Quick Synopsis
On the one hand, we have what looks like we're in a normal
climate cycle.
| But 67% of scientists warn that no, temperatures are higher because
of human-made greenhouse gases are adding to the temperature.
The IPCC approved models have been fairly accurate (a little low
the last decade) in regard to actual temperature:
|
If we're going into another ice age, wouldn't a little extra greenhouse gas help take the edge off? Sure, but the scale to the left is in thousands of years, we have to make it there first and predictions are we'll be > +4C before the end of the century without taking actions (+4 means crocodiles above the article circle from Bill's book, see post
#4 for quote). We might not be around, but we still want to be good caretakers.
From
#9 it's unclear that CO2 is the primary gas to be going after. From
#15 it's unclear what anti-greenhouse gases are being emitted by humans and their role. While the models do include water, from
#20 its role isn't well understood by me anyway, particularly the relationship between cloud formation and average global temperature. In
#26 there's the question of black-box radiation temperature, e.g., if CO
2 absorbs at temperatures from IR emitted below -25F, is it really important (it's probably the IR radiation from the cold upper atmosphere)? And no, still haven't found a book that addresses all of these.
There's a simplistic energy
calculator people can use to see what sort of things they can take immediate action on that have the biggest impact. For example, energy efficient windows look like they can reduce on average 50% of the home carbon footprint.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.
[32]
Saw Elon Musk yesterday compare it to
if smoking caused cancer, as there were paid-for scientists that argued against that case.
Wonder what the percentages were back then and how they compare to today? Just because they disagree doesn't make them evil or in bed with fossil fuels, you need look no farther than
DDWFTTW to see a scientist lose $10k on a scientific bet in their field.
The animatrix/matrix has a plot point of blocking out the sun...
Between global warming and an ice age I think I'd take global warming because I've seen all sorts of (albeit drastic) contingency plans (e.g., using nukes to blow dust into the stratosphere matrix style) to keep sunlight from reaching us. But cold? Nuclear power could keep us warm, but how would we grow food on glaciers?
...If I can figure out how to fulfill all my electricity needs from locally installed solar, then that can be an example for others....
You could start a thread on that to bounce ideas around the community. I'm far from neutral too, still need one ICE vehicle for hauling, the PHEV isn't neutral on long-range drives of course, and I still eat food and buy other stuff. Even if everyone duplicated it though, from Bill's book we'd still be creating CO
2 from other sectors faster than the sinks can absorb it. Given the half-life, what we have now will be with us for a long time. Seems like a good idea to go to zero so the carbon sinks can catch up (or possibly augment them to go negative?).
Really good thread, rare to see a discussion where all views are considered and explored.
The difference is probably between posters knowing they're right or accepting they might be wrong. That and trying to get the science rather than "just believe me because it's too complicated for you to understand". Pity we don't have a gentle soul from the IPCC as a member that could explain things or put them into perspective as
@upnorthandpersonal did on the
radiation thread.