There is a dead-simple concept that humankind has been ignoring.
The SPEED of climate-change is following a curve similar to a bell-curve:
it was at zero.
it will, in the end, in the new climate-equilibrium, be zero.
Between, however, it will accelerate until it reaches a peak-speed, & then slow-down to the new climate-equilibrium.
Obviously, we’re still in the accelerating-part of the curve.
Obviously, if the past accelerating-curve is matched by future decelerating-towards-zero duration, then the total planetary-heating we’re in-for is MUCH more than what “consensus” “science” asserted.
Equally obviously, it’ll accelerate faster & faster until it reaches its peak-acceleration, & then it’ll slow in acceleration until the peak-speed-of-change is reached, remain there for awhile before beginning deceleration…
This simple, basic concept, that the general shape of a ClimatePunctuation is roughly bell-curved for speed, should identify the minimum-magnitude of change, for all…
So should the powerlaw underlying the change, which shows that for the current CO2 we’re aiming at a minimum of +6C, but when methane is included, then we’re aiming into a minimum of +9C.
No, MSM isn’t going to be either honest or proactive,
so just expect more incredulity, more normalization-of-disinformation, more “the evidence contradicts the valid-model” “science”, & more … essentially, filibustering to prevent any competent mitigation.
The bell-curve-shape of the speed-of-change & the powerlaw underlying the planetary-equilibrium-temperature are both profound, don’t care who says what, & work.
They’re trustworthy…
The disinformation-pushers, however, profit in social-status from what they’re doing, so that’ll continue, until the very end.
When I added-in the methane, & the proper timescale for adding it in is 12y, apparently ( presume that we’ll keep adding more & more of it, too, as that’s what the evidence declares ), which makes it much more significant than I’d thought… ( methane has a short halflife in the atmosphere, so the longer you measure a particular input’s effect, the weaker it gets. That means, though, that the ever-increasing amount we’re measuring in our atmosphere is directly due to ever-increasing amount of methane-release, not to accumulation-of-previous-releases. )
There is a dead-simple concept that humankind has been ignoring.
The SPEED of climate-change is following a curve similar to a bell-curve:
it was at zero.
it will, in the end, in the new climate-equilibrium, be zero.
Between, however, it will accelerate until it reaches a peak-speed, & then slow-down to the new climate-equilibrium.
Obviously, we’re still in the accelerating-part of the curve.
Obviously, if the past accelerating-curve is matched by future decelerating-towards-zero duration, then the total planetary-heating we’re in-for is MUCH more than what “consensus” “science” asserted.
Equally obviously, it’ll accelerate faster & faster until it reaches its peak-acceleration, & then it’ll slow in acceleration until the peak-speed-of-change is reached, remain there for awhile before beginning deceleration…
This simple, basic concept, that the general shape of a ClimatePunctuation is roughly bell-curved for speed, should identify the minimum-magnitude of change, for all…
So should the powerlaw underlying the change, which shows that for the current CO2 we’re aiming at a minimum of +6C, but when methane is included, then we’re aiming into a minimum of +9C.
No, MSM isn’t going to be either honest or proactive,
so just expect more incredulity, more normalization-of-disinformation, more “the evidence contradicts the valid-model” “science”, & more … essentially, filibustering to prevent any competent mitigation.
The bell-curve-shape of the speed-of-change & the powerlaw underlying the planetary-equilibrium-temperature are both profound, don’t care who says what, & work.
They’re trustworthy…
The disinformation-pushers, however, profit in social-status from what they’re doing, so that’ll continue, until the very end.
Here’s the powerlaw without including methane: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19798
When I added-in the methane, & the proper timescale for adding it in is 12y, apparently ( presume that we’ll keep adding more & more of it, too, as that’s what the evidence declares ), which makes it much more significant than I’d thought… ( methane has a short halflife in the atmosphere, so the longer you measure a particular input’s effect, the weaker it gets. That means, though, that the ever-increasing amount we’re measuring in our atmosphere is directly due to ever-increasing amount of methane-release, not to accumulation-of-previous-releases. )
_ /\ _