At carbon neutral we just stop adding to the problem. Ideally, the temperature stops rising and the climate change is small enough we can just adapt to it (that's the thought of staying under a 1.5C rise). Then it stays that way for a long long time plus or minus the natural cycle variations. Over centuries, as the CO2 leaves the atmosphere, its impact will lessen (although there's another human-made warming crisis coming after this one, but it's slower, harder to solve, and over a hundred years away so folks don't worry about it yet - hopefully by then the natural cycle would have us needing the heat anyway).
If the CO2 was sequestered over millions of years and we release it in a couple centuries, that is a rapid reversal. Whether this causes a major climate change I'm not certain. I only glance at the claims occasionally, never dig very deep. I expect other effects to show up, possibly counteracting. If it weren't for deforestation and ocean dead zones, might just accelerate the cycle of carbon.
I do believe primary problem is exponential growth of human population. I would rather it was stable population at a level that renewable natural resources could be harvested (for food, fuel, construction.) I would guess 1/10th the current population could be sustainable. Would take a few generations with half as many children as parents to reach that. Better that way than the collapse which is to come.
I don't want to sound pessimistic, but it's a very big and complicated system with pesky tipping points that release GHGs just because being warmer frees them (e.g., the oceans have been building up CO2 as they were cool, but as they warm that gets released, methane frozen in ice is already getting released,
Which is why we should promoting the use of natural gas, not banning it, and tapping those sources which are going to be released one way or the other (oxidized if we do, unoxidized if we don't.)
I'm sure he was coached to stick to a script to minimize the harmful impacts. But I'd rather everyone had a good understanding of the facts rather than dancing around every issue and be afraid of how the opposition will weaponize it
So we are just the audience being fed what our handlers decided we should hear. There is no debate. The science is settled?
I'd never have the stomach for politics, sad to see a politician do the right thing, then lose their seat and be ostracized for it. And when the opposite happens, it is just plain frightening.
I recently heard Kennedy (I think?) among others point out that in Pfizer phase-3 trials, the vaccine may have reduced Covid deaths from 2 to 1, saving a single life out of 22,000 test subjects. But had about 21 deaths from all-cause mortality, vs. 15 in control group. So may have taken 5 lives for the one it saved. At the very least not a strong positive signal.
That had me going for a few minutes. Until I realized that 100% of the 22,000 in vaccine group received the vaccine, and were subject to its side effects. But only approximately 0.68% of them were exposed to Covid, could benefit from the vaccine's protection.
Once 100% are exposed to (the original variant) of Covid, expect a projected 145 lives saved vs. 5 possibly lost. That is assuming 50% effectiveness in preventing death, but wide confidence bounds given small data set. Then as variants appeared, that data is no longer valid.
We see very powerful messages as presented by politicians and others. Delving into the details, sometimes the message is entirely wrong. Only a few of us can do that, some more can understand it when proper analysis is presented. Few to none of the talking heads can; they just read a teleprompter or whatever. I also think very few of the researchers or staff at the federal agencies are capable of critical thought.
There are probably some who understand the correct analysis and projections, but bury it or obfuscate to push their agenda. I've observed that in social activists, too.
Some people think we were supposed to be going into the next one. The natural part of the cycle is very slow in human terms.
I thought we were still near record cold. But sea levels have already risen 400', which is why 3' eventually due to human effects doesn't seem dire to me. I did estimate ice at the poles and thought that was a plausible number. Also a cap, except for expansion of ocean's water as it warms. We may have a long way to warm up. In ancient times most all of the carbon was in the atmosphere (I think); how much of the warming was due to that vs. other factors?
Claim has been that rate of change is much faster due to humans. But I haven't dug into details of ancient temperature determination to see if they have the granularity to observe such rates, had they occurred.
dailysceptic.org
