It was 1992
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79323
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11042
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79323
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11042
Are you sure? The quality of the film suggests that it has already aged ...
(I'm talking about the shape of the bottom, of course, which is still very much in the news)
(I'm talking about the shape of the bottom, of course, which is still very much in the news)
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
They listened wisely and cheered gently in the end. Will that have made the schimblick go forward ....... ????? 
Selfishness has become a powerful, widespread and valued religion. As long as the rich do not lose money in the degradation of the planet and the people, they will not do anything , apart from continuing to grow rich on the backs of others.
The only power I see will be to bind their income one way or another to the good of others and the planet. (Much easier to say than to do
) [Mode BisouNours = OFF]
A+
Selfishness has become a powerful, widespread and valued religion. As long as the rich do not lose money in the degradation of the planet and the people, they will not do anything , apart from continuing to grow rich on the backs of others.
The only power I see will be to bind their income one way or another to the good of others and the planet. (Much easier to say than to do
) [Mode BisouNours = OFF]
A+
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
expensive oil => mentality change
flytox,
this is the case: expensive oil => drop in purchasing power of 90% of "western" households
the money put in the gasoline of the car => less expenses in the rest
the money put in the rise in raw materials => same thing
the rich who earn with these mechanisms are a tiny fraction of the "rich" of the planet
=> it hurts them at q => a majority of decision-makers, economic and political find themselves with a strong financial interest in the implementation of sustainable dev
I hope a nice baston style iran / usa or anything else involving an oil country story to see the barrel rise to 250 and +
there they go even more move the posterior! The more oil goes up, the more rich decision makers get poorer!
the others too, but in any case there are only crises that change the abhorrent polluting habits of all.
long live the barrel at 500 $ - we will drool, but it will be much better than an ecological cata
this is the case: expensive oil => drop in purchasing power of 90% of "western" households
the money put in the gasoline of the car => less expenses in the rest
the money put in the rise in raw materials => same thing
the rich who earn with these mechanisms are a tiny fraction of the "rich" of the planet
=> it hurts them at q => a majority of decision-makers, economic and political find themselves with a strong financial interest in the implementation of sustainable dev
I hope a nice baston style iran / usa or anything else involving an oil country story to see the barrel rise to 250 and +
there they go even more move the posterior! The more oil goes up, the more rich decision makers get poorer!
the others too, but in any case there are only crises that change the abhorrent polluting habits of all.
long live the barrel at 500 $ - we will drool, but it will be much better than an ecological cata
0 x
Sure, 500 $ c a bit strong but better a mega crisis now with too much oil that will boost everyone to seek solutions without co2 that a carnage with billions of humans, including us, in 10 / 15 years
In 10 / 15 years according to some calculations,
* we will have + 1 even 2 degrees compared to now,
* an Antarctic in full swing of mega glaciers in the ocean,
* an increase of 1 m of the sea level (so 2 to 4 meters during storms compared to the current level brief of Katrina repetition)
* a 50% drop in fresh water in several South American "granaries" (the glaciers of the Andes mountain range = irrigation of many fields during their summers)
* stronger storms and more numerous. Already right now, since 2007 exactly, in Bangladesh thousands of farmers leave the rice fields too close to the sea: too much wind too strong: they do not even have time to rebuild between 2 storms, nor money and homeless much dc because of high winds. Impossible to dig because the water invades all of course!
* Burma and rice fields => follow the same path as Bangladesh since 2008!
* rice fields polluted by salt => 0 harvest and it takes money and time to put it back without salinity
* etc.
in short, the crisis of a barrel at 200 / 500 $ c now that it is not necessary in 10 years.
In 10 / 15 years according to some calculations,
* we will have + 1 even 2 degrees compared to now,
* an Antarctic in full swing of mega glaciers in the ocean,
* an increase of 1 m of the sea level (so 2 to 4 meters during storms compared to the current level brief of Katrina repetition)
* a 50% drop in fresh water in several South American "granaries" (the glaciers of the Andes mountain range = irrigation of many fields during their summers)
* stronger storms and more numerous. Already right now, since 2007 exactly, in Bangladesh thousands of farmers leave the rice fields too close to the sea: too much wind too strong: they do not even have time to rebuild between 2 storms, nor money and homeless much dc because of high winds. Impossible to dig because the water invades all of course!
* Burma and rice fields => follow the same path as Bangladesh since 2008!
* rice fields polluted by salt => 0 harvest and it takes money and time to put it back without salinity
* etc.
in short, the crisis of a barrel at 200 / 500 $ c now that it is not necessary in 10 years.
0 x
It is clear that taking 4 ° C from global warming is going to be hot as much as if we were returning to the ice age where the temperature was 5 ° C lower than currently.
So it's going to upset the climate on the horizon 2100, where personally I will be dead, but not the current generations and their children ...
I am afraid that we will take them, these 4 or 5 ° C. It is obvious that we have burned half of the exploitable oil on Earth, that we are going to burn at least 2 / 3 the other half, and that in parallel, the coal sector is intensifying as the oil prices rise. So CO2, there are already too many and it's not over.
On the other hand, we risk starting the methane pump of the seabed hydrates, exposing us to a very dangerous positive feedback.
All this is not very pleasing, but human nature is so made that it reacts only when it is too late, blinded that it is not its small political and financial advantages and / or immediate comfort.
So it's going to upset the climate on the horizon 2100, where personally I will be dead, but not the current generations and their children ...
I am afraid that we will take them, these 4 or 5 ° C. It is obvious that we have burned half of the exploitable oil on Earth, that we are going to burn at least 2 / 3 the other half, and that in parallel, the coal sector is intensifying as the oil prices rise. So CO2, there are already too many and it's not over.
On the other hand, we risk starting the methane pump of the seabed hydrates, exposing us to a very dangerous positive feedback.
All this is not very pleasing, but human nature is so made that it reacts only when it is too late, blinded that it is not its small political and financial advantages and / or immediate comfort.
0 x
@remundo
I'm sorry, but it's not for 2100 remundo
I give you a hint
Senior executives from the CNES (National Center for Space Studies) have openly criticized weather climatologists in France and the IPCC forecasts before a reporting team!
Never has one administration openly criticized another, especially on such sensitive and complex subjects. But you should know that CNES participates in the calculations of the aforesaid climatologists by providing data, ground stations, etc. They therefore have a "reliable" vision and for more than 20 years that they have been doing this, they have known what we are talking about.
short, CNES: for the oceans, + 3 minimum meters before 2045 / at least 2 ° before 2045 and probably much more and much earlier.
I'm sorry, but it's not for 2100 remundo
I give you a hint
Senior executives from the CNES (National Center for Space Studies) have openly criticized weather climatologists in France and the IPCC forecasts before a reporting team!
Never has one administration openly criticized another, especially on such sensitive and complex subjects. But you should know that CNES participates in the calculations of the aforesaid climatologists by providing data, ground stations, etc. They therefore have a "reliable" vision and for more than 20 years that they have been doing this, they have known what we are talking about.
short, CNES: for the oceans, + 3 minimum meters before 2045 / at least 2 ° before 2045 and probably much more and much earlier.
0 x
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 165 guests