Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[rederob]

Here in Australia, vegetation management, tree clearing laws and development in outer suburban areas are leading us to disasters.i do not doubt California had similar issues

I have never heard that was true, but I have heard the claims before. Maybe you are referring to small scale bushfires? Is there data/research available?
The best paper I have read on the topic (and I certainly have not read deeply) tackles the issue based on extreme bushfire events.
Anecdotally I know that the trend is for the bushfire season to commence earlier in the year than previously.
Back to my linked paper - climate change probably will increase extreme bushfire events, but too little data is available to suggest it's more than a likelihood. Maybe there is something better from overseas?

 

[Ann]

...and now a little touch of climate science as previously requested.


Environmental Research Letters
Emergence timescales for detection of anthropogenic climate change in US tropical cyclone loss data

Ryan P Crompton1, Roger A Pielke Jr2 and K John McAneney1
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 1
Published 11 January 2011 • IOP Publishing Ltd

Abstract

Recent reviews have concluded that efforts to date have yet to detect or attribute an anthropogenic climate change influence on Atlantic tropical cyclone (of at least tropical storm strength) behaviour and concomitant damage. However, the possibility of identifying such influence in the future cannot be ruled out. Using projections of future tropical cyclone activity from a recent prominent study we estimate the time that it would take for anthropogenic signals to emerge in a time series of normalized US tropical cyclone losses. Depending on the global climate model(s) underpinning the projection, emergence timescales range between 120 and 550 years, reflecting a large uncertainty. It takes 260 years for an 18-model ensemble-based signal to emerge. Consequently, under the projections examined here, the detection or attribution of an anthropogenic signal in tropical cyclone loss data is extremely unlikely to occur over periods of several decades (and even longer). This caution extends more generally to global weather-related natural disaster losses.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014003

 

[rederob]

Emergence timescales for detection of anthropogenic climate change in US tropical cyclone loss data
Ryan P Crompton1, Roger A Pielke Jr2 and K John McAneney1
Published 11 January 2011

Seriously Ann, that paper is so old and the data available back then was poor.
I previously linked to a site with almost 140 science papers covering extreme weather events, and most of these supersede your link.

 

[Ann]

Seriously Ann, that paper is so old and the data available back then was poor.
I previously linked to a site with almost 140 science papers covering extreme weather events, and most of these supersede your link.

Climate Science is still working off the original 'hockey stick' Climate Projection and that was done back in 1998 and reassessed in 2007. Are you saying "the data available back then was poor."? The whole basis for the IPCC existence and continuation was justified by the results of those very old projections. By your definition poor data.

This paper was.......
This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario

 

[Ann]

This is an interesting video telling how the IPCC using money and political clout determine the organization's objectives and conclusions.

The person speaking is Dr Brian Valentine he is a general engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He serves as the department’s liaison to the U.S.

 

[rederob]

pasted below with comments in red

Climate Science is still working off the original 'hockey stick' Climate Projection This was a mostly a reconstruction and not a projection. and that was done back in 1998 and reassessed in 2007. Are you saying "the data available back then was poor."? Paleoclimate records are open to significant interpretation, so Mann's data can never be regarded as definitive.
This chart shows that "uncertainty" was significant when the data went further back in time, and includes reconstructions from many others for comparative purposes:

The whole basis for the IPCC existence and continuation was justified by the results of those very old projections. That's absolute nonsense Ann. The IPCC addressed the concerns of climate sceptics (see pages 466-467) and the "hockey stick" is only an issue in climate science denial circles. By your definition poor data. No, just your poor understanding.

This paper was.......
This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario Yes, it was probably as good as the models and analysis of the day from those who did the paper. But it simply does not pass muster nowadays.

 

[rederob]

This is an interesting video telling how the IPCC using money and political clout determine the organization's objectives and conclusions.

The person speaking is Dr Brian Valentine he is a general engineer in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He serves as the department’s liaison to the U.S.

Where do you dig up your crap Ann?
Here's how credible your speaker is:

"Brian G Valentine • 8 years ago
I'm a thorough carbon dioxide climate change denialist and I wouldn't believe in carbon dioxide induced climate change at gunpoint - because it is physically impossible.
Intuitively, most people know that AGW is dog crap science. No matter how much you rant and rave people are going to trust their common sense and conclude that is is fraud cooked up for socialist control by a few people powerless to control their own destinies so they turn to a psychopathic need to control other lives.
Too bad you can't have a few Gulags to send the die hards, huh?"​

Valentine is typical of those who are not smart enough to understand basic physics.

 

[cynic]

Nope but would like to know.

It is so refreshing, to discover that someone has actually shown such wisdom, via humble confession to, a lack of awareness of something so inordinately useful and important as qwarx.

Allow me to assist you in the elevation of your qwarxic understanding via the proffering of a simple definition - one that has been deemed comprehensible to most people (notable exceptions being those clearly lacking in competence and/or a sufficient level of education).

Qwarx may be accurately defined as that which is typically produced by the qwarxist(a.k.a. qwarxer) pursuant to engagement in the practice of qwarxing (a.k.a. qwarxism). Please note, that unless the qwarxist operates in strict accordance with, and/or, adherence to, qwarxic protocols, the quality and integrity of the qwarx produced, is considered doubtful and consequently deemed unfit for purpose.

Now that you have been duly informed, I trust that being someone of such high intelligence, you will agree when I state that this discussion is in dire need of far more qwarx than has been incorporated to date, and that those neglecting to include any meritorious qwarx in their contributions, are offering nothing of relevance, and, are therefore, irrelevant.

 

[Ann]

Before anyone complains, yes I know this is very old news from 2010, it is still important and relevant for today.
There is a Climate Change bias from scientists because of the political clout, bullying and intimidation used by Michael Mann (hockey stick creator) and others toward scientific journals back in 2003 which probably persists to the present day. The lack of integrity is quite disgusting and it continues on today with all the intimidation and bullying shown to anyone who dares display an alternate opinion.

..... Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."


Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU...


This is a small hand picked sample of the article I found most disturbing for its bullying and intimidation. The article in its entirety may be read here....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140

 

[Ann]

This paper was.......
This result was derived from an ensemble mean of 18 global climate change projections—the 18 models were from the World Climate Research Programme coupled model intercomparison project 3 (CMIP3) and used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B emissions scenario Yes, it was probably as good as the models and analysis of the day from those who did the paper. But it simply does not pass muster nowadays.

Well you saying that would therefore mean all other research work done prior to and at this date by any researcher related to Climate Change science must now be regarded as unsafe.

 

[explod]

cynic, 50 odd years ago when seeking to be a Priest I was handed a book on general metaphysics by Noonan 1956. Still have it. An opening chapter discusses the potential of a rock and as I have gone back a number of times questioning the absurdities in the past, your post reminded me of its content. It took some years but I did eventually learn the path of reality as distinct from that of indoctrinated belief.

You are wobbling along talking absolute rubbish in order to try and confuse those who are here earnestly trying to understand and come to grips with global warming.

The efforts of those trying to discredit the science seems to bear no end or effort. A book I often quote on climate here at ASF "The Sixth Extinction" by Leakey 1996 puts together the facts revealed by the science of the past five events and the current one looming. All matters are properly annotated in accordance with academic standards. It is a book that all who really want to know should read.

HOWEVER the other side so to speak have since had books written by using the same title by different authors, these books are misleading but are what will be found first when searching for Leakey's text. In fact now on Google it is now hard to find his book.

I usually don't respond to the rubbish of deniers that much anymore, its more productive to continue posting up reality events as they occur.

 

[Ann]

Where do you dig up your crap Ann?
Here's how credible your speaker is:

"Brian G Valentine • 8 years ago
I'm a thorough carbon dioxide climate change denialist and I wouldn't believe in carbon dioxide induced climate change at gunpoint - because it is physically impossible.
Intuitively, most people know that AGW is dog crap science. No matter how much you rant and rave people are going to trust their common sense and conclude that is is fraud cooked up for socialist control by a few people powerless to control their own destinies so they turn to a psychopathic need to control other lives.
Too bad you can't have a few Gulags to send the die hards, huh?"​

Valentine is typical of those who are not smart enough to understand basic physics.

Rob, this man is a mature engineer in a highly responsible job who chooses his words slowly and carefully as you can see from the video. Do you really believe he would be sitting on some naff second rate website reading about the psychology of sitting people in a warm room to make them more susceptible to believing climate change and then under his own name including his middle initial making inane comments unrelated to the content of the article such as the one you quoted and then among others the one below?

There is not a doubt in my mind, his video was causing them so much trouble they had to try to discredit him. I would suggest he is as clean as a whistle so they verballed him. This very strident and popular propaganda site, Desmog for the CC folk makes sure you will see his credentials and his "key quotes" with links of course. I am seeing so much shocking stuff being done by CC propagandists and spin doctors, nothing no matter how underhanded, unethical or duplicitous seems beyond them.
https://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine#s2

"Brian G Valentine SkyHunter • 8 years ago
and someone without a good f thermodynamics might believe them

ha ha ha ha ha OK I'll quit my job just for you.

CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere because of the higher molecular weight. The stratosphere cools resulting from back radiation from Earth, and if it becomes cooler, it did so because the troposphere cools, or else it didn't warm as a result of diminished ozone production, which is what warms it against the adiabatic lapse with altitude.

The atmosphere certainly conducts heat, and minus convection, that is about all that will happen. If you think this explanation of yours is viable, go build a machine to replicate the effect."

https://grist.org/article/2011-01-28-is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-the-climate-changing/#comment-295660447

 

[rederob]

Rob, this man is a mature engineer in a highly responsible job who chooses his words slowly and carefully as you can see from the video. Do you really believe he would be sitting on some naff second rate website reading about the psychology of sitting people in a warm room to make them more susceptible to believing climate change and then under his own name including his middle initial making inane comments unrelated to the content of the article such as the one you quoted and then among others the one below?

There is not a doubt in my mind, his video was causing them so much trouble they had to try to discredit him. I would suggest he is as clean as a whistle so they verballed him. This very strident and popular propaganda site, Desmog for the CC folk makes sure you will see his credentials and his "key quotes" with links of course. I am seeing so much shocking stuff being done by CC propagandists and spin doctors, nothing no matter how underhanded, unethical or duplicitous seems beyond them.
https://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine#s2

"Brian G Valentine SkyHunter • 8 years ago
and someone without a good f thermodynamics might believe them

ha ha ha ha ha OK I'll quit my job just for you.

CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere because of the higher molecular weight. The stratosphere cools resulting from back radiation from Earth, and if it becomes cooler, it did so because the troposphere cools, or else it didn't warm as a result of diminished ozone production, which is what warms it against the adiabatic lapse with altitude.

The atmosphere certainly conducts heat, and minus convection, that is about all that will happen. If you think this explanation of yours is viable, go build a machine to replicate the effect."

https://grist.org/article/2011-01-28-is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-the-climate-changing/#comment-295660447

Ann, please present actual climate science.
Valentine has zero credibility in climate science. The video link gets no attention from anyone with a brain. His idea that CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere breaks every rule of physics. If you don't agree, then wherever you presently are you would be dead because you would only be breathing CO2.
WRT your earlier linked paper, we have moved up from GSMs to ESMs. More importantly, the technology to get and interpret the data on real world events to determine a human footprint is available, as I showed in my earlier link in extreme weather events.
Back to your paper, Crompton et al clearly noted "... the possibility of identifying such influence in the future cannot be ruled out." And it now has been on the basis of climate models alone, as evidenced here and here.

 

[Joules MM1]

Forecasters have compared conditions to the nation's worst heatwave in 2013,
where the mercury soared to 39C for seven consecutive days.

The hottest day on record for Australia is 7 January 2013, when the national
average maximum temperature was 40.3C.

Melbourne Beach
"The current heatwave ranks alongside that of January 2013 as the most extensive
and prolonged heatwave on record over Australia," BOM senior meteorologist Blair
Trewin told the BBC earlier this week.

"There have been other notable heatwaves but none affecting such a large area of the country."

Meteorologists say that the heatwave has broken heat records at more than 10 places
around Australia, largely central inland locations.

The record-setters included the outback town of Tarcoola in South Australia which
soared to 49C on Tuesday, and Port Augusta in South Australia which reached 48.9C.

18 January 2019
Australia swelters through record-breaking heatwave
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46886798




https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46925699

 

[cynic]

cynic, 50 odd years ago when seeking to be a Priest I was handed a book on general metaphysics by Noonan 1956. Still have it. An opening chapter discusses the potential of a rock and as I have gone back a number of times questioning the absurdities in the past, your post reminded me of its content. It took some years but I did eventually learn the path of reality as distinct from that of indoctrinated belief.

How did you determine which version of reality was the truer (i.e. more correct)? How did you determine that you haven't merely substituted one indoctrination with another?

You are wobbling along talking absolute rubbish in order to try and confuse those who are here earnestly trying to understand and come to grips with global warming.

You do me an injustice sir!
I endeavour to post only the highest quality rubbish at my disposal.
Before posting any rubbish, I apply numerous checks and measures ensuring that all rubbish is of the highest standard and calibre.

Have you experienced it to be otherwise? If so, how is my standard of rubbish inferior to that submitted by other contributors to this thread?

The efforts of those trying to discredit the science seems to bear no end or effort. A book I often quote on climate here at ASF "The Sixth Extinction" by Leakey 1996 puts together the facts revealed by the science of the past five events and the current one looming. All matters are properly annotated in accordance with academic standards. It is a book that all who really want to know should read.

You have made reference to that book often. It seems to have become your sacred scripture. Your apparent sanctification and reverence for this text, seems to have led you to the belief that your understanding of reality, is somehow truer than the understanding of those subscribing to alternative dogmas.
This might explain your belief that your "knowing of reality" is somehow superior to that of others, and that this "knowing" somehow entitles you to dismiss all other "knowings" as false, via accusations of heresy akin to the following:

I usually don't respond to the rubbish of deniers that much anymore, its more productive to continue posting up reality events as they occur.

Edit: I again express my dismay at having noticed the absence of any meritorious qwarx in your post!

 

[Ann]

Ann, please present actual climate science.

Righto, coming right up but it is not going to be all that appealing to the reading public. But for you, I shall give you some interesting new science with totally up to date research seeing you have established all ageing Climate Science is unsafe.

Valentine has zero credibility in climate science. The video link gets no attention from anyone with a brain. His idea that CO2 must be stratified in the atmosphere breaks every rule of physics. If you don't agree, then wherever you presently are you would be dead because you would only be breathing CO2.

The video link has no doubt created enornous interest the way he has explained how IPCC has acted corruptly. I am sure his outspoken ways would have caused enormous angst amongst the powers that be.
(Just an aside note to the readers....note how Rederob has repeated and linked a verballed comment not from Valentine about CO2 to his video where he is exposing IPCC, interesting. There appears to be a common thread running through the supporters of this Political Agenda of linking unrelated things, Bas did it yesterday).

....and the science.

 

[rederob]

pasted below, comments in red

Righto, coming right up but it is not going to be all that appealing to the reading public. But for you, I shall give you some interesting new science with totally up to date research seeing you have established all ageing Climate Science is unsafe. Not my claim. If ESM ensembles can run better projections today with finer spatial resolution than GSMs were capable of in the past, then it's a matter of common sense.

The video link has no doubt created enornous interest the way he has explained how IPCC has acted corruptly. No - this is untrue - unless you deny climate science you would never be bothered to give it air I am sure his outspoken ways would have caused enormous angst amongst the powers that be. What don't you understand, Ann? Valentine is to climate science as Trump is to truth.
(Just an aside note to the readers....note how Rederob has repeated and linked a verballed comment not from Valentine I linked to his direct comments in a blog about CO2 to his video where he is exposing IPCC, interesting. There appears to be a common thread running through the supporters of this Political Agenda You mean the agenda where climate scientists use science and others pretend there is a "political agenda" of linking unrelated things It cannot be unrelated that Valentine does not give AGW a second thought when climate science shows it is the problem , Bas did it yesterday Bas noted that the linked events were affected by climate change - you seem unable to appreciate the nature if the linkage.).

 

[kahuna1]

Oh golly ....
Gee and ... disturbing some stuff on here.

For education .... a very good, all be it a FEW ... ERRORS still in this guys video. CDebunks some of the myths ... and deniers crap




Greenhouse exists.
Threat exists.

Deniers, public ones, three main ones, two funded by oligarchs, one a Nobel prize winner, but since I have quite often provided peer review on Winners scientific papers and at times, not kind. The Prize winner ... in physics who is a denier .... IS AN IDIOT. Paid for mind you. His knowledge is narrow AND whilst it sounds convincing, there are in fact around 10 things that change CO2 and its absorption. SOME happen like clockwork ... others ... not as such. But again easily verified via fossil records.

More modern denier is paid for via Koch Brothers, Oligarchy leaders and massive polluters ... and again, he sounds convincing ... but ignores ... totally so many things.

like trying to predict ... or prove something, there is as these de-bunkers TRY .... easy ways to shred something if YOU ... either don't include it .... or ignore it.

NOT EVERYTHING .... can possibly be verified via old records. WHY say an ice age occurred during a 2000 PPM CO2 level period 200 million years ago IF ... IF ... you ignore and both the main deniers ignore and DONT KNOW via sheer ignorance the SUN is 4% warmer NOW v then .... all be it the last 30 years ... its activity is LOWER than any time ... the SUN itself has bloody cycles.

The fact that the earth in its orbit around the sun ... wobbles .... and does so at measured periods ... in the last 1 million years via ice cores we see ... every 100k or so years .... an ice age as the Wobble in the orbit as expected reduces out put ...

Oh and 260 million years ago ... something formed ... as continents crashed into each other ... erosion itself is a powerful CO2 cleansing agent, but ... something formed ... capturing vast amounts of CO2 ending these spikes in temperature. Unlikely ever to occur again anyhow. I speak of course about COAL AND OIL AND GAS deposits .... as continents crashed into each other, often vast regions of vegetation, co2 holding pens ... were buried and turned over time into coal and oil deposit, AGAIN ... easily verified via fossils and examination of them.

Bother the seemingly credible deniers paid for by the far right .... seem to know little ... then there is some Lord who ... well owned a short shop and is a stupid idiot ... and then lastly ... the weather guy ... polished he is as a presenter ... he however left the weather channel well over 30 years ago ... his
background ... not that it matters ... is BA in journalism ... which in today's world gets one the UN ambassadors job at the UN .... but is NOT anything I would listen to.

His view that recent warming did not and has not occurred, is, well, thinking local weather is climate and with 20 people measuring temperature change in a serious way and since 1979 .... via satellite, the FACT is ... we are warming.

It is the RATE ... that concerns me. The population growth concerns me.

I have concluded, the ocean is DEAD and unless action well beyond proposed slowing of CO2 ... is not done, virtually all life in the ocean will cease by say 2200. Prior to that, well, a lot of things will occur.

I will not be around for them, but would prefer humanity to last beyond say 2300, but this seems unlikely.

Such is life and the needs of the few.
We can however change, but with the political side such as it is, oligarchy running USA and via default western society and we are leaderless .... change and massive change needed by 2040.

Not interested ... is the view of most. Indifference, until, well its too late. I mean not to scare anyone and some pretty absurd predictions have been made on this topic over the years. I merely join 50,000 scientists, and as one of the better builders of AI and projection models for the future, and the model I have post 2050, is alarming and by then, the possibility of stopping it after another 30 years at 35 million tons in excess ... of CO2, the planet cant deal with, well ... it is what it is ...

Take care

Mark k

 

[basilio]

Good one Kahuna.
That video and the many others produced by this science writer offer the clearest descriptions of the misrepresentations of climate change deniers. They also do an excellent job of examining the various elements causing climate change.

Have you viewed these Ann ? Have they caused you to reconsider your POV?

 

[kahuna1]

PS ....
Unless we go to actually near zero human CO2 by 2050, things are virtually impossible to alter in the future.

Stephen, who had a disease that afflicted someone I admired and loved and she was the bravest person I know, battling for 11 years to watch her son grow up as she battled ALS, Motor Neuron and Lou Gerhigs s Stephen had, I would prefer her son to live in a world without what is an avoidable end date.

Stephen, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation left us in 2018, he however had a view on this topic and whilst I DID NOT and DO NOT agree with his conclusions in total, his view was that in 400 years the planet would be an acid sea and 250 degrees C. Stephen is of course, Stephen Hawkin.

At the bottom of all this are mere chemical reactions, LAWS .... Scientific ones about energy in and out, or HOW certain compounds react, and then are broken down. If you don't like science, then Stop reading .

As to some of the more idiotic predictions of the past, and even now, sea rise and some from the 1970;s were, well ... stupid and the only way the sea will rise a lot is if the BIGGEST chunk of ice melts and that's Antarctica. Unlikely, I suspect in the next 100 years, the stuff on the actual land, but the fringes, yep .... sure ... but they are 15% of the total. Land actually rises or falls, so a rise in water v impact, without taking into account if the land itself is rising or falling makes even this seemingly simple thing extremely complex. Heating of water and its expansion verses, more evaporated due to higher temps, v A vortex effect as the earth spins, FEW take this into account with more water in the initial stages.

On and on and on these things go. But, in the end CO2 burnt for fuel, eventually breaks down. Since most don't know where the hell most oxygen comes from, or most heat ends up .... ITS THE BLOODY OCEAN ... I will be watching with interest a few things as time goes on. One is I suspect, impossible to avoid and will release 50 odd years of greenhouse gasses and I hope to hell its NOT quickly.

Others, seem to think planting a tree is the answer, or using brute force to capture CO2 ... which is in fact idiotic due to LAWS of science and the energy required is about the same ... if NOT equal to that expended in the first place, to turn it back into captured CO2.

As to tree.s and indifference and well .... lack of bothering ... until its too late ... is the end I suspect either way of humanity. A tree .... or a hectare at best absorbs 4 tons of Co2 per year ... one sq km or 100 hectares is .... 400 tons and at 33 BILLION HUMAN tons of CO2 .... ignoring the natural 23 BILLION tons the earth CAN handle and did so for millions of years .... absorb ... 23 itself ... its the 33 we NOW emit that is the issue.

With 50 million sq km of land used to feed us, even if we say planted 5 million of deserts in Australia out of the 7 million total .... needing to absorb say 33 billion tons .... its impossible EVEN to see 5 million sq km planted ... at 400 tons per sq km .... it would absorb ... gee ... all 5 million .... oh 2 billion pout of 33 billion JUST FOR ONE YEAR .... next year another 33 billion .... and so on ... and when the trees die ... the cycle STOPS .... or if they are burnt down .... its not captured other than short term..

There is of course a few solutions .... Green energy is actually LOWER COST than fossil fuels. LOWER >... NOT MORE ... some issues of course are the non sunlight or wind times .... but able I suspect to be overcome. Then again, the OLIGARCHY and their ownership of fossil stuff. prevails ... the need to immediately STOP this excess or reduce oit to 10% of what it is ... is of course possible without too much disruuption economically ... I even have a bloody solution. One the world is ready for ... but not the 1% or 0.1% ....

As to changes, they are set in stone ... some of them ... we cant go back ... its already out there. The solution is likely a few things and NOT what some of the PR Oligarchy types are pushing or pretending.

In the meantime, the Ocean is dead ... DEAD ... not much we can do about that. So too, whilst we hit 10 billion population, the likely-hood of a mass extinction event and starving of not million but billions post 2050 is well, over 50% even now, for me, its over 80% likely a crop fail on a massive scale hitting Africa and lower per capita GDP nations and their inability to pay MORE for food, will be an issue.

Oh bliss ... it is ... as to CO2 capture and NOT hitting 1.5 degree's by 2100, at this point in time I think its MORE not 2 degrees but 3 if not 4. Some serious things missing from the latest predictions out of 50,000 scientists and as a demographer and realist, two things hold the 2 -4 degree by 2100 difference and at 2 degrees ... by the way ... they all agree 80% likely mass crop fail .... the two more degrees have to do with what the bloody sun is going to do and I dont KNOW ... the last 30 years, despite warming 4% in 300 million years, the last 30 years have been a pause in its activity .... so does this change ? I d0ont know ....

A box of crackers for the other thing .... if you can name it ... and WHY its going to be a time bomb .... if it occurs.

As to reversing and trying to minimize some of the impacts .... tree;s whilst good, not the answer ... nor brute force massive energy requiring to remove and sequester CO2 ...

All however is an aside. ... seriously. One cannot compete with a billion dollar funded right wing think tank ... let alone 20 of them. All tax deductible .... best practice science is ... irrelevant. I own a coal mine or oil field ... Trumps ... hahah ... trumps all other issues. Economically things are a total joke and the COST of fixing this, is one that is ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE FELT .... well not by most. But for that to occur, a lot of things need to change and time is NOT something the world has.

enough .... I need to shoot my BB gun at the economic and global side .... in hopes it will change this topic.

Cheers