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

Well, reality often is negative, but it's still reality.  I think "we" should start considering active remediation and compensation (building dikes for example).

It's hard for me to see a process that can suck CO2 out of the air that is energy efficient at all, the entropy factor is huge.  Anything that tries to remove something present at 400 ppm faces that core issue.  We have two concepts, aerosols in the upper atmosphere and iron salting the oceans.  Both have been tested and "work" but we don't know what adverse consequences might happen with large scale usage.

There is also a notion the planet is entering a cooling period, that is no more than a notion, and GW is offsetting that natural trend.  I rather doubt this, but it's interesting.

Cost:benefit.

If we spend TRILLIONS of dollars for an insignificant reduction, it's money wasted that could have been used for other endeavors and approaches.

If the models are only "guesses", best or not, then the whole thing may be a false proposition.

If the actual result is better than they all forecast, then we should do very very little.  If the result is much worse, doing anything is way too little too late.

If they are on target, it's also too little too late, and we should explore other options to find where the best "solution" exists after doing cost:benefit analysis.

I see zero reason to dump trillions into "green energy" that ends up with a very very minor impact on the real problem.

The models are a lot more than "guesses".  They were not developed by folks sitting around GUESSING what might happen.

I've read a good bit about the various models and I have issues with how they are developed, but they are a lot more detailed and involved than pure guesses.

If they ARE guesses (they are not), we shouldn't rely on them AT ALL.

I could GUESS the climate is cooling and we should dump more CO2 into the air.

1: to form an opinion of from little or no evidence  She could only guess what he meant.


2: BELIEVE, SUPPOSEI guess you're right


I think they are more valid than a "guess".  If they are not, we should ignore them entirely.

It has no license to produce electricity, hasn't generated a kilowatt since 1958, and provides no benefits for irrigation or flood control.


But one thing Enloe Dam, built 100 years ago, still does very, very well: block fish from reaching more than 340 miles of high-quality, cold-water habitat upstream in the Similkameen River.

The dam is of no use to anyone, not the small rural public utility district (PUD) that owns it, and not to tribes longing to bring salmon back to this river. Obstacles of cost, liability and a quest by the PUD to revive the dam for more than a decade stood in the way of removal.

But now new efforts are underway to take down Enloe Dam.


https://phys.org/news/2020-11-blocking-miles-salmon-streams-hasnt.html

That dam should have never been built.