No scientific consensus on climate change

[Remundo]

as usual with these debates, climate change is discussed, but warming is mainly on the forums...

[eclectron]

if it causes disasters to remove fossils (and it is likely that it would), the "immediately" is too much. If we do not know how to maintain the comfort of modern life without fossils, it is obvious that we will continue to use them until the reserves are exhausted, and then we will adapt as best we can. For the moment everything shows that this is what will happen.

We have already talked about it and your "reasoning" is just stupid since you admit the end of fossils as inevitable.
It's good that the removal of fossils will be imposed by Mother Nature anyway.
and no it is not at this moment that it will be necessary to think about transit because there will be no more physical means (energy) to transit.

In addition, the sustainability of the world economy has been exceeded for a long time (80s) so it is already too late to change course immediately. in good conditions.

the "immediately" is the moment of the change of course when the 'economic ship' is heading towards the renewable.
(energy, agriculture, housing, transport, etc.)
This concerns the countries which are the biggest contributors of CO2 and which, coincidentally, would have the means but it costs ....
The problem seems complex because we want everything and its opposite, we want to make profits, growth and at the same time be green.
either we are ecological or we are capitalist, alas for the boomers who have built their lives on capitalism and I am.
so alas for me, the world will have to change. Immediately the better.
in short, already said also, what blocks is finance, capitalism, the absence of balloons among politicians and guys like you or like tryphon, who instill doubt permanently where there is none not.

end of the debate, in fact there is no debate!
Except to be in the contradiction and the denial of reality in: finance, capitalism, politicians and guys like your or as a tryphon, who instill doubt permanently where there is none.

[eclectron]

as usual with these debates, climate change is discussed, but warming is mainly on the forums...

and the climate is heating up too, with the energy of servers and computers ...

and during that time, nothing fundamentally changes for the better.

[thibr]

as the doctor said to his patient who did not want to be treated the autopsy will prove that I was right

[izentrop]

as the doctor said to his patient who did not want to be treated the autopsy will prove that I was right

It will give us a "nice leg" (of wood) when the point of no return * is passed. While we are discussing, he is fast approaching.

We already knew the past and future curves of temperatures, CO2, melting ice, perhaps less that of the weakening of the AMOC, which guarantees a certain stability to the climate, while stirring the nutrients for a life. abundant navy ....

To have it bigger, you must be a subscriber ... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z

* In the short term, because normal will return, but after how many thousands of years

[ABC2019]

if it causes disasters to remove fossils (and it is likely that it would), the "immediately" is too much. If we do not know how to maintain the comfort of modern life without fossils, it is obvious that we will continue to use them until the reserves are exhausted, and then we will adapt as best we can. For the moment everything shows that this is what will happen.

We have already talked about it and your "reasoning" is just stupid since you admit the end of fossils as inevitable.
It's good that the removal of fossils will be imposed by Mother Nature anyway.
and no it is not at this moment that it will be necessary to think about transit because there will be no more physical means (energy) to transit.

it is your reasoning which is stupid, if we can replace the fossils, the renewable energies will give all the means to transit. It's not white or black, the fossils will run out little by little and therefore will become more and more expensive, so if it becomes interesting to replace them, we will naturally do it gradually, even the laws of the market will succeed.

Forced replacement only makes sense if we want to limit the total below the natural limit, and therefore replace them BEFORE they become expensive, then yes, we need incentives or even forced measures. But it is this necessity that I am rightly contesting, because I do not think that the amount of reserves is such that it makes RC dangerous.

[ABC2019]

and during that time, nothing fundamentally changes for the better.

This is what I am saying, nothing changes and nothing will change until the fossils are exhausted for good, if we do not know how to replace them with equivalent comfort. This is what we are witnessing, and it will not change.

[eclectron]

as the doctor said to his patient who did not want to be treated the autopsy will prove that I was right

Cynical but probably true, the future will tell.

[eclectron]

it is your reasoning which is stupid, if we can replace the fossils, the renewable energies will give all the means to transit. It's not white or black, the fossils will run out little by little and therefore will become more and more expensive, so if it becomes interesting to replace them, we will naturally do it gradually, even the laws of the market will succeed.

Forced replacement only makes sense if we want to limit the total below the natural limit, and therefore replace them BEFORE they become expensive, then yes, we need incentives or even forced measures. But it is this necessity that I am rightly contesting, because I do not think that the amount of reserves is such that it makes RC dangerous.

Clever man, how do you do to build renewable energies when fossils are increasingly rare, and incidentally when RCA is more and more significant.
Wouldn't it be smarter to transit now that we are still in relative material comfort and in order to limit the RCA?
especially since we ALREADY know that we have to transit.
Will your dough give you the ability to eat sand?
the market you know what you can do with nature?
The market operates in relative abundance. scarcity leads to barbarism.

Well, chatting with a broken brain doesn't interest me.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

.... because I don't think the amount of reserves is such that it makes RC dangerous.

He's ALREADY dangerous ...