissions balances to reach the 1,5 ° C and 2 ° C objectives.

It seems to me quite extraordinary that the AR5 carbon footprint for post-2010 of 1,5 ° C, published only four years ago, was increased by around 700 GtCO2 - equivalent to the emissions of 21st century to date - while SR15 projections of future warming are based largely on the transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) of the models used for AR5."
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/rema ... g-of-1-5c/

[sen-no-sen]

Exactly no! Because we have no way to do it so it will be a mismanagement that will weigh us down for nothing (not to mention that warming is not a bad thing).

On what arguments do you base yourself to state the idea that global warming would not be a bad thing?
A quick glance at a world map tells us that the current and future demographic centers are located in particularly hot regions and widely exposed to water stress.

[dede2002]

Thank you for the world map.

Would you have one with the population density in color, to compare?

ps: I am thinking of a typo concerning Botswana.

[dede2002]

"I found it"

carte-repartition_hommes.jpg (403.01 KiB) Viewed 1842 times

[sen-no-sen]

ps: I am thinking of a typo concerning Botswana.

Yes I think so too:

The country is experiencing population growth of 1,19% per year in 2016, with a birth rate of 20,7 ‰

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana#D%C3%A9mographie

Regarding the map of the distribution of humans on land, it should be noted that in the focal points of concentrations in the northern hemisphere (mega-cities) the demographic ensemble is aging.
According to UN forecasts the population in Africa is expected to increase 1,25 billion inhabitants by 2050, hence my remark on the possible "benefits" of the RCA.

Note that the post-2050 forecasts have little value in the sense that they only represent extrapolations of curves based on current data.
Including the economic and ecological crisis, there should probably have been stagnation, or even a decline in demography from 2040.

[Exnihiloest]

.