I think you are too optimistic in that first statement and bizarrely over-skeptical in the second. What alternative cause would you suggest?
Methane is a way more potent greenhouse gas than COā and probably unstoppable positive feedback loops have already commenced.
I am not being too optimistic in the first statementā¦ Technology is availableā¦ whatās missing is the willingness to prioritize and invest. And this is changing as the situation becomes tougher. The key is to shift to renewable energy to generate electricity. And technology for that has be n available for decades.
As to my skepticism, itās twofold-
a) Earth has had cycles of extreme shifts in its temperature without human interference in the past.
b) Climate is a complex phenomenon. Itās possible that the consensus is wrong and the minority that thinka global warming is not caused by human beings are correct.
But the main point is that we will know in our lifetimes whether reduced greenhouse gasses will reduce global temperatures.
Human health is a complex phenomenon. Itās possible that the consensus is wrong and the minority that think lung cancer is not caused by smoking are correct.
1 Like
Well, nobody is investing 6 trillion plus dollars globally to solve lung cancerā¦
What are you referring to?
True, but not at anything like the current rate of change. Current warming canāt be attributed to such cycles.
Thatās nothing more than a repetition of the claim. I asked for an alternative cause.
It would be nice if that were true. But in fact, given the residence time of CO2, even if we stopped adding to it now, which we wonāt, the temperature will still keep going up for quite a while.
Not sure where that number comes from or how itās relevant, but cancer research is very, very big business indeed.
There are predictions as to how much co2 emissions hav to be reduced to prevent the 2C increase in temperature.
Thatās what the Paris accord is all about.
People will expect reduction in emissions to have an impact on temperature increase.
Renewable energy sources for generating electricity. As of now, the world is mainly dependent on fossil fuels to generate electricity. (For example 63% for USA, and around 67% for India).
However the the technology to use renewable sources (like hydel power, wind, Solar etc) is available.
The other main source is automobiles ā¦ Again solutions are available (EV, Hybrids,Fuel generation by absorbing carbon dioxide etc).
However, this will need a huge investmentā¦ in several trillions of dollars. The will to divert funding of that magnitude is lacking.
Methane is 86 times more āpotentā over 20 years, or 34 times over 100 years. These are measured in global warming potential, or GWP, which takes into account lifetime and spectroscopic features. However, methane is currently 223 times less concentrated in the atmosphere. CO2 is still the main non-water contributor to greenhouse gas effects.
2 Likes
Itās lacking to a large part because of the efforts of oil companies and their friends.
Hmmmā¦I wonder why Dale didnāt mention that ratio.
Perhaps because heās talking about the future, when melting permafrost releases a lot more and rising ocean temperatures start to break up methane clathrates, ditto.
1 Like
Not reallyā¦ no Government will get reelected if they invest to that extent ā¦ itās just basic economicsā¦
They would if they were able to convince the public that AGW was actually happening and would have dire effects. Of course our current government says itās all a Chinese hoax.
Canāt be a Chinese Hoaxā¦if itās a hoax, it has to be an American one.
Lying about walruses is not going to convince anybody.
The fact is that even Governmentās (including Obamaās administration) are not convinced enough to invest/disinvest to the extent required as per scientists. The real deniers are the policy makers themselvesā¦Government policy (world over) over the last decade and half is proof that most world governments are climate change deniers.
Well, thatās depressing. Weāre fucked, you say?
More or less.
Until some major disaster happens and lots of people dieā¦
Edit: In short, if you go by the policies of the USA, India etc for the last twenty yearsā¦ itās easy to conclude that the governmentās donāt really believe climate change is a crisis.
In fact, china is doing comparatively better work.
Iām sure that must be the reason why. Right, Dale?
Yeah, I donāt know what I could have been thinking.