The fable of anthropogenic warming and the fight against CO2

[Exnihiloest]

...
On what arguments do you base yourself to state the idea that global warming would not be a bad thing?

The increase in CO2 favors the vegetation, the traditionally hot countries are not hells and no forecast indicates that the European countries would have the temperatures of the Ivory Coast, and it is the cold periods of the past which were revealed harmful to humans, examples here:
"The cold waves of the early 1846th and XNUMXth centuries coincided with the outbreak of the Thirty Years War and the departures of European migrants, in particular the Irish fleeing The Irish Potato Famine of XNUMX to America, respectively"
"The comparative study of the climate and political and social events of the 541th, XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries has highlighted interesting correlations. For example, in Europe, this colder climate is likely to have contributed to a decrease in agricultural production. which triggered shortages at the same time, in XNUMX CE, a plague epidemic broke out in the Byzantine Empire, which became pandemic when it spread across Europe, causing widespread millions of victims and weakening the foundations of the Empire.
The decline of agriculture is therefore suspected of having contributed to the spread of the plague in Asia and Europe because of animal migration. Likewise, political unrest, especially in northern China, and movements of Slavic populations across Europe could be linked to social instability caused by famine, scarcity and multiple epidemics. "
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/polit ... l-histoire

[sen-no-sen]

The increase in CO2 promotes vegetation,

This question has already been addressed and it appears that this is an answer based on a very limiting vision of the problem of increasing CO2.
If we can boost the growth of plants in a greenhouse by injecting CO2, it would be very naive to think that an increase on a global scale would be positive in every way.

the traditionally hot countries are not hells and no forecast indicates that the European countries would have the temperatures of the Ivory Coast, and it is the cold periods of the past which turned out to be harmful for the man, examples here:

Access to water is one of the major challenges of the 21st century, there are already many regions of the world where living conditions are more and more difficult due to water restrictions, lack of luck many of its regions are inhabited by miserable populations who see their salvation only in migrations for lack of technical means allowing an adaptation.
Another point is that of the increase in pandemic risk via vectors such as the tiger mosquito, which weirdly likes better and better in our latitudes.
The rise in global temperatures thus considerably increases the spread of disease formerly confined to tropical regions.

Concerning the temperature, think that the RCA would correspond only to a simple rise in temperature and there again a reducing vision, widely peddled by the media.
The increase in temperature should be partially counteracted by a mechanical dissipation of thermal overflows, we call this in meteorological jargon storms or cyclones ...
So even if the average temperature in Dunkirk in 2060 should not be that of Ouagadougou in 2018, it is very likely that extreme phenomena will considerably impact our societies.

"The cold waves of the beginning of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries (...) Assises de l'Empire.

Beware of gender syllogisms: the increase in temperatures spent favoring the development of humanity so these will be systematically good for future humanity.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Access to water is one of the major challenges of the 21st century ...

No sequitur. Nothing says that excess temperatures are accompanied by droughts, we have even been told of an increase in precipitation in Western Europe. That said, these kinds of statements change all the time; already that there are doubts about the future of global warming, so what would accompany it, there, is the most total nonsense.

[sen-no-sen]

Nothing says that excess temperatures are accompanied by droughts, we were even told of an increase in precipitation in Western Europe. That said, these kinds of statements change all the time; already that there are doubts about the future of global warming, so what would accompany it, there, is the most total nonsense.

And nothing says otherwise ....
The increase in temperatures will necessarily have consequences (floods, cyclones droughts, etc.), and whatever their nature, these will require readjustments in areas where populations are large.
The question is much broader than a simple dichotomy between drought / rain.
the fundamental problem lies in the speed of change and the means implemented to counter it.

Global warming accelerates desertification in all scenarios (especially in Europe)
But contrary to what one might think, it is not necessarily in the countries of the south that the desertification will be the most intense and the most marked. According to the study, it could be that Europe, and in particular Southern Europe, is quickly affected, and in a very intense way. Researchers therefore believe that if current trends continue, a large part of southern Europe (including the Mediterranean region) could undergo significant phenomena of aridification, droughts and ultimately desertification. In summary: the drought phenomena observed this year in Italy, Spain, Greece, but also in the South of France could well become more frequent, even destroying ecosystems.

mapping of the affected areas at 1.5 (graphs a and c) and 2 degrees (b and d):
https://e-rse.net/rechauffement-climatique-desertification-269221/#gs.tE4ZWfs

No sequitur.

Cognitive dissonance?

[Exnihiloest]

Nothing says that excess temperatures are accompanied by droughts, we were even told of an increase in precipitation in Western Europe. That said, these kinds of statements change all the time; already that there are doubts about the future of global warming, so what would accompany it, there, is the most total nonsense.

And nothing says otherwise ....
The increase in temperatures will necessarily have consequences (floods, cyclones droughts, etc.), and whatever their nature, these will require readjustments in areas where populations are large.

Affirmation free of charge, the consequences can also be beneficial, or neutral, or insignificant.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

... Global warming accelerates desertification in all scenarios (especially in Europe)
...
Cognitive dissonance?

There it is, the cognitive dissent, among climatologists: "Global warming: more precipitation in the future, we predicted 12 years ago"
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... -ans-7468/

12 years ago, you would have predicted floods for us and droughts today. I see that you agree with the last speaker.
Well, I can predict that you haven't finished changing your opinion with the IPCC weathervanes, whose opinions vary according to their whims, their incompetence, and political imperatives!

[sen-no-sen]

Affirmation free of charge, the consequences can also be beneficial, or neutral, or insignificant.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Pretty truism.
In the same way the water can be hot, lukewarm or cold!
For the burden of proof, it is therefore up to you to demonstrate that there is no warming.

[ENERC]

Some data from Meteofrance:

We are approaching + 3 ° C in Paris (probably with an urban component)


and + 2 ° C in Besancon.

[Exnihiloest]

The weather is always used to justify warming, but as soon as it is in opposition to warming, the weather is denied as a marker of the climate and we are asked not to confuse them.

I remind you that we are talking about a "warming overall"!

[Exnihiloest]

The climate emergency is a decoy
"François Gervais, professor emeritus at the François Rabelais University in Tours, and examiner of the IPCC's AR5 report between 2011 and 2012, has just published a book entitled," The climate emergency is a lure "and shows that if there is consensus is more media and political than scientific. "

[Forhorse]

His area of ​​expertise is physics and materials science, not meteorology and climate.
Good old classic lobbying that puts forward a title rather than a story skill to muddy the waters.
Anyway, there is nothing to see.