Originally Posted by cdcox
Under the best case reduction scenarios of greenhouse gases, we've already delayed the onset of the next ice age for a long, long time. Under current continental positions and earth's orbital patterns, it is projected the CO2 levels would need to be well below 300 ppm for an ice age to occur.
So if the goal is to prolong our interglacial period through altering the earth's atmosphere, we can declare mission accomplished. Under no greenhouse gas reduction scenario advocated by anyone are we going to have an ice age any time soon (tens of thousands of years).
I have seen a ton of conflicting studies on this. I'm not seriously advocating this just trying to illustrate a point. BUT there are also a fair amount of climatologists that think CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming/cooling not a leading factor... so it could all be pissing in the wind on either side.
In a real debate on the science I am in the solar camp.. but I'll freely admit that is a BELIEF because we simply don't have near enough data to come close to an inkling of an understanding.
Another belief of mine is that we won't come close to accurate modeling until we solve one major major issue. Raw computational power. We simply don't have the ability to process the equations without taking shortcuts. In theory, quantum computers can solve this problem and help us take some giant leaps forward.
In the meantime, I have little problem with being "green" and I definitely think we should spend the money on the research BUT I take massive issue with the constant barrage of guesswork being passed off as scientific certainty. This politicization/media influence over science is disgusting. I am also disappointed in those who simply swallow it than spit it back out as they KNOW it without doing one ****ing iota of their own research deeper into the matter. (To be clear, that statement is definitely NOT directed toward cdcox)