Climate science needs to become more accurate. As the models get continually refined, over time it will. However, for two reasons, that time can’t come soon enough.
First, inaccurate predictions provide fodder to climate deniers to support their belief that what we’re seeing is just normal, so no need to worry. Second, we need to know exactly where we stand. “Guessing” won’t cut it.
I have no doubt that there is a point of no return for the environment. That’s easy to predict. Believing that continuing to pollute the atmosphere will end badly is just common sense. The real question – and the one that we need climate science to answer with reasonable certainty – is when that point of no return will occur. The lack of an accurate planning horizon makes it impossible to develop the best strategy.
For example: if the point of no return is 50 years from now solar and wind make more sense. It would also behoove us to double down on conservation and efficiency. But if the point of no return is 200 years from now, a better strategy may be to bypass less efficient technologies in lieu of less intermittent solutions with more staying power like nuclear, hydrogen, geothermal, carbon capture, and maybe even wave energy.
I understand that the complexity of climate science is enormous. Yet it appears that the science may be missing some obvious action-reaction dependencies. If true, that’s alarming. Today’s post outlines some examples of good decisions that had unintended consequences. Consequences that it doesn’t appear have been factored into climate change calculations.
#climatechangeisreal #aerosol #sulfurdioxide #maritimeindustry #emissions #climatescience #netzero
