Also climate change is undeniable. At the risk of stirring the controversy, the real questions have always been: how much of it is because of human activity? and if that's significant, how much power do we have to change it further?
Based on the evidence so far, I personally think modern civilization has triggered initial conditions for the warming cycle but is no longer the majority force for the continued change.
That is almost reasonable. But it's still naturalistic thinking, i.e. whatever happens without humans is good.
The real questions should be: what climate do we want and how much power do we have to effect it?
If the climate changes naturally but we don't want it and can stop it, maybe we should. For example, we expect this interglacial period to end between years 10k - 30k, corresponding to about a 10°C drop.
Also, the way best way to reverse current climate trends might be different then stopping the major cause.
This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we have affected it so far and how that effect has changed over time. How do we know we can stop it? Are efforts toward stopping it (given the Earth has gone through cycles before) more useful than adapting?
Blindly saying we can reverse something that we can't and instead should be adapting for is just as bad. Unfortunately any discussion around this is constantly devolves into emotional dispute rather than rational debate.
I never said it's not possible. I'm asking how do we know how much we can effect it in the future if we're not entirely clear on how much we've affected it so far and how that effect has changed itself?
Or do you already have an answer to the 2nd question you posed?
Feedback cycles and runaway change wouldn't be an issue otherwise. Things like melting permafrost [1] releasing methane would be an example of something we triggered and now has taken over as a majority contributor in those regions.
What is the fact around the exact impact that humanity has had vs natural conditions, and what is the derivative of that impact as the climate has changed? For there to be a runaway effect means that humanity is no longer the significant factor so how is this calculated? I've never found this explicitly stated anywhere.
By the way, every human makes decisions based on what they "personally think". Please share the "actual truth values" if you have them.
Also climate change is undeniable. At the risk of stirring the controversy, the real questions have always been: how much of it is because of human activity? and if that's significant, how much power do we have to change it further?
Based on the evidence so far, I personally think modern civilization has triggered initial conditions for the warming cycle but is no longer the majority force for the continued change.