Whilst I'm not a climate change scientist, nor a fanatic (I believe from the reports I have read that anthropomorphic global warming is probable, maybe highly probable, but not proven beyond doubt...….)
In short, they're talking B*****s.Absolutely. My perspective is climate science is still in its early infancy, so it's very easy to pick at the assumptions both sides make and prove points because the deeper details are still being worked out on the fly. Consensus can be subjective, rather than objective. So when someone says we have 12 years to reverse the trend , are they postulating on belief rather than fact?
We have so much to learn about carbon storage in the ground, for example that is only now being peeked at.
Exactly. This is a fascinating article about the struggles in Germany powering itself with renewables vs coal, etc. The original article in Der Spiegel is even more interesting. If Germany, as a power house is struggling to move to renewables, it highlights the complexity of transitioning energy needs in the short term, and it's almost naive for people to think that. Some of the figures spent are utterly eye watering.In short, they're talking B*****s.
Climate Science is about balance of probabilities. Anyone who claims certainties in terms of timelines is either a bad scientist, or just abandoning the science in favour of better headlines.
If they said something like (numbers made up by me) 'It's 95% probable that the Earth will one day no longer be able to support human life if we don't reverse Co2 emissions within time T, where T follows a normal distribution with a mean of 12 years, and a standard deviation of 3 years', then I could accept it.
But for some reason that doesn't make as good a headline...….