^I'll watch the video soon. I'll respond to your other post now.
Steve_American wrote: The coming solar minimum is going to cool us by 1/2 deg. C. This will help us survive longer but it will not counter act 4 deg. of warming. It will not make earth cooler than it is, it will just slow down the warming.
Can you provide me with the 4 deg. warming model? Is this data from remote sensors, terrestrial carbon cycle monitors? Data manipulation is being blamed on "culture clash" which may be true (and sadly absurd). I'm sure you're aware of the John Bates NOAA debacle. Most outlets will tell you that it boiled down to an interpersonal conflict and had been exploited by the political atmosphere.
Links: Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Recordshttps://science.house.gov/news/press-re ... te-records
Followed by: No Data Manipulation at NOAAhttps://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-da ... n-at-noaa/
Alas, curious about that 4 degree stat.
. . . Recently, I sort of saw a post that said that NASA can directly measure the amount of radiation that leaves earth with its satellites. We can also directly measure the solar radiation reaching the top of the air and the surface. Therefore, there should be DlRECT measurements of the input and the outgo of energy. If more comes in than goes out then there must be heating as a direct result, just like a pan of water sitting on a pretty warm burner on a stove makes the water slowly heat up.
I've read that solar activity and the strength of Earth's magneto sphere impact cloud cover on Earth. Cloud cover plays a role in weather (obviously) and could affect long term climate systems.
Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth's cloud cover
A team of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has linked large solar eruptions to changes in Earth's cloud cover in a study based on over 25 years of satellite observations.
The solar eruptions are known to shield Earth's atmosphere from cosmic rays. However the new study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, shows that the global cloud cover is simultaneously reduced, supporting the idea that cosmic rays are important for cloud formation. The eruptions cause a reduction in cloud fraction of about 2 percent corresponding to roughly a billion tonnes of liquid water disappearing from the atmosphere.
Since clouds are known to affect global temperatures on longer timescales, the present investigation represents an important step in the understanding of clouds and climate variability.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-imp ... cloud.html
So I wonder if the items you highlighted should consider such activity.
2] Volcanoes seem to cause at most 1/2 to 1 deg. of cooling. Humans can live with this amount of unpredictability. Hopefully the hugely larger Super Volcano eruptions are rare.
Sure, we can live with it, but subtle shifts in climates dramatically impact global agriculture. That's the real issue here. Warming is easier to deal with than cooling. In-fact, warming periods are beneficial. How will our global market economy deal with an increase in the price of food? Couple a global economic recession or depression with wide-spread food shortages and you have a recipe for chaos and or revolution.
3] My thought about far future humans making their own jet fuel, etc.; being 'carbon neutral' would be true. It neither adds nor removes carbon form the air or the oceans. Other programs would be required to do those 2 things.
All technologies create new problems when we use em to solve old ones. I think it'd be a step in the right direction, but you'd have to bolster already damaged ecosystems in order to re-balance the climate. Furthermore, our instruments/data models are not recording some of the carbon...
Pulses of sinking carbon reaching the deep sea are not captured in global climate models
A new study shows that pulses of sinking debris carry large amounts of carbon to the deep seafloor, but are poorly represented in global climate models.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131109.htm
4] I have avoided the thread about merging with fungi. It sounds disgusting. OTOH, it doesn't seem to relate to how we can get some system to continue to fly jet-like airplanes in a carbon neutral way. My idea does relate to this.
Sounds disgusting huh. It's not disgusting, we live in a pool of beneficial filth
5] You wrote, "I don't think the media is behind our cognitive dissonance. It's an existential dilemma that affects human civilization. The idea that humans actually live in a biosphere is a hard thing to swallow for a consumption-driven socioeconomic system. Everything we do is static, fragmented, and compartmentalized. Climate science is dynamic and holistic."
. . . I disagree. If the media had all taken the opposite side, there is zero doubt in my mind that now 95% of Americans would believe the science and therefore believe in AGW. I include Fox(faux)news in *all* the media. In this case even the Repud Party would be unable to keep 6% of the minds closed. Or so it seems to me.
Sure, "There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
- Winston Churchill
Bifurcation and political agendas aside, we live in a global village. Our lifestyles produce the existential dilemma I had mentioned earlier. Think about the climate alarmists flying in their jet planes, going to this city and that city, lecturing poor peoples about carbon output. That's absurd, right? Well, it's their lifestyle that's the problem, we built a system that is not sustainable. Scientific literature and commercial propaganda will not change the system. We still go to work everyday, import and export, etc. News media is not the issue here. Sure, it can steer conversation, but it can not restructure the tangled web we've weaved.
As for your stance on this issue- let's say the media can successfully orchestrate a "green movement" and convince a majority of the public to change their attitude. What's next? The problem with "going green," it's relatively expensive. Only rich or relatively wealthy people can afford to truly "go green." Unless you wish to live in a tiny-home ridden with environment and class based guilt
. Organic foods cost more than non-organic foods. Renewable energy sources have cost barriers, so only keen investors with property can afford to hook up say, a few solar panels, and get returns from respective power companies. Sadly, poor people can afford to pollute, while wealthy counterparts reap incentives which they ultimately nullify or counter-act by flying around the world for business or pleasure. The media has little to do with business as usual, it's a tool used by the rich to manage the perception of poor people.
 Yes, changes in ocean currents are a possible huge problem, especially for Europe. I doubt there is much we can do to stop the changes, except stop AGW in total.
Unfortunately, I think humanity is "winging it" and we're incapable of controlling ALL changes on our planet. We're living in the fog of rapid change.