Whether the man is responsible for global

[MB]

The classic reasoning is:
1. The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.
2. This increase is due to human activities emitting greenhouse gases.
3. A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the average temperature of the Earth.
4. Man must reduce his greenhouse gas emissions.

There has been some heated debate about 2, which is the least important of the list. Let's say that a traffic accident happens under the nose of a doctor (1). The doctor can save the casualty (3), so the doctor must save the accident (4). The question of whether the doctor caused the accident does not occur, all that matters is that the situation is serious and the doctor can act.

[sen-no-sen]

Let's say that a traffic accident happens under the nose of a doctor (1). The doctor can save the casualty (3), so the doctor must save the accident (4). The question of whether the doctor caused the accident does not occur, all that matters is that the situation is serious and the doctor can act.

Hi MB!

It seems to me that in your analogy, you better speak of Pyromaniac than doctor!

Point n ° 2 seems however very important on one thing: in the absence of an anthropogenic causality, many manufacturers would then have no limits to discharge their various releases into the atmosphere ... well, in fact despite scientific proofs, they have no qualms anyway, but that can "slow down" them ...

On the other hand I completely agree with the title of the subject, even if the global warming is not caused by the human activities, it does not remain about it less than that absolutely nothing changes the measures that must be taken to protect the biosphere because warming is only one problem among a myriad of others!

[Christophe]

I did not understand everything to your analogy!

By cons your 3) is wrong: with the inertia of the Earth system even if we stopped all emissions overnight, the T ° will continue to increase and the climate to change! Simply because the system is already out of order (29 ° C in Murmansk a few weeks ago) and there are already effects on non-anthropogenic gas emissions (marine current already disturbed, melting of the perigel, ice. ..)

The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is of the order of 120 years ...

[chatelot16]

for the production of CO2 the harm has been done for a long time!

There was a lot of CO2 emitted a century ago when the industry was smaller than today but fully coal with inefficient machines consuming more to produce less

stop any production of CO2 will make the effect visible in a century

avoiding all production of unnecessary CO2 is of course essential, but is not the only solution

it seems to me more productive to take advantage of the cold soil thawing to grow trees as quickly as possible

If we let nature do it alone, the land that will warm up will be very long to be colonized by a suitable vegetation ... if we help a little nature, the cold land will quickly become very useful

In any case, there will be regions of the world which will become too hot ... it will be necessary to move towards the zones which were too cold and will become more habitable

[Ahmed]

The answer to question No. 2 has no interest other than purely scientific. For the moment it serves only as a justification for inaction, while waiting for evidence in concrete that will convince those who do not want to believe it that when it will be much too late, so late that this evidence will be useless!

In reality, the reasons for acting as if it were true should not be because it might be true, but for all other reasons that should lead us to stop destroying nature ...

From my point of view, the origin or even the mere existence of global warming is a fake problem.

I find the generalizing wording of the title interesting: it is to a fraction of humanity that anthropic action could be attributed, but certainly not to a group that would thus reach equality only on the penal plane!
Another way to repress reality.

[Surfeurseb]

For my part, I quite agree with Ahmed, global warming is a little gondola head.
On this side, there is only to observe: true or not true, fast or slow, ...

Why focus the debate on CO2?

In my opinion, the governments sought a simple and emblematic measurement unit of the polluting and destructive activity of man. The CO2 is the perfect illustration.

Under the guise of fighting against global warming, a global cause, a "global" agreement between the governments of developed countries tries to put human activity under surveillance, even under control if possible ...

Problem: regulating CO2 emissions seems laudable, but if the pretexts (GW) are perceived as misleading by too much person, then the process risks being totally discredited.

In any case, in my opinion, fighting CO2 releases remains a concrete and beneficial goal, no matter if it will have an effect on the climate,
this will have one on ecosystem health.


The other component of the problem of global warming is its anthropogenic origin.
Some climate-skeptics believe that man has no effect on the climate, and therefore on the earth itself, on its ecosystems. No reason to moderate human activities, therefore, because they have no harmful effects. According to them, man would even be pretentious to claim the opposite ... Only "god" has such power, right?

At the other end of the spectrum, it's easy to convince yourself that the impact of humans is everywhere on the planet

[RV-P]

- CO2 is "a scapegoat" and a false problem!
- If CO2 is really responsible for global warming, how is it that glaciers located at more than 2000 meters of altitude also melt, since CO2 is heavier than air ?
- Would it also be responsible for the warming observed by several scientists (which we tried to close our mouths!) Throughout the solar system (the ice sheets of Mars, our nearest neighbor, narrowed!)? ...
- There is also this very important part of the CO2 coming ... volcanoes! Have we tried to simply find out what is coming out of the Hawaiian volcano that has been erupting permanently for at least 30 years?!? ...
- We breathe and we peck, do not we!? ... What part of CO2 out of us?
- Anyway, we are made entirely of carbohydrates ... CARBON! So, if we want to do a "haro" on CO2, we would have to disappear from the planet !!!
- By cons, what we have forgotten is ... solar activity ! In the 2000 years, it was at its peak, the Sun resembling a ruffled ball, traversed over its entire surface by gigantic solitary eruptions.
- Today, for several years, it is "dead calm" (And to think that we are trying to silence the scientists who have observed it !!!)! Following that, the very long, cold and wet winter, the absence of spring that you undergo in metropolitan France, that does not put you "the chip in the ear"?
- Glaciers are melting, but the ice of Antarctica, which compensates for the melting of glaciers! The ice floes and icebergs, the ice that floats on the ocean, can melt: it is not she who will participate in the rise of the sea level, since she is already in the water (Do the experiment with a glass of water and ice cubes!)! On the contrary: it will participate in the level decline by the melting of 9 / 10ème immersed ice and the contraction that ensues (the water is diluted by freezing!)!
- So, before accusing CO2 of "warming" our planet, we should perhaps find out from those who find the opposite, right !? ...
- And, if the manufacturers really wanted to save the planet, they would start by themselves, no!? ... Example: to force consumers to sort their waste whilethere are more and more products overpacked by thicker and thicker plastic, the prices of electric cars that are double the price of a petrol or diesel car, etc ...!

[Cuicui]

- CO2 is "a scapegoat" and a false problem!

Hello RV-P
Thank you for this very relevant info.

[highfly-addict]

Strongly relevant? .... Are you serious !?! It's just great anything!

Not even want to detail so much the post ^ ^ RV-P is .... no, false, completely next to the plate.

Just to remind any candid readers that we should not stop like that to what can be read on the net.

Your critical minds and crossroads are essential .....

[chatelot16]

- If CO2 is really responsible for global warming, how is it that glaciers located at more than 2000 meters of altitude also melt, since CO2 is heavier than air ?

do not say such nonsense

the CO2 is heavier than air so when you produce CO2 in perfectly still air the CO2 remains at the bottom ... but the slightest agitation mixes irreparably: it never separates again: the simple thermal agitation is enough to make the mixture

only very light gases such as helium and hydrogen are able to separate themselves from the rest of the atmosphere ... density 0,1

methane density 0,5 is not light enough and stays mixed with the atmosphere

CO2 is not heavy enough and stays mixed: 1,53 density