I like that he considers the trade offs. If AGW is a problem, notice that they rebranded it as Climate Change, adaptation might be better than upending our energy economy in a possibly futile attempt to stop it.
I appreciate the way Quico helps us to see the psychological and ideological forces that keep us from informed public discussion of global heating.
And I would like to mention one thought on how to counter these forces: Would putting a total global heat gain number alongside the CO2 number could help alter perceptions? Such a number is perhaps much more dramatic than citing the ocean temperature rise that results from this heat energy gain?
My information is that the earth’s heat energy gain since the 1950s is about 350 x10^21 joules, which is about 600 times the annual global human energy consumption. In any case, it is a very large and dramatic number. Would use of such a number focus attention on the kind of steps we need to take?
Are you familiar with Bjorn Lomborg?
Yeah! He's written interesting thing, but he softballs the uncertainties.
I like that he considers the trade offs. If AGW is a problem, notice that they rebranded it as Climate Change, adaptation might be better than upending our energy economy in a possibly futile attempt to stop it.
I appreciate the way Quico helps us to see the psychological and ideological forces that keep us from informed public discussion of global heating.
And I would like to mention one thought on how to counter these forces: Would putting a total global heat gain number alongside the CO2 number could help alter perceptions? Such a number is perhaps much more dramatic than citing the ocean temperature rise that results from this heat energy gain?
My information is that the earth’s heat energy gain since the 1950s is about 350 x10^21 joules, which is about 600 times the annual global human energy consumption. In any case, it is a very large and dramatic number. Would use of such a number focus attention on the kind of steps we need to take?