re: #318 Bagua

re: #319 Bagua

re: #320 Bagua

The very short form of the reply, and thank you for writing so clearly an eloquently…
is…

1. All those qualifiers of if when and maybe are bounded within a certain set of parameters of change. At the lowest end, the absolute lowest end is IPCC. If, without any more tweaking (all of the tweaks tend to make things worse, not better) that is all that will happen, we are still looking at massive flooding, drastically reduced growing capacity, drastically reduced fresh water supply and large spread of contagion as disease carrying critters migrate to new places.

2. It is not all rosy and then suddenly things happen in 100-150 years. It will get bad, then worse, then catastrophic.

3. CO2 stays in the air for centuries. We are already committed to changes that we will not like. If we continue as we are for 30 more years, we may well pass a tipping point.

Please read that paper I linked to, it explains what I mean clearly. Also, that paper is sited 129 times and is a survey of many different groups findings.

In short, the science is clear that waiting 30 years is not an option. The shotgun is very much pointed at our face.

4. We have a technological solutions now to the issue, yet we do not deploy them. In the future, it will require even more drastic changes and have to be based on technologies that do not yet exist. Your suggestion of waiting for people to figure it all out, and then sacrifice even more than they would have to now, to fix things is not tenable. There is no good story here. There is no way to have your cake and eat it too.