(12-04-2019 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we really want to deal with it, we need big solutions.

How do we deal with sea level rise? One way would be to find new places for sea water to go. The Qattara Depression is one, and that would have added advantages of producing power without burning fossil fuels and creating economic growth for poverty-stricken Egypt. Another might be Lake Eyre in Australia, which would produce an added advantage of increasing rainfall in a significant portion of the bone-dry Australian outback, thus increasing the world food supply. Another would be putting desalinization plants in Sierra Leone, and pumping the water up to the headwaters of the Niger River, to maintain a steady flow that would support agriculture in much of the southern half of the Sahara, obviously increasing the economic viability of a poverty-stricken region, while increasing world food supply and plant CO2 demand.

What can we do to reduce fossil fuel usage? Right now, the only large-scale way to reduce it is nuclear. Generate more electricity and, while we are waiting for electric car technology to catch up, use it to power our railroads, like Europe. Trains are a far easier application than automobiles, because they don't have to carry their power with them. Yes nukes have risks, and for that reason maybe we don't want to rely on them long-term. But they could provide a very useful source until we get renewables totally figured out. If we took care of the southern half of the Sahara with the Niger, perhaps we could take care of the northern half by filling it up with solar panels. We could probably produce enough to electrify a good bit of Africa, and also contribute some power to Europe's needs. Identify every place in the world (including Teddy Kennedy's view) where wind is viable and develop them.

To get China, India, and the developing world to go along, we are going to have to prove to them that the changes will be better for them--in other words, put more food on their tables. I'm looking at some things that could do that, at least for Africa. Find opportunities to do similar things elsewhere.

Some ideas of how to cope. Good to hear.

(12-04-2019 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we really want to deal with it, we need big solutions.

How do we deal with sea level rise? One way would be to find new places for sea water to go. The Qattara Depression is one, and that would have added advantages of producing power without burning fossil fuels and creating economic growth for poverty-stricken Egypt. Another might be Lake Eyre in Australia, which would produce an added advantage of increasing rainfall in a significant portion of the bone-dry Australian outback, thus increasing the world food supply. Another would be putting desalinization plants in Sierra Leone, and pumping the water up to the headwaters of the Niger River, to maintain a steady flow that would support agriculture in much of the southern half of the Sahara, obviously increasing the economic viability of a poverty-stricken region, while increasing world food supply and plant CO2 demand.

What can we do to reduce fossil fuel usage? Right now, the only large-scale way to reduce it is nuclear. Generate more electricity and, while we are waiting for electric car technology to catch up, use it to power our railroads, like Europe. Trains are a far easier application than automobiles, because they don't have to carry their power with them. Yes nukes have risks, and for that reason maybe we don't want to rely on them long-term. But they could provide a very useful source until we get renewables totally figured out. If we took care of the southern half of the Sahara with the Niger, perhaps we could take care of the northern half by filling it up with solar panels. We could probably produce enough to electrify a good bit of Africa, and also contribute some power to Europe's needs. Identify every place in the world (including Teddy Kennedy's view) where wind is viable and develop them.

To get China, India, and the developing world to go along, we are going to have to prove to them that the changes will be better for them--in other words, put more food on their tables. I'm looking at some things that could do that, at least for Africa. Find opportunities to do similar things elsewhere.

Some ideas of how to cope. Good to hear.

Do you actually think there are not handfuls of scientists, researchers, engineers, planners, etc. working on climate adaptation solutions?

There are at least two thrust areas with respect to climate change we should be acting on - GHG emissions to reduce further impacts and adaptation. I have never seen anyone say we shouldn't focus on adaptation because we should focus on GHG emissions.

Oddly enough, many former climate change deniers have moved out of the outright denying camp, and into a camp that thinks we should just focus on adaptation.

It would be like a doctor telling a smoker they should have chemo done to treat lung cancer, but not stop smoking.

(12-04-2019 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we really want to deal with it, we need big solutions.

How do we deal with sea level rise? One way would be to find new places for sea water to go. The Qattara Depression is one, and that would have added advantages of producing power without burning fossil fuels and creating economic growth for poverty-stricken Egypt. Another might be Lake Eyre in Australia, which would produce an added advantage of increasing rainfall in a significant portion of the bone-dry Australian outback, thus increasing the world food supply. Another would be putting desalinization plants in Sierra Leone, and pumping the water up to the headwaters of the Niger River, to maintain a steady flow that would support agriculture in much of the southern half of the Sahara, obviously increasing the economic viability of a poverty-stricken region, while increasing world food supply and plant CO2 demand.

What can we do to reduce fossil fuel usage? Right now, the only large-scale way to reduce it is nuclear. Generate more electricity and, while we are waiting for electric car technology to catch up, use it to power our railroads, like Europe. Trains are a far easier application than automobiles, because they don't have to carry their power with them. Yes nukes have risks, and for that reason maybe we don't want to rely on them long-term. But they could provide a very useful source until we get renewables totally figured out. If we took care of the southern half of the Sahara with the Niger, perhaps we could take care of the northern half by filling it up with solar panels. We could probably produce enough to electrify a good bit of Africa, and also contribute some power to Europe's needs. Identify every place in the world (including Teddy Kennedy's view) where wind is viable and develop them.

To get China, India, and the developing world to go along, we are going to have to prove to them that the changes will be better for them--in other words, put more food on their tables. I'm looking at some things that could do that, at least for Africa. Find opportunities to do similar things elsewhere.

Some ideas of how to cope. Good to hear.

Do you actually think there are not handfuls of scientists, researchers, engineers, planners, etc. working on climate adaptation solutions?

There are at least two thrust areas with respect to climate change we should be acting on - GHG emissions to reduce further impacts and adaptation. I have never seen anyone say we shouldn't focus on adaptation because we should focus on GHG emissions.

Oddly enough, many former climate change deniers have moved out of the outright denying camp, and into a camp that thinks we should just focus on adaptation.

It would be like a doctor telling a smoker they should have chemo done to treat lung cancer, but not stop smoking.

Completely irrational.

But yes, I think there are "handfuls of scientists, researchers, engineers, planners, etc. working on climate adaptation solutions?" Key word is "handfuls". Maybe you think that means a lot. I think it means a few.

But adaptation is not reducing "GHG emissions to reduce further impacts".

If you think that is adapting to change, no wonder we cannot talk to each other.

Meaningless story: A friend of mine was told to quit smoking for his heart. he eventually went to his doctor and told him trying to quit was more stressful than smoking. Doc bought it, let him smoke.

Friend and doctor both now dead.

(12-04-2019 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually think there are not handfuls of scientists, researchers, engineers, planners, etc. working on climate adaptation solutions?

Probably handfuls, as in not many. Certainly not many compared to the legion of "sky is falling" climate change zealots.

And however many there are, they aren't producing much in the way of useful solutions. I'm not one of them, and I'm not at all certain that I haven't come up with more useful solutions on the back of an envelope than they have in their laboratories.

And I think part of the problem is that the goal here is not to solve the problem. It is to increase government control over our lives and to redistribute income and wealth from producers to users. Those are the overarching goals, and climate change is just a convenient crutch. Look at the Paris agreement, or even Kyoto before it.

(12-04-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 02:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  climate change

I wonder what kickstarted the global warming back then? Internal combustion engines?

So do only you believe climate scientists when it’s convenient?

Nice trolling Lad.

But I have always agreed that the earth is warming. One of the points I have consistently made is that this has happened before, many times. the earth has cooled, the earth has warmed, over and over, and all without the hand of Man in the mix. The link is one evidence of that, presented by scientists. I don't think the current warming is 100% man-caused. I guess you will find a 'scientist" who will say it is. But the history of science is full of scientists saying this and that, and being wrong. Phlogiston So I guess you are saying we must believe 'scientists" when they speak, uncritically? White coat = truth?

You do math. So if the warming is not 100% man-caused, and it is not 100% man-reversible, where does that leave us?

True, I am not in favor of running around hysterically trying to prevent something inevitable. I am more in favor of preparing for a future that is different from the past.

So since you believe climate scientists who say that there have been natural cooling/warming cycles, does that mean you believe the same scientists that say anthropogenic climate change is real?

What I am saying is that when you choose to believe a consensus in a field, it does't make a lot of sense to not believe a consensus in the same field, when you aren't an expert in said field.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the strawman you're trying to set up - that warming trends are 100% anthropogenic. But you will find people saying that current warming trends are significantly impacted and driven by anthropogenic forcings.

Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

(12-04-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 02:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  climate change

I wonder what kickstarted the global warming back then? Internal combustion engines?

So do only you believe climate scientists when it’s convenient?

Nice trolling Lad.

But I have always agreed that the earth is warming. One of the points I have consistently made is that this has happened before, many times. the earth has cooled, the earth has warmed, over and over, and all without the hand of Man in the mix. The link is one evidence of that, presented by scientists. I don't think the current warming is 100% man-caused. I guess you will find a 'scientist" who will say it is. But the history of science is full of scientists saying this and that, and being wrong. Phlogiston So I guess you are saying we must believe 'scientists" when they speak, uncritically? White coat = truth?

You do math. So if the warming is not 100% man-caused, and it is not 100% man-reversible, where does that leave us?

True, I am not in favor of running around hysterically trying to prevent something inevitable. I am more in favor of preparing for a future that is different from the past.

So since you believe climate scientists who say that there have been natural cooling/warming cycles, does that mean you believe the same scientists that say anthropogenic climate change is real?

What I am saying is that when you choose to believe a consensus in a field, it does't make a lot of sense to not believe a consensus in the same field, when you aren't an expert in said field.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the strawman you're trying to set up - that warming trends are 100% anthropogenic. But you will find people saying that current warming trends are significantly impacted and driven by anthropogenic forcings.

Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

(12-04-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So do only you believe climate scientists when it’s convenient?

Nice trolling Lad.

But I have always agreed that the earth is warming. One of the points I have consistently made is that this has happened before, many times. the earth has cooled, the earth has warmed, over and over, and all without the hand of Man in the mix. The link is one evidence of that, presented by scientists. I don't think the current warming is 100% man-caused. I guess you will find a 'scientist" who will say it is. But the history of science is full of scientists saying this and that, and being wrong. Phlogiston So I guess you are saying we must believe 'scientists" when they speak, uncritically? White coat = truth?

You do math. So if the warming is not 100% man-caused, and it is not 100% man-reversible, where does that leave us?

True, I am not in favor of running around hysterically trying to prevent something inevitable. I am more in favor of preparing for a future that is different from the past.

So since you believe climate scientists who say that there have been natural cooling/warming cycles, does that mean you believe the same scientists that say anthropogenic climate change is real?

What I am saying is that when you choose to believe a consensus in a field, it does't make a lot of sense to not believe a consensus in the same field, when you aren't an expert in said field.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the strawman you're trying to set up - that warming trends are 100% anthropogenic. But you will find people saying that current warming trends are significantly impacted and driven by anthropogenic forcings.

Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nice trolling Lad.

But I have always agreed that the earth is warming. One of the points I have consistently made is that this has happened before, many times. the earth has cooled, the earth has warmed, over and over, and all without the hand of Man in the mix. The link is one evidence of that, presented by scientists. I don't think the current warming is 100% man-caused. I guess you will find a 'scientist" who will say it is. But the history of science is full of scientists saying this and that, and being wrong. Phlogiston So I guess you are saying we must believe 'scientists" when they speak, uncritically? White coat = truth?

You do math. So if the warming is not 100% man-caused, and it is not 100% man-reversible, where does that leave us?

True, I am not in favor of running around hysterically trying to prevent something inevitable. I am more in favor of preparing for a future that is different from the past.

So since you believe climate scientists who say that there have been natural cooling/warming cycles, does that mean you believe the same scientists that say anthropogenic climate change is real?

What I am saying is that when you choose to believe a consensus in a field, it does't make a lot of sense to not believe a consensus in the same field, when you aren't an expert in said field.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the strawman you're trying to set up - that warming trends are 100% anthropogenic. But you will find people saying that current warming trends are significantly impacted and driven by anthropogenic forcings.

Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 12:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So since you believe climate scientists who say that there have been natural cooling/warming cycles, does that mean you believe the same scientists that say anthropogenic climate change is real?

What I am saying is that when you choose to believe a consensus in a field, it does't make a lot of sense to not believe a consensus in the same field, when you aren't an expert in said field.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the strawman you're trying to set up - that warming trends are 100% anthropogenic. But you will find people saying that current warming trends are significantly impacted and driven by anthropogenic forcings.

Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny thing is that they really cannot. Perhaps you need to read up on how the forcing constant has had to be continuously tweaked over the last 25 years.

The root issue is that there most likely (probably to an absolute) is an impact from AGHG, but no one can state with any form of specificity, let alone in a predictable fashion, of what the fk that impact is.

That is the big howling dog in the room that you seemingly gloss over.

What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 06:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What does your argument boil down to?

It seems to be that we agree that AGHG (anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are absolutely contributing to climate change and current warming trends, but the exact degree to which is not absolutely certain?

I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

Numbers has a saying in his sig - if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there. Very apt description of the climate movement.

I have my own car analogy. A car is parked on a hill of infinite height. The parking brake slips, and it starts rolling downhill. As it passes by, some people give it a little extra push. Will making it illegal to give it an extra push make the car stop rolling downhill? Maybe we should shoot out the tire to slow it. But downhill it will go, just maybe, at first, at a slower pace. But end up with the car crashing at the bottom of the hill.

Lad says any measures that will slow the crash from 100 years from to 150 years from buys us time. For what? he cannot and will answer that question.

Reminds me of old science fiction movies where the world is going to end in 1 year, and a small group of people are going to shoot out into space to save the species. Except in this real life scenario, nobody is getting ready to do anything. Nobody is building a spaceship, they are all concentrating on slowing down the warming.

There are, of course, a few people doing research on things that would help - developing heat resistant wheat,for example. But, using Lad's own words, they are but a handful. The activity is vastly focused on mitigating the problem, slowing the warming, but hardly any at all on how for 7+ billion of us to survive in a warmer world, whether that be in 2135 or 2188.

In the long run, it doesn't matter. This earth cannot support 15, 20, 30 billion humans, no matter what laws the Democrats pass to govern 6% of the world.

So, Lad, give me some numbers. How slow can we increase GHG and keep you happy? Is the goal the airquality of 1675? If not, what is it?

You have no goals - just an endless quest.

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am pretty certain it is not 100%. Anything less than 100% means we cannot correct or reverse the problem.

If you cannot even define the problem, how can you correct it? I have been asking for years what the goal is, and neither you nor anybody has been able to tell me.

The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration.

A car traveling along a curve at 35 mph is safe and manageable. A car traveling the same curve and accelerating past 100 mph isn’t.

Your continued argument that climate change being part of a natural cycle means we shouldn’t worry, at all, about the effects of a more rapid change, is far too shortsighted and shows a clear misunderstanding of the historical, natural rate of climate change.

Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define - GHG emissions are affecting the climate, leading to an increase in global warming. There is scientific consensus around that fact - and just because warming trends are not completely related to man, does not mean we don’t need to be worried and work to reduce the acceleration. We may need to be worried, but no one can scientifically nor reliably point out what the scope is we need to be worried about. But they simply keep stating 'WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT NOW' without the issue of scope being anywhere close to resolved.

FIFY.

Quote:The problem is very easy to define

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

At the lower bounds of the climate sensitivity there is no 'problem.' Almost only a nuisance at that edge. Scope IS important in the aspect. Scope DEFINES the contours of the issue. But that doesnt seem to register.

You: THERE IS A PROBLEM. (Got it.)
Query: What is the scope of the problem?
You: THERE IS A PROBLEM.

The only thing that seems important is that man is adding carbon dioxide. THAT is the overriding concern, and the sole focus of the issue to you.

I will grant you it *could* be a '9' on the problem scale; or it *could* be a 1.2. That scopage issue bears zero importance to your view, or in your analysis of what to do.

But good for you -- you have identified the PROBLEM! Nobel prize stuff there. "anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures." Stop the fing presses for that blockbuster.

Tell me how much, I might agree with your solutions. Bu by god, huzzzah! The PROBLEM is defined. Not very well, and in ill-defined and non-predicatable terms, but thank our fing stars we have identified the 100,000 question (and studiously ignore the real question of scopage).

(12-05-2019 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.


FIFY.

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

(12-05-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Cute analogy but it misses the point entirely.

It is not understood in the slightest how fast the car is going for the case of AGHG. AGHG simply says the car is going at least a little bit faster due to AGHG. But it cant give a viable, predictable number there.

Assume 35 miles is the base case for 'natural process'. The estimates tacked on by AGHG give an end range of between 38 and 102.

And lad, he isnt arguing that it is 100 per cent natural cycle. In the slightest. He is asking for what the delta is; and what should be done due to the delta. Stop with the strawman arguments there.


FIFY.

As opposed to your pithy point, no, the problem *isnt* easy to define. If it is so fing easy to define, then what are the goals for reduction, and the goal for endpoint of the final 'energy balance' point? You know, the same question that OO keeps asking, not the one you answered.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

At the lower bounds of the climate sensitivity there is no 'problem.' Almost only a nuisance at that edge. Scope IS important in the aspect. Scope DEFINES the contours of the issue. But that doesnt seem to register.

You: THERE IS A PROBLEM. (Got it.)
Query: What is the scope of the problem?
You: THERE IS A PROBLEM.

The only thing that seems important is that man is adding carbon dioxide. THAT is the overriding concern, and the sole focus of the issue to you.

I will grant you it *could* be a '9' on the problem scale; or it *could* be a 1.2. That scopage issue bears zero importance to your view, or in your analysis of what to do.

But good for you -- you have identified the PROBLEM! Nobel prize stuff there. "anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures." Stop the fing presses for that blockbuster.

Tell me how much, I might agree with your solutions. Bu by god, huzzzah! The PROBLEM is defined. Not very well, and in ill-defined and non-predicatable terms, but thank our fing stars we have identified the 100,000 question (and studiously ignore the real question of scopage).

I never suggested what I said was groundbreaking - not sure why you clearly insinuate I did...

I simply said the problem is easy to define, which you pushed back on. As I said, we were talking about two different things, and we seem to be in agreement that the details of the problem, the exact mechanisms and forcings, and so on, are incredibly complicated. But their complexity should not stop us from looking to act against the problem, and there are a lot of relatively grounded ways we can start, like with cap and trade.

(12-05-2019 12:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

At the lower bounds of the climate sensitivity there is no 'problem.' Almost only a nuisance at that edge. Scope IS important in the aspect. Scope DEFINES the contours of the issue. But that doesnt seem to register.

You: THERE IS A PROBLEM. (Got it.)
Query: What is the scope of the problem?
You: THERE IS A PROBLEM.

The only thing that seems important is that man is adding carbon dioxide. THAT is the overriding concern, and the sole focus of the issue to you.

I will grant you it *could* be a '9' on the problem scale; or it *could* be a 1.2. That scopage issue bears zero importance to your view, or in your analysis of what to do.

But good for you -- you have identified the PROBLEM! Nobel prize stuff there. "anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures." Stop the fing presses for that blockbuster.

Tell me how much, I might agree with your solutions. Bu by god, huzzzah! The PROBLEM is defined. Not very well, and in ill-defined and non-predicatable terms, but thank our fing stars we have identified the 100,000 question (and studiously ignore the real question of scopage).

I never suggested what I said was groundbreaking - not sure why you clearly insinuate I did...

I simply said the problem is easy to define, which you pushed back on. As I said, we were talking about two different things, and we seem to be in agreement that the details of the problem, the exact mechanisms and forcings, and so on, are incredibly complicated. But their complexity should not stop us from looking to act against the problem, and there are a lot of relatively grounded ways we can start, like with cap and trade.

If the scope is at the bottom of the range, cap and trade is not commensurate with the issue.

It isnt complexity, lad. It is the scope of the issue. I could care less if the *exact* mechanisms included pixie dust and unicorn poop. Define the fing scope of the issue before jumping off a cliff. Logic 101.

(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

And you just side shuffled the question and tried to rearrange it.

You just answered 'keep your speed within 2 mph of the (original speed of) 35 mph'.

You still havent bothered to note what speed it is expected, why that speed is expected to be without fixing the car, and what is needed to get to 37 mph.

Nice try but still shuffling and obfuscating the point of scope. God this is like going to the dentist's office.....

(12-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Then perhaps you may want to actually answer OO's question then. Since it is so easy to define, an answer should be actually very straightforward. I look forward to that answer.

We’re really talking about two different things here.

I agree that the issue is very detailed and there is a lot of complexity. But the overall problem is easy to define - anthropomorphic forcings are affecting climate change and accelerating the rate of increase of global, mean temperatures.

You are talking about the details of the problem and it’s complexity - what forcings are driving it, to what extent, etc. I completely agree that it is a massively complex problem, and there is room for serious debate about the magnitude of the problem. But defining the problem? Easy and settled.

So, what is the goal for decreasing the rate? So far, it seems the goal is a little less than it is now. Using your 35MPH analogy, you want a 2 MPH reduction in whatever speed the car is traveling at now, without knowing if it is going at 45 or 85, and without knowing what that would get you.

If that is what you call defining either the goal or the problem, I don't think we can agree on anything.

Defining a goal is not going to easy, Lad.

Actually, there have been a lot of goals proposed. Keeping warming to less than 2 C above per-industrial temperatures. Reducing CO2 emissions to reach an atmospheric concentration below 400 ppm is another target.

Both of these reduce the rate of change and magnitude of impacts expected from anthropongenic climate change.

And you just side shuffled the question and tried to rearrange it.

You just answered 'keep your speed within 2 mph of the (original speed of) 35 mph'.

You still havent bothered to note what speed it is expected, why that speed is expected to be without fixing the car, and what is needed to get to 37 mph.

Nice try but still shuffling and obfuscating the point of scope. God this is like going to the dentist's office.....

Yeah, no shuffling. OO asked for measurable/defined goals and I gave him two different goals we could go after.

You’re talking about something different, again (just like before). You’re in essence asking for an equation that says X ppm = Y degrees C increase. I am not nearly enough of an expert to find the information that will give you the direct correlation.

You can look to a recent IPCC report that shows scenarios for modeled climate change given changes in CO2 emission, and how reduced emissions would result in either a slower approach to 1.5 C, or likely not crossing the threshold.

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf