Earth's energy imbalance removes almost all doubt from human-made climate change

- You alleged some vague conspiracy about renaming global warming to climate change ("a name change, a rebranding if you will")

- I responded with two links that clarify that there was never any such name change.

- You ignored that and started talking about how you think the models are wrong.

So do you agree that there was never a name changing or rebranding?

Everything that you're saying is true but they are incremental changes. I would put a bet that within 10-20 years massive market regulation + carbon tax will be forced onto industries across the world - that will be because climate change will be such a huge multiplier of horrific things we'll be forced to. But by then it's likely too late for 1/2 of the world's population to escape unharmed.

In fact I increasingly suspect that climate change is already causing horrific events around the world that we are ignoring because we are in the first world. It would be interesting to go around agricultural areas in the hottest areas of the world and see if food insecurity is increasing. I would bet that we're already seeing huge changes, but because we're insulated from it, we're ignoring it.

Basically we're looking at the same facts, but I think you are a huge optimist.

I really don’t think their are mitigation options.

The classic example of an attempt to reverse climate change is to put a large sunshade in space at L1. That sounds like a direct solution as it lowers the global temperature except climate is more complex than just average global temperatures. The ratio of energy released into space at the equator vs the poles changes as you alter the worlds CO2 concentration. A sunshade has a huge range of less obvious knock on effects due to this which alters jet streams, rainfall, etc. Thus, you still end up with a huge shift in climate even if the temperature is returned to normal.

Similarly, reducing the rate of CO2 release isn’t mitigation because there isn’t improvement. Gaining weight slower isn’t weight loss.

Now, reversing climate change by having net negative human CO2 emissions is an actual solution. Except to reach that point we would need to have zero net emissions at some point which on it’s own stops climate change. Personally, I wouldn’t call building a levy after a flood ends as mitigating the flood, but that’s more of a semantic argument.

PS: I know that seems silly, but consider this. Diversified investing is a risk mitigation strategy because risk is actually reduced. On the other hand if if your broke and don’t invest then there isn’t any investments at risk which IMO isn’t risk mitigation. Carbon capture after zero net emissions seems like that to me.

[1] https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...

[2] https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

[3] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

"Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over."

Civilization is dependent on the observed equalization of planetary energy input-output present for the past 10 000 years, along with stable CO2 levels. Both temperature and CO2 concentrations are breaking out of that envelope since 1930's, thus challenging poweful one-way threshold effects that will further release yet more greenhouse gases. Just this time without human intervention. It's kind of like lighting the fuse of a gigantic environmental bomb.