I don't believe yours is one of them.
~~ The first link no arguments, I would only add I am not a nuclear proponent in regards to finding a solution to the heating of the planet, which I view to be the most critical crisis we are facing. In fact, I do not regard an 'abundant' clean energy solution, as a solution at all, if it permits the concept of continued expansion of economy or population, and therefore an over use of the ecosystems the biosphere depends upon.
~~ The second link, - I don't regard the 350 - 450 ppm CO2e as a solution for anything more than stabilization from the current situation, ... and a struggle to maintain social and economic order near the 450 ppm CO2e level.
I believe if a 'reduced' and stable population is to find sustainable climate we must return to near the 270 ppm CO2e, a level that allowed for the polar ice and continental glaciers to remain close to constant, within the normal fluctuations of natural environmental cycles and terrestrial CO2 events. I believe passing 350 ppm and even lower levels, allows for feedback cycles to begin the heating cycle we are facing today. At the 394 ppm level we are experiencing today, our land based glaciers and polar ice have been melting for decades, our permafrost and oceans are beginning to release methane, a condition that is, irreversible.
Thoughts of maintaining 450 ppm CO2e is history, just as thoughts of 2*C is history. A doubling of pre industrial levels of CO2e will not lead us to 2*C rise in global mean temperatures, that level and more, is already in the pipeline.
For proof of this concept, simply count the stored and now releasing methane in the permafrost and oceans. Only a fraction of this will over run the 450 ppm level. With the collapse of the arctic sea ice, soon, the feed back will gain momentum, and the 400 - 450 ppm CO2e will result in a 3*C - 4*C global mean rise; and nothing other than total cessation of fossil fuel use will make a difference. The only caveat interrupting this reality, is a yet to be discovered geo engineering solution, or a near total collapse of the global economy, soon.
Please don't waste either of our time with discussion of IEA or IPCC projections, even the World Bank, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, the UNEP, and contributors at the WEF, bean counters all; acknowledge the reality of a 4*C global mean temperature is in our future, the scenarios ranging from 2060 - 2100. The watered down government edited IPCC scenarios, conclusions, and pathways continue to find irrelevance in their over conservative economic friendly and obsolete outlook. Nearly all of the 2007 IPCC report was useless before it was printed, and the 2013 - 2014 edition, promises more of the same.
I could go on with the projected use of fossil fuels by the US, EU, China, and India for the next few decades, but why beat a dead horse, no one is meeting their emissions commitments, anyway.
~~ The third link - Larry King and Al Gore interview? ``` Please. ``` A nice palatable interview for the nice ignorant CNN viewer.
If you want to trade links, that is fine. These links do not reduce the climate problem to a linear equation, projection, or pathway; but rather, addresses the exponential influences of altering a multidimensional interdependent and interrelated, earth system. The heat engine is now engaged, can we stop it?
I would recommend you try David Wasdell - Planet Earth We Have a Problem - a youtube presentation broken down into several short presentations, or a complete presentation that takes a bit over an hour, can be found here, - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=29755
Or perhaps - Kevin Anderson - at http://transitionculture.orwww.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL221F5B5F054A8F58 g/2012/11/27/kevin-anderson-real-clothes-for-the-emperor-facing-the-challenges-of-climate-change/
Or perhaps - google the Dan Miller (Berkeley), extreme climate change presentation at youtube
Peace
= new reply since forum marked as read