Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The term "climate change" is not some nefarious plot to fool anyone.    

I have questions.

I'm not sure how common this is, but I believe Phoenix is about to get to April 1st with no days at 90+ degrees.  It's weird weather here, for sure. 

It's rained here basically every day for the last two weeks. Even though California's "rainy season" is ongoing, this is unusual. We're already nearly at twice our monthly average of precipitation for March.

Unfortunately, we were incredibly dry for both January and February, so we're still running about 2 inches of rainfall behind our full seasonal average. 

Elon Musk praised Tesla’s team for the Model Y’s heat pump — a feature that could make the electric SUV much more efficient in colder climates.

https://electrek.co/2020/03/23/tesla-model-y-heat-pump-elon-musk-best-engineering/

I'm guessing the water is cooled or heated by geothermal wells under the building - probably at least 125 foot deep

The term "climate change" is not some nefarious plot to fool anyone.  

It may or may not be. But it is being used by some to panic the uniformed about an issue in which mankind as very little to no ability to affect. Sending money to Al Gore or his cronies, will not help stabilize the Earths climate. The Earths climate is dependent upon the Sun and has been in a constant state of change since the Earth had a climate. Hence the lack of the Mile Thick sheet of ice in the same spot that I now occupy, but was present some 10,000 years ago.  

The nature of Malinkovitch Cycles is reasonably well understood, and not related to Climate Change as it pertains to CO2 levels.

I certainly could not assert with any certainty that the increase of CO2 from 280 to 410 ppm cannot have a significant impact on our climate.  It makes sense to me that it would have an impact.  We may not be able to model that impact very well, a thing Judith Curry points out in her postings.

I've posted this before, but remember that all of the global warming / climate change stuff relies on several interrelated points:

• The earth is in a warming trend.
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• Some portion of the warming of the last century and a half is due to CO2.
• Warming is bad for humanity.
• The "CO2 forcing / climate sensitivity" numbers are high enough that the Earth will warm enough to have significant / catastrophic negative effects.
• The technology and economics exist such that is capable to do something about it on a global basis.
• The cost of doing something now is a better economic trade-off than trying to use economic growth to mitigate the worst effects of it down the road.

No credible skeptic argues with #1-3. Anyone who argues those points, IMHO, is simply spouting nonsense that is completely unsupported by science.

There may be some legitimate debate on #3, based on HOW much of that warming trend is CO2 related and how much is related to the sun, the fact that we were coming out of a minimum already, and the earth was probably going to naturally warm between then and now. 

All of the major points of contention are #4+. Is warming bad for humanity? How bad [how can we quantify it in human life and economic terms]? How much warming will there be [what's the climate sensitivity number]? Can we effectively forestall the warming without destroying the engine of our global economy, which today is fossil fuels? 


As we see in another context right now, the question is at what point the cure is worse than the disease? And that's a really hard debate, because we have difficulty quantifying the potential harm, we have difficulty modeling the efficacy of our mitigations, and we start venturing into economics which is even more of a shaky science than climate modeling.

So when things get really complicated, does that mean people don't have an opinion? Of course not! This is America, dammit!

Hence the level of debate is dominated by people who don't realize they're perfect examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

#6 and #7 shouldn't even be debatable at this point, either.

Significant parts of the solution to decarbonizing society are already cost-effective and in many ways superior technologies.

In electricity wind and solar get the most attention, but it's also all of the energy efficiency upgrades from LED lighting to advanced energy management systems. That's why wind technicians and solar installers are the two fastest growing jobs in the country, while jobs in coal, oil & gas are in decline.

I'm a bit skeptical on small nuclear reactors, but they're going to deployed to some extent to test them out at some point. Different energy storage technologies are being commercialized with more on the way. Other technologies in the works, as well.

In transportation, electrification is the main change right now, but hydrogen is what's probably going to be the solution for shipping, freight, and eventually air travel.

The industrial sector is more difficult. Using hydrogen and carbon capture is probably part of the answer. Replacing plastics with other materials is part of it. Figuring out ways to reduce/reuse/repurpose waste is part of it.

How the aftermath of the pandemic affects society will be interesting, as well. Does business travel and demand for office space decline as remote working becomes more commonplace and widely adopted? Does the education sector become more online-oriented, as well? That remains to be seen.