Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I wouldnt trust China on anything

Just burning all of those infected bats violated any emmissions agreements

That worst case scenario here is not plausible unless you envision something happening many centuries in the future, perhaps.  I think it probable by then we'll have mastered other means of producing energy.

Even a 7°C rise would not render the planet uninhabitable.  It would be bad for many obviously.  But I don't think any sensible person is worried about the planet becoming like Venus.

I still would like to see the outline of a plan instead of just warm and fuzzy vague general notions.

You haven't read The Green New Deal?

I glanced at it and laughed.  A fifth grader could write something better, and it of course was a Resolution meaning nothing at all.

I like cost:benefit analyses, as I've said before, and it's a clear signal when they don't exist for any real plan.  This train has done run.

That worst case scenario here is not plausible unless you envision something happening many centuries in the future, perhaps.  I think it probable by then we'll have mastered other means of producing energy.

Even a 7°C rise would not render the planet uninhabitable.  It would be bad for many obviously.  But I don't think any sensible person is worried about the planet becoming like Venus.

I still would like to see the outline of a plan instead of just warm and fuzzy vague general notions.

I think that one of the things we bank on as humans is that climate is generally comprised of negative feedback loops. Usually one thing happens that swings us in another direction, and the consequence of that is an effect that puts a brake on the result of the first thing.

If climate in general were comprised of positive feedback loops, it's unlikely that complex life would have ever developed on Earth. 

I think some of the hubris of humanity is taking that idea, that generally climate is self-regulating, and discounting the chance of something which pushes it out of its regulation zone to where you can have runaway effects. And I'm not sure you can state that those runaway effects would be "centuries in the future", as we don't know where/when the tipping points might be. 

That's why I bring up the 5 mass extinctions in the planet's history. It's happened before. It will happen again. Whether or not it will happen this time, due to this cause, is a complete unknown. 

I don't think anthropogenic global warming will trigger the next global mass extinction. But I'm not going to say it can't, or that it would take centuries, if we do actually hit a climate trigger point where positive feedback dominates.

I wouldn't say climate science is poorly understood, but by its very nature it's difficult to account for the many, many variables. So the models are our best guesses, though should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism due to the limits of our knowledge.

I don't believe any model is predicting a runaway climate, I haven't seen one anyway.

Could it happen?  Sure, it's a possibility at some point, I just am unaware of any serious consideration of it.

Many of their models may have a failure of imagination as well. 

Some of the most dire models suggest that the warming will trigger a thawing of permafrost, which contains more carbon than the entire amount currently in the atmosphere, and could trigger release of methane as organisms break down the organic material therein. Methane of course believed to be an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. 

What do we believe to be consistent in a couple of the mass extinctions? Rapid increase in CO2 and methane.




Not saying it's going to happen... But that's worst case scenario.