I think he is (somewhat confusingly) talking about global dimming, i.e. particulate pollution, masking warming effect of CO2. But we can't really do much about that if we want to stop global warming at all. And it's not even completely clear whether that theory (of dimming) is valid or not, clouds can have a varying effect on temperature.
Thank you, that's probably it. It's all very complicated.
The scary thing with theories is that reality doesn't change whether your theory is considered proven or not. We might have no evidence that "global dimming" would be a thing, but then it absolutely could happen. Or, admittedly, vice versa, where we thought it could happen but it doesn't. We need more research as usual...
> The scary thing with theories is that reality doesn't change whether your theory is considered proven or not. We might have no evidence that "global dimming" would be a thing, but then it absolutely cold happen. Or, admittedly, vice versa, where we thought it could happen but it doesn't.
This is just denialism of prediction as a concept. A universal excuse to not do anything. After all, why work to extinguish the fire when it could go out all by itself?
That wasn't really my point. I'm more just saying that there is the risk that, let's say "climate dimming" is a thing, and we somehow pressed forward and cut all the emissions, and then it happens when we didn't expect it. What does that mean for us?
We're playing with the world here. If scientists mess up and their reaction to climate change causes other problems, nobody will listen to a scientist ever again on this issue, and that comes with its own risks.
There can't be. The amount of lag in the system is huge. Ceasing industrial CO2 emissions instantly would simply start a slow downtrend in the amount of atmospheric CO2. It would take decades to return to, say the 1900 level.
I don't know where that person got their idea from but it's clearly a very bad source.
