On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:29:11 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the
ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the
atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which
is much higher.

In trying to find out more about this issue, most of the results I got were on the same skeptical web site. This one

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...-the-ipcc-ar5/

has the writer admit he is a "climate heretic" - he believes there are natural
processes that cool the planet when it's too warm, and warm it when it's too
cool.

He's right!

Look at all the excess carbon dioxide that got dissolved in the ocean, and is
therefore just making it acidic and killing the Great Barrier Reef, instead of
contributing to global warming.

However, sometimes those natural processes *take a while*. Look at how long the
last ice age lasted.

Plus, when you put _human technology_ into the mix, something utterly
unprecedented in the history of life on Earth... well, you really don't want to
try to see just how far you can push those natural restorative processes until
they break.

John Savard