I'm kind of turned off by the "it's like a semiconductor or nuclear reactor". It's not. It's the environment. What is or what isn't should be the important thing to understand. You've managed to suggest that I don't gather what's going on and that I think the effect is shut off. Nowhere did I say that. I said we will make attempts to mitigate it at some point, because it will become necessary. If there is some momentum, that doesn't mean mitigation efforts don't have lag.
As far as man made, I'd say we're pretty comfortable that it's likely man made. Likely means you can act on it (more than just probably, and far more than maybe). But the number of platitudes with the inability of anyone to say something predictive to check against, not a fan.
I seriously doubt it's too late (but it sounds good to scare people - it's like one level beyond - this is the last second, we have to do it now). Threaten that it's already too late. It is or it isn't, but we don't need fantasy stuff.
We don't have wildfire issues here - my state is more than 50% tree covered as I understand it, and it's possible to have conditions where fires occur, but the kind they have in the west - not here. The fires that occur in the western US are small compared to what occurred naturally before mitigation, and most of the fire pressure now is probably two parts:
1) barring cleaning of the forest floor (vs. the older old growth forests that burned periodically leaving behind dominant fire resistant trees)
2) suddenly the fire pressure is going into occupied areas as we feel like it's a great idea to build in them more and more (the deurbanization movement now that follows the urbanization movement that had been going on since the 1920s or so).
But leaving forests in a condition (by regulation) where they burn more easily and then pointing to climate change is a pretty good indication of what's going on here. It's addressing an ideal rather than what is because what is (on the climate change side) doesn't generate enough income or interest on its own.
Without antibiotics, I don't think we have the issue mentioned in the article above (global warming or not). That's the key fact.
As far as man made, I'd say we're pretty comfortable that it's likely man made. Likely means you can act on it (more than just probably, and far more than maybe). But the number of platitudes with the inability of anyone to say something predictive to check against, not a fan.
I seriously doubt it's too late (but it sounds good to scare people - it's like one level beyond - this is the last second, we have to do it now). Threaten that it's already too late. It is or it isn't, but we don't need fantasy stuff.
We don't have wildfire issues here - my state is more than 50% tree covered as I understand it, and it's possible to have conditions where fires occur, but the kind they have in the west - not here. The fires that occur in the western US are small compared to what occurred naturally before mitigation, and most of the fire pressure now is probably two parts:
1) barring cleaning of the forest floor (vs. the older old growth forests that burned periodically leaving behind dominant fire resistant trees)
2) suddenly the fire pressure is going into occupied areas as we feel like it's a great idea to build in them more and more (the deurbanization movement now that follows the urbanization movement that had been going on since the 1920s or so).
But leaving forests in a condition (by regulation) where they burn more easily and then pointing to climate change is a pretty good indication of what's going on here. It's addressing an ideal rather than what is because what is (on the climate change side) doesn't generate enough income or interest on its own.
Without antibiotics, I don't think we have the issue mentioned in the article above (global warming or not). That's the key fact.
