CO2 and Climate Change?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Ibis.
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 31/12/08, 15:56
Location: Ain

CO2 and Climate Change?




by Ibis. » 18/11/09, 21:05

Best-of
MEDICIS LIBRARY
Climate change
Released the 13 / 11 / 2009
Duration: 60 minutes

- We are a few days away from the Copenhagen World Climate Summit: every day counts. So many cries of alarm and despair are rising from everywhere that it becomes a deafening din. - All international agencies insist that the world will continue to use until 2030 as a source of energy to 80%: oil, gas and coal: that is to say, energies that pollute. - The world is on alert but this alert and the anxiety that accompanies it are justified? : "Yes" say most scientists, other minority but determined answer: "no, you exaggerate"! - Library Medici will try to unravel the true and false and see a little clearer.


See here http://www.publicsenat.fr/vod/bibliotheque-medicis/le-changement-climatique/claude-allegre,vincent-courtillot,jean-jouzel,frederic-denhez,jean-pierre-/63384

I think this video will make you discuss :-)
0 x
Ibis.
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 31/12/08, 15:56
Location: Ain

Re: CO2 and Climate Change?




by Ibis. » 20/11/09, 20:40

Ibis wrote:I think this video will make you discuss :-)


Image
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 21/11/09, 10:23

you will notice the intellectual porridge served by Claude Allegre, speaking at once of everything and nothing in the same sentence.

The rigorous scientific discussion was not his goal on this show, but the search for controversy.

Jean Jouzel, annoyed, does not even bother to answer him, but for the general public, it identifies to be wrong for lack of argument ... It's bad in terms of com ', because the general public generally thinks that in a scientific debate, the one who speaks the loudest and the longest is right. Oh no! : Idea:
0 x
Image
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 21/11/09, 12:35

Remundo wrote:you will note the intellectual porridge served by Claude Allegre, speaking at once of everything and nothing in the same sentence.

: Mrgreen:

The rigorous scientific discussion was not his goal on this show, but the search for controversy.


There is also the passage where Elkabbach cuts the floor to the IPCC representative to decide that the viewers are making fun of how the procedure is done. : Shock: The one that turns the voluminous report of the IPCC into a memorial more or less representative of the dossier (and oriented!?) In a dozen pages for use of pipolitics.

It was the best way to cut short the argument of the (Geo physicist?) Who supported the thesis, that the uncertainties advanced by the IPCC in the global warming directly related to the CO2, were largely underestimated and thus do not allow to decide the debate.

The IPCC report also speaks of uncertainties, while apparently the memorandum is more about certainties .... But El Kabach prefers to deny the politico-lobbyist aspect which was nevertheless part of the "debate".

"Cut me off ElKabbachhhhhhh!" As our Georges Marchais National would have said ...

: Mrgreen:
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
Ibis.
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 85
Registration: 31/12/08, 15:56
Location: Ain




by Ibis. » 21/11/09, 20:51

The geophysicist is quite convincing, although I can not judge the fund (solar activity cycles).
I also found that Elkkabach lacked the sense of reserve for an intellectual of his quality.
When Allegre, it is true that it seems to be a game for him, although it does not deny the harm of the increase of CO2 (on the acidification of the oceans).
On the breakthroughs of Kyoto, I share a little lack of enthusiasm.

I still find it useful and interesting that there is debate, the scientific consensus is still quite sterilizing. It is too comfortable to accuse the revisionist opponent.
Science has always and must progress in a jiffy, not a soft consensus.

Good show all the same.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 21/11/09, 21:08

Remundo wrote:
This is bad in terms of com ', because the general public generally thinks that in a scientific debate, that. Oh no!

In terms of com ', whether the debate is scientific or on any other subject, the one who speaks the loudest and longest is (apparently) right.
Faced with these kinds of buffooneries, the question inevitably arises: is it not better to appear to be wrong for good reasons than to appear to be right for very bad ones?

In other words, to go through the com 'channel, is to accept a game with more than contestable rules since the com' has in no case the purpose of revealing the truth but only to influence the opinion spectators.

Whoever sees that a false proposition can be easily imposed when one endeavors to make it pleasant and easy to understand, while the truth sometimes uses complex detours and is difficult to establish as it is held by the very rigor of his approach.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
clasou
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 553
Registration: 05/05/08, 11:33




by clasou » 21/11/09, 22:00

Hi,
for ibis, if you want to see the conference of the geophysicist she is there.
http://www.js.univ-nantes.fr/14918022/0 ... 6RH=JS_FR1

a + claude
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 21/11/09, 22:33

We begin to know the main arguments of the opponents of the RC. This geophysicist knows how to evoke them and sow doubt.

IPCC experts know by heart the possible contributions of solar activity, the periodic variation of eccentricity of Earth's orbit, the small% of anthropogenic radiative forcing compared to natural radiative forcings, endless dissertation on the shortcomings of the concept average temperature (which has the defect of being an average) etc ...

When you stick all this well and that is good speaker, the scientific varnish doubled with a persuasion sow doubt.

Still, now the Earth warms up roughly 1 ° C every 100 years, and the trend is to accelerate, by 2100, rather optimistic climate scenarios expect 2 ° C to 3 ° C more .

And what separates us from the last glaciation is 5 ° C and 20 000 years, only 0.025 ° C / 100 years.

In other words, this "natural" warming would go about 100 times faster than what we really know naturally on Earth.

It's funny, because this sudden acceleration coincides with the start of CO2 emissions from coal during the 1st industrial revolution, then after 1950 until today, this is where "we put the package" CO2 in oil, gas, deforestation, and we keep going.

Our radiative forcing is not neutral, and it would seem that positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks. In other words, the consequences amplify the causes more than they attenuate them and the system gets carried away.

Anyway ... Vast subject.
0 x
Image
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 21/11/09, 22:47

Remundo wrote:
Still, now the Earth warms up roughly 1 ° C every 100 years, and the trend is to accelerate, by 2100, rather optimistic climate scenarios expect 2 ° C to 3 ° C more .


A very temperate acceleration of after : Arrowd:
http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-15081674.html
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 21/11/09, 23:12

mowed ... hardly more significant as a "slowdown" than the 80/84 or 86/92 period of the same chart.

Stock market specialists are very used to this "random noise" around a basic trend ... 1976-2006; 30 years and 0.7 ° C in the baba. 2 ° C over 100 years ... and it's a slope already obsolete.
0 x
Image

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 131 guests