Reply to post: Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

Not so easy to make a quick getaway when it takes 3 hours to juice up your motor, eh Brits?

Joe W Silver badge

Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

Yeah. Right.

Physics tells us a very simple mechanism behind climate (well, temperature) variability and anthropogenic climate change. Looking just at global mean temperatures using a very simple energy balance model is pretty close. Add some heat buffers like oceans, model this with an AR(1) process (or three) and you get even closer (usually the influence of volcanic eruptions is overestimated though). What we currently observe is not like "tides", coming and going: while the temperatures rise the solar forcing is currently declining (summer insulation in the northern hemisphere has been decreasing for the last 5000 or 6000 years), and this is what drives ice ages and warm periods on longer time scales.

Is carbon capture and storage the right thing? Maybe at the source? It is one option. Avoiding to produce CO_2 emissions sounds easier. Can we adapt to changes instead? We might have to do that anyway, but not all countries have the resources to do so - or the possibilities (e.g. island nations). Will it be as bad as projected? Are you willing to take that bet? The only problem is that it is not that risky for us, we'll probably be dead before the worst things happen, but it is our children, grandchildren, and their offspring that will have to pay the price. Still willing to take the bet that the projections are wrong?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019