> How viable scientifically are the so-called climate change limits (not more than 2 degrees C, or 450 ppm CO2 or 500 B to

How viable scientifically are the so-called climate change limits (not more than 2 degrees C, or 450 ppm CO2 or 500 B to

Posted at: 2015-03-12 
We're not very likely to find out. They were originally set out as achievable goals, but 30 years and continuing of inaction means that those numbers will merely become a milemarker on a scale that continues to climb. Whatever effects those levels would have produced will be "overtaken by events".

I believe in a God who is gracious to those who do right and harsh on those who do wrong. I believe that such a God would give us ample opportunity to convert to clean energy sources, but if we squander such opportunities, we can expect to relive the Old Testament.

Of course, that is the theist in me talking. Scientifically, it will be decades before anyone can prove that we weren't already attached to another object by an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis when carbon dioxide exceeded 350ppm.



I don't know.

But even if those limits aren't achievable, the closer we get to them, the better off we'll be. I've heard quotes/quips to the general effect of "The first rule of holes is, stop digging." The sooner we start acting, the closer we can get to stopping at those limits.

Those are not limits, merely projections of what the possible damages may be if the climate warms by given intervals.

The truth is, I don't know.

I can see that the science behind CO2 warming is true.

I can see that the world is already warming.

I can't see that evolution is actively happening at the moment, but the science is pretty clear.

There are areas of science that are visibly obvious.

There are others that are pretty obvious, even if we cannot see them at the moment.

Today, there was a report that the ozone layer is improving. Finally.

Like past generations, I'm willing to pay taxes that will benefit the next generation.

That has mostly been the case for 200 years in America.

But, sadly, to a great extent, it's not true today.

We seem to be the entitlement generation.

We benefit from the money invested by those that came before us.

And we benefit by spending money that future generations will have to pay.

And, we benefit in personal means only, not in ways that benefits anyone other than ourselves.

While I did take some science classes, in HS and college, it was long enough ago that environmentalism wasn't high on the list. It was before the science community in general realized how damaging our burning of fossil fuel would be in the future. All of that - as much as I do know, I've had to learn much later in life. I do have heirs, and I would like to leave them a world better than I found it. But, at the moment, while it clearly is happening in some areas, there are other areas where it is not.

History books, 100-200 years from now will be pretty depressing.

Our generation will be a turning point in the morality of this country.

We'll be looked at as the depths of depravity - spending what we don't have,

wasting the legacy of those who came before us, and stealing from those who come after us.

..."before long-lasting shifts in temperature, weather patterns and sea level guarantee a daunting future for our species and many of our companions on this planet."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/can-humans-get-used-to-having-a-two-way-relationship-with-earths-climate/?emc=edit_tnt_20140910&nlid=32798901&tntemail0=y

Or in other words, are the news media doing their jobs properly in reporting on climate change issues?