MMCC Man Made Climate Change

[hughespat57]

Regardless of whether I buy into CC being MM or not, the thing that I find funny is that many in the U.S. think it's our responsibility to solve this worldwide issue. Without citing data and just living in the U.S. for 62 years, my observations tell me that the U.S. has done a pretty good job and will continue to do so in the future despite our politicians taking private jets and entertainers on mega yachts traveling the world to tell us all that we need to do better.

Agree...

The US passed the Clean Water Act. And I am old enough to have seen waterways that were getting horrible become clean again. Look at the Hudson, Chicago, Mississippi, Ohio 50 years ago compared to today. Can we do better? yes we can, should we yes we should.



But we should not just force it here and then offshore the pollution to China. We have EPA rules, we have OSHA rules, China kills people as a cost of business.

Fix these things before destroying our own economy...

 

[jsjudd]

The fact that Earth's climate has always been in a (slow) state of change is irrelevant.
Also, the "debate" over MMCC is also irrelevant.
What we know about the present includes these two things:
1) Our climate is changing. Fast.
2) Our many $trillions of infrastructure investments of the past 200 years is all predicated on the stability of the climate as we have known it over the past 200 years. (Think of all the coastal cities we have that are going to need to be diked in, or moved due to sea level rise. Think of all the pipes in places like Texas that were never prepared for polar vortex weather anomalies. Think of all the world's agriculture patterns that are being disrupted.)

Therefore: anyone with a whit of financial expertise should be alarmed at what is going to be jeopardized very soon.

You don't even need to be a climate expert to see all this. Just go down to your local insurance company and ask them how their rates are changing; get details about coverage for floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, crop yields, or several other things. These companies do not spend time on big climate models, they just do actuarial studies. They know what's going on, and they will be careful to make money off the mess we are headed into. They can also predict where there will be tons and tons of money to lose in the coming changes.

If you care to spend time looking at expert climate studies, you will find many kinds of alarming facts. One easy one to talk about is the tundra in Canada and Siberia. As the southern edge of the permafrost moves north, there is a huge quantity of methane that has been locked in place for millennia that will be freed up. That stuff is bad joojoo for the atmosphere, and will warm the planet up faster for every little bit of heat that accumulates. This is one example of a positive feedback loop that scares the bejeezus out of anyone who delves far enough into to see what can happen.

None of this is altered by the ruckus about whether man has changed the climate. It is changing regardless, and we need to find ways to stabilize it. Fast.

 

[jsjudd]

...my observations tell me that the U.S. has done a pretty good job...

Whoa. The U.S. has done a "pretty good job" of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Over the years, we've added more than any other country. We are still adding 5 times as much per capita as China is adding. We are a MAJOR culprit in the present predicament. And we are nowhere near making proportionate amends for it.

 

[jbloyd]

It's amusing to watch the extremes scream at each other while the rest of us sit back with our popcorn and enjoy the show. I think what the more level-headed are saying is that, no matter what we do, the planet will be just fine. If necessary, it will erase us and move on. To even think that we have the ability to "stabilize" or "improve" climate to suit our own comfort levels world-wide is the height of arrogance. I've come to this sanguine state by giving in to my wife, who prefers the thermostat at 75 degrees F while I prefer 65. At that micro level, having lost control to my wife, the macro level, which is beyond my ken, is worth no more than fuzzy ruminations when I have nothing on the boat to fix.
I'm ignoring those who have taken to conflating other issues, like plastic straws and cow farts, with MMCC.

 

[jdecris]

Really?

MMCC Man Made Climate Change
Climate change is real and has occurred for the past 4.5 Billion years.

Of course no records were kept as man was not here. Record keeping on climate change appears to be 200 approx years old.
"So, in fact, the last ice age hasn't ended yet! Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it's actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago)"
Yet some believe that CC is man made.
Deserts well south of the border reveal a receeding glacier that did not occur in our life time or even when man/then woman were created.

If the last ice age is not yet over how has man caused climate change?
__________________
SteveK


Yes, on one level it is a show worthy of not much more than popcorn. But what the heck. Maybe - just maybe - someone will see something differently as a result.

Of course the climate changes regularly over time. That's the geology and history of the earth.

But that's not the issue with man made climate change.

The issue is that the climate - our living environment - is changing rapidly - and in a not so good way - because of some of the by-products of "man's" current way of life. And that we actually do have control over that dynamic.

The ecological system simply can't take the relatively rapid influx of all man-made by-products, and as a result, at some point, the system as is will no longer be able to support life as we know it.

So... moving right along... as I understand the claim (or the "logic"), climate change has occurred naturally over the ages, and that somehow justifies? - and makes ok? - nullifies? - man-made climate change?

I mean... what is the point we're making here - that the climate's going to change in X million years anyway, so what difference does it make if man changes it in the next X hundred years?

And... that we should just continue on our merry ways and f it all up anyway?

Really?

 

[GreatLaker]

I stopped using FaceBook Because it is full of political opinion - not useful info. Please keep politics out of a boater-helping-boaters forum.

 

[SteveK]

Really??? Is that the best you got.
MMCC is a political driven belief, prove me wrong.

 

[jbloyd]

SteveK

Yes, on one level it is a show worthy of not much more than popcorn. But what the heck. Maybe - just maybe - someone will see something differently as a result.

Of course the climate changes regularly over time. That's the geology and history of the earth.

But that's not the issue with man made climate change.

The issue is that the climate - our living environment - is changing rapidly - and in a not so good way - because of some of the by-products of "man's" current way of life. And that we actually do have control over that dynamic.

The ecological system simply can't take the relatively rapid influx of all man-made by-products, and as a result, at some point, the system as is will no longer be able to support life as we know it.

So... moving right along... as I understand the claim (or the "logic"), climate change has occurred naturally over the ages, and that somehow justifies? - and makes ok? - nullifies? - man-made climate change?

I mean... what is the point we're making here - that the climate's going to change in X million years anyway, so what difference does it make if man changes it in the next X hundred years?

And... that we should just continue on our merry ways and f it all up anyway?

Really?

Applying the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum doesn't strengthen your cause. Certainly, it would behoove us to be prudent and not do anything to weaken or destroy the very economies we will rely on to provide some means of continuing our existence on this planet in some degree of comfort.

 

[KnotYet]

Really??? Is that the best you got.
MMCC is a political driven belief, prove me wrong.

In your case, the best proof that you are wrong would be that you often
misinterpret the facts to fit your predetermined agenda or opinion.

This is not unusual. You are part of significant minority who thinks that
debating scientific conclusions is somehow similar to actually doing science.

In order for your above statement to have any merit whatsoever you would
need to do the experimental work to support it rather that state it as a 'fact'.

 

[RT Firefly]

 

[Art]

When science is incorrect - it is incorrect.

Likewise... when science is correct it is correct.

https://www.noaa.gov/climate

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification


Read and learn.

 

[backinblue]

Well, we have this going on for 50 years and no end in sight. I'm not a scientist, but I would bet it's worse than the couple hours/year I use my 3 hp outboard.

 

[backinblue]

Whoa. The U.S. has done a "pretty good job" of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Over the years, we've added more than any other country. We are still adding 5 times as much per capita as China is adding. We are a MAJOR culprit in the present predicament. And we are nowhere near making proportionate amends for it.

As I've said in other threads, be careful of quoting one data point that supports your argument. There is always data that can be found to support almost anything. Is per capita an absolute and is it the most important? Maybe. The reason the U.S. is worst per capita is because we are the most developed country. We own more CO2 producing things just because of how we live. We could do much better by turning off street lights, allowing only 1 car per household, limiting heat and A/C usage, 1 hour of TV daily, etc. Is it fair to compare the U.S. to a country where most people have no modern conveniences? IMO the U.S. does a good job at being energy efficient and continues to improve. Homes are getting more efficient. So are cars. I could go on, but will leave you with this way of looking at it. The U.S is a small part of the entire world. Climate change is a world problem. In the study below, it seems the U.S. is doing a decent job policing our piece of the planet.

https://www.careourearth.com/list-of-countries-by-fossil-co2-emissions-per-square-mile-in-2017/

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. b. To support MY contention that the plastic pollution of the oceans is the bigger problem is this:


https://www.plasticpollutioncoaliti...-countries-with-poor-waste-management-in-2018


https://www.motherjones.com/environ...ica-is-dumping-its-trash-in-poorer-countries/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbir...etails-big-packaging-problem/?sh=647b998d371d


Of course I "cherry picked" this but the degradation of the planet's water and oxygen supplies is still ongoing and it's first world countries that are the culprits. So MY opinion is the US, and others are NOT doing a decent job of...


I reiterate. MMCC is a red herring! Populations can move. Crops can be grown in other areas. "Green" technology can be brought on line. Man is an adaptable animal and the climate will still change with or without him/her/us.



There's money to be made in "fixing" MMCC but little to be made finding better means of eliminating plastic pollution and clean up of the oceans.

 

[backinblue]

Greetings,
Mr. b. To support MY contention that the plastic pollution of the oceans is the bigger problem is this:


https://www.plasticpollutioncoaliti...-countries-with-poor-waste-management-in-2018


https://www.motherjones.com/environ...ica-is-dumping-its-trash-in-poorer-countries/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbir...etails-big-packaging-problem/?sh=647b998d371d


Of course I "cherry picked" this but the degradation of the planet's water and oxygen supplies is still ongoing and it's first world countries that are the culprits. So MY opinion is the US, and others are NOT doing a decent job of...


I reiterate. MMCC is a red herring! Populations can move. Crops can be grown in other areas. "Green" technology can be brought on line. Man is an adaptable animal and the climate will still change with or without him/her/us.



There's money to be made in "fixing" MMCC but little to be made finding better means of eliminating plastic pollution and clean up of the oceans.

I agree with the plastic problem, unfortunately it's not as popular of a cause. I'm not sure what the solution is. We are getting rid of plastic bags at stores which I'm guessing is a significant part of the problem. I found this interesting and encouraging since it wasn't mandated by the govt.

https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/s...utboard-motor-microplastics-filtering-system/

 

[jsjudd]

prove me wrong?

MMCC is a political driven belief, prove me wrong.

It's a good sign when people ask for proof of something. It implies that they are eager to see and study the evidence.

But, Soo-Valley, your statement above reveals that you have already discounted tons of evidence that has already shown CC to be MM. So don't be surprised if few people are willing to take you up on your challenge. Don't take a paucity of responses as evidence that you are right.

As my response, I'll supply you with three things to google:
1) The "Keeling curve" (the CO2 inputs to the system).
2) The "hockey stick curve" (the heat consequences of the inputs).
3) The theory of greenhouse gas heating (the connection between 1 & 2).

The first two are easy to read and understand. The third requires some knowledge of physical chemistry, but if you are willing to accept science textbooks on faith then you don't have to fully understand and calculate the vibration of CO2 molecules yourself.

Those two measurements and the reason why they are connected are clear proof of MMCC, according to millions of scientists. If you refuse to accept that as proof, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate how those results admit some other interpretation. Don't ask us to "prove [you] wrong" because that has already been done (at a cost of jillions of dollars and immense effort); the onus is now on you to specify exactly why that reasoning is flawed.

And if you do find a flaw, it's a good bet the whole world will be very pleased!

 

[backinblue]

Lots of effort is spent debating the CC issue and whether it's real and whether it's MM. Aside from that for a minute, how do we fix it if we want to? In the U.S. I see constant progress. More solar panels on homes, more electric cars and other devices and more coming, LED lighting replacing incandescent everywhere , more efficient homes and vehicles, etc. Do we really want to go to extremes, such as eliminating all fossil fuels, eliminating cattle, restrict our way of life and go backwards? Would you be in favor of rationing diesel to 100 gals per boat per year because politicians decide that's enough for you?

There are many other parts of the world that are not as developed and therefore have not yet reached the level of emissions that developed countries have even though their vehicles and power plants are very dirty by comparison. Do we hope their societies never develop? China is already the biggest contributor, where do you think they will be in 10 years?

For those that firmly believe the CC is MM and is the biggest threat to the planet today, I'd like to hear some good ideas on how we solve it in a reasonable manner in a worldwide effort. That a more valuable discussion.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. b. THAT'S the $64,000 question!

 

[jsjudd]

...The reason the U.S. is worst per capita is because we are the most developed country. We own more CO2 producing things just because of how we live. ... Is it fair to compare the U.S. to a country where most people have no modern conveniences? ...

If two brothers own a boat and one uses it one day a week to fish for his food and one uses it 5 days a week to hold raucous parties, who should be paying the most in maintenance? If I follow the argument above, it seems the less abusive one should be paying more, because the other one has a more desirable lifestyle.

Your argument stands on the legitimacy of "modern conveniences" and the entitlement of being "most developed". Ouch!

 

[HiDHo]

Mr RT, I agree about plastic pollution in our oceans.
Here’s a well know documented fact, straws cause wrinkles from pursing lips. A photo campaign could greatly reduce use by women, who are big into straws. Ladies here’s proof, use a straw while standing in front of a mirror !
What about men ? real men don’t drink with a straw.
What about kids, they can be told most anything by someone older and believe it.

 

[RT Firefly]

 

[sunchaser]

JSJudd
Yes CO2 levels are rising. The earth is in a 200 million year low period for CO2 and Temperature so there is only one way to go if one believes in geoglogic time. Is man contributing something here? Of course. What can man really do aside from hanging the wrong cowboy? A but small list:

- Truly recognize natural change vs overt man caused pollution
- Clean up man caused water pollution whether organics, silt or metals
- Clean up dusty air via PM 10 and off gas adherence
- Push in countries not being compliant with basic pollution safeguards
- Insist that high population countries get onboard
- Stop whipping the guys that are really doing something like NA and Europe
- Stop burning the forests in SE Asia and the Amazon
- Get real about population control

Last but not least, stop rewarding those that are on the conveyor belt for government grants that are guided solely by tenure, papers submitted, politics and searching for the next meal.

 

[Art]

Well, we have this going on for 50 years and no end in sight. I'm not a scientist, but I would bet it's worse than the couple hours/year I use my 3 hp outboard.

binb - Thanks for the video!

That fire pit is natural... caused [created] by nature and representing a "portion" of Earth's nature. Globally, naturally dispersed deposits of carbon filled coal, nat gas, crude oil are "portions" of natural conditions that were caused [created] by "portions" of Earth's "Global-Nature". There are many millions of natural "portions" of Earth's Global-Nature. Coal, nat gas, crude oil deposits are the "resting place" for billions of years of millions of carbon filled life form deaths. They are Earth's natural way of enabling life cycles on its crust [land and sea] to continue development/evolution - for billions of years. That is so very cool - if you think about it!

Our planet Earth [that we are soooo lucky to live upon] is a living entity; a very big living being if you will. There is a self regulating natural energy [an intelligence of nature] that pervades planet Earth. Earth's natural energy leans toward repeat tries [during billions of years] for enabling life forms to flourish. We [humans] simply happen to have developed during this phase of Earth's natural energy [global-intelligence] life creating sequence.

During the last several millennium Earth's "nature" settled into a life giving and life supporting environmental cycle of its natural "portions."

Humans... inventive enough to excavate Earth's natural deposits of coal, nat gas, crude oil, and then to use it as hot burning-atmospheric-emissions fuel, have disrupted Earth's current [i.e. several hundred million year long] evolution of life giving and life supporting natural developments. We, civilization, humanity have truly upset the applecart of Earth's naturally energized [global encompassing] evolution of life on its surface.

Soooo... seeing as humanity has emitted into Earth's atmosphere [and then absorbed into oceans] a very sudden overload of carbon that Earth's nature had deemed to stay deep underground... we must "fix" the situation before Earth's natural systems become so over heated that their combined natural life giving and life supporting attributes go way out of whack. These attributes are already on their way to cause global eco-systemic catastrophes. If let go too far asunder from "preferred-natural" conditions the altered results could include the demise of humanity.

This "fix" can be done [which does not mean it will be done]. But, not before considerable differences occur in the nature we've become accustomed to. And, to do this [before nature reaches its tipping point where oceanic currents and trade winds alter their trajectories] will need global efforts that take decades to accomplish.

For over 20 years one of my companies has been into developing ways to help "Save Earth's Ecosystem". We interact with a lot of organizations. These next three decades will tell the tale. This decade is extremely important for pushing nature-refurbishment momentum forward fast enough to eventually reach success... before all hell breaks loose.

PM me if you'd like to learn more.

Best,

Art

 

[soin2la]

What about kids, they can be told most anything by someone older and believe it.

That only applies until the thirteenth birthday, when overnight they know everything. At the other end, when "someone older" reaches 65, they are no longer seen or heard, by anyone.

 

[Art]

That only applies until the thirteenth birthday, when overnight they know everything. At the other end, when "someone older" reaches 65, they are no longer seen or heard, by anyone.

Tell that to today's and yesterday's presidents.

 

[Northern Spy]

I agree with the plastic problem, unfortunately it's not as popular of a cause. I'm not sure what the solution is. We are getting rid of plastic bags at stores which I'm guessing is a significant part of the problem. I found this interesting and encouraging since it wasn't mandated by the govt.

https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/s...utboard-motor-microplastics-filtering-system/

One trip to any oceanfront area in Asia (excepting Japan and Singapore) will quickly change your mind on the significance of plastic grocery bags in North America.

 

[SteveK]

It's a good sign when people ask for proof of something. It implies that they are eager to see and study the evidence.

But, Soo-Valley, your statement above reveals that you have already discounted tons of evidence that has already shown CC to be MM. So don't be surprised if few people are willing to take you up on your challenge. Don't take a paucity of responses as evidence that you are right.

As my response, I'll supply you with three things to google:
1) The "Keeling curve" (the CO2 inputs to the system).
2) The "hockey stick curve" (the heat consequences of the inputs).
3) The theory of greenhouse gas heating (the connection between 1 & 2).

The first two are easy to read and understand. The third requires some knowledge of physical chemistry, but if you are willing to accept science textbooks on faith then you don't have to fully understand and calculate the vibration of CO2 molecules yourself.

Those two measurements and the reason why they are connected are clear proof of MMCC, according to millions of scientists. If you refuse to accept that as proof, then the onus is on YOU to demonstrate how those results admit some other interpretation. Don't ask us to "prove [you] wrong" because that has already been done (at a cost of jillions of dollars and immense effort); the onus is now on you to specify exactly why that reasoning is flawed.

And if you do find a flaw, it's a good bet the whole world will be very pleased!

Here is what I do when someone posts their facts, I google it.
1) The "Keeling curve" (the CO2 inputs to the system).
The Keeling Curve is a graph that represents the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere since 1958
So you are putting MMCC on something that started collecting data in 1958?

They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Keeling, 1976]. NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then [Thoning, 1989].

2) The "hockey stick curve" (the heat consequences of the inputs).
Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
your point 3 is based on 1&2

What am I to think about your opinion changing my opinion?

 

[backinblue]

binb - Thanks for the video!

That fire pit is natural... caused [created] by nature and representing a "portion" of Earth's nature. Globally, naturally dispersed deposits of carbon filled coal, nat gas, crude oil are "portions" of natural conditions that were caused [created] by "portions" of Earth's "Global-Nature". There are many millions of natural "portions" of Earth's Global-Nature. Coal, nat gas, crude oil deposits are the "resting place" for billions of years of millions of carbon filled life form deaths. They are Earth's natural way of enabling life cycles on its crust [land and sea] to continue development/evolution - for billions of years. That is so very cool - if you think about it!

Our planet Earth [that we are soooo lucky to live upon] is a living entity; a very big living being if you will. There is a self regulating natural energy [an intelligence of nature] that pervades planet Earth. Earth's natural energy leans toward repeat tries [during billions of years] for enabling life forms to flourish. We [humans] simply happen to have developed during this phase of Earth's natural energy [global-intelligence] life creating sequence.

During the last several millennium Earth's "nature" settled into a life giving and life supporting environmental cycle of its natural "portions."

Humans... inventive enough to excavate Earth's natural deposits of coal, nat gas, crude oil, and then to use it as hot burning-atmospheric-emissions fuel, have disrupted Earth's current [i.e. several hundred million year long] evolution of life giving and life supporting natural developments. We, civilization, humanity have truly upset the applecart of Earth's naturally energized [global encompassing] evolution of life on its surface.

Soooo... seeing as humanity has emitted into Earth's atmosphere [and then absorbed into oceans] a very sudden overload of carbon that Earth's nature had deemed to stay deep underground... we must "fix" the situation before Earth's natural systems become so over heated that their combined natural life giving and life supporting attributes go way out of whack. These attributes are already on their way to cause global eco-systemic catastrophes. If let go too far asunder from "preferred-natural" conditions the altered results could include the demise of humanity.

This "fix" can be done [which does not mean it will be done]. But, not before considerable differences occur in the nature we've become accustomed to. And, to do this [before nature reaches its tipping point where oceanic currents and trade winds alter their trajectories] will need global efforts that take decades to accomplish.

For over 20 years one of my companies has been into developing ways to help "Save Earth's Ecosystem". We interact with a lot of organizations. These next three decades will tell the tale. This decade is extremely important for pushing nature-refurbishment momentum forward fast enough to eventually reach success... before all hell breaks loose.

PM me if you'd like to learn more.

Best,

Art

Hi Art,

I appreciate your perspective and thanks for your thoughts. However I'm having a hard time wrapping my around, this huge natural fire pit burning for 50 years with no end in sight, being good for the planet and "life-supporting" but when I drive my very efficient car to the store, that is destroying the planet.

 

[backinblue]

If two brothers own a boat and one uses it one day a week to fish for his food and one uses it 5 days a week to hold raucous parties, who should be paying the most in maintenance? If I follow the argument above, it seems the less abusive one should be paying more, because the other one has a more desirable lifestyle.

Your argument stands on the legitimacy of "modern conveniences" and the entitlement of being "most developed". Ouch!

I did not say we are entitled because we are developed. That is a fact, not an excuse. It doesn't bode well for other countries like China and India that are very dirty by comparison but are still developing as a society. I'm still waiting to hear how the U.S. can reasonably improve on what we are already doing without severe restrictions from the Govt. In the end, the U.S. can't change the planet but some of us are arrogant enough to think we must.

 

[SteveK]

binb - Thanks for the video!

That fire pit is natural... caused [created] by nature and representing a "portion" of Earth's nature. Globally, naturally dispersed deposits of carbon filled coal, nat gas, crude oil are "portions" of natural conditions that were caused [created] by "portions" of Earth's "Global-Nature". There are many millions of natural "portions" of Earth's Global-Nature. Coal, nat gas, crude oil deposits are the "resting place" for billions of years of millions of carbon filled life form deaths. They are Earth's natural way of enabling life cycles on its crust [land and sea] to continue development/evolution - for billions of years. That is so very cool - if you think about it!

Our planet Earth [that we are soooo lucky to live upon] is a living entity; a very big living being if you will. There is a self regulating natural energy [an intelligence of nature] that pervades planet Earth. Earth's natural energy leans toward repeat tries [during billions of years] for enabling life forms to flourish. We [humans] simply happen to have developed during this phase of Earth's natural energy [global-intelligence] life creating sequence.

During the last several millennium Earth's "nature" settled into a life giving and life supporting environmental cycle of its natural "portions."

Humans... inventive enough to excavate Earth's natural deposits of coal, nat gas, crude oil, and then to use it as hot burning-atmospheric-emissions fuel, have disrupted Earth's current [i.e. several hundred million year long] evolution of life giving and life supporting natural developments. We, civilization, humanity have truly upset the applecart of Earth's naturally energized [global encompassing] evolution of life on its surface.

Soooo... seeing as humanity has emitted into Earth's atmosphere [and then absorbed into oceans] a very sudden overload of carbon that Earth's nature had deemed to stay deep underground... we must "fix" the situation before Earth's natural systems become so over heated that their combined natural life giving and life supporting attributes go way out of whack. These attributes are already on their way to cause global eco-systemic catastrophes. If let go too far asunder from "preferred-natural" conditions the altered results could include the demise of humanity.

This "fix" can be done [which does not mean it will be done]. But, not before considerable differences occur in the nature we've become accustomed to. And, to do this [before nature reaches its tipping point where oceanic currents and trade winds alter their trajectories] will need global efforts that take decades to accomplish.

For over 20 years one of my companies has been into developing ways to help "Save Earth's Ecosystem". We interact with a lot of organizations. These next three decades will tell the tale. This decade is extremely important for pushing nature-refurbishment momentum forward fast enough to eventually reach success... before all hell breaks loose.

PM me if you'd like to learn more.

Best,

Art

Kudos, that is one of the best descriptions of the evolution of CO2.
Do continue to share plans for "Save Earth's Ecosystem"