It seems reasonable to me to assume that nothing bad would happen if we stopped fossil fuel consumption right now. The ecosystems on our planet have only had fossil fuel emissions added for around 200 years, and in that time these emissions have had a very negative effect on the whole system. If we stop adding these we return to the normal which has been ongoing for millions of years. It's not a perturbation, it's stopping a perturbation.

By what mechanism would you expect something bad to suddenly happen?

By the mechanism of starvation. You can't produce (and distribute) the amount of food that we need without the use of fossil fuels.

Up-thread, you said "and replaced it with renewables", but we can't do that right now.

Bluntly, if we hard-stop the use of fossil fuels today, a large chunk of the human population are going to die.

Yes, if you change the parameters of my hypothetical, the results change. What's your point?

I thought I was adequately clear. If you need me to make my point more clear, here you go:

> > > It seems reasonable to me to assume that nothing bad would happen if we stopped fossil fuel consumption right now.

For what most people mean by "right now", something bad happens - many, many people die. You chose that phrase; I didn't. So within the normal meaning of the phrase, you are very wrong.

And I thought I was adequately clear when I initially specified:

> Nothing bad will happen if we suddenly stopped all fossil fuel consumption and replaced it with renewable energy.

Do you really need me to repeat this for every subsequent reference to the hypothetical? You yourself acknowledged it in your first comment, so you obviously understood it.

But if you need me to, fine, replace the sentence you quoted with:

> It seems reasonable to me to assume that nothing bad would happen if we stopped fossil fuel consumption right now and replaced it with renewable energy.

Right. (I was actually coming back to edit my post to acknowledge that you said that.) But...

We can't actually do that right now.

When can we? 10 years? With all the combines, and all the tractors, and all the semis having to be electric? Can we even do it then? We maybe can in 20...

If it's 20 years from now before we can do it, that's not "right now".

The problem with the way you said it is that it makes it sound like we could do it now (for reasonably normal values of "now"). We can't.

That's the neat thing about hypotheticals: they let us talk about and consider situations which aren't real. I can say crazy, insane things which have no basis in reality without said things affecting reality in a negative way! It even lets me construct arguments that work under specific preconditions, even if those preconditions aren't met.

It's incredible how rabid people get when talking about phasing out fossil fuel. In your eyes, I haven't stated clearly enough that the hypothetical (which you keep telling me is impossible) is a hypothetical. Now, any normal reader might see that and think "Hm, if that's not possible, he's surely talking about a hypothetical". But not you, you keep going about how I haven't made it clear enough that it's a hypothetical. Have you stopped to reflect on why you're acting the way you are?

OK, hypothetically, if we had all the electric infrastructure and vehicles ready to go, sure, let's switch now. Hypothetically, that would be fine. But as you said, that doesn't affect reality. So, you win the point. Enjoy your nice win. But in the real world, so what? In the real world we can't do it now, so what good is your hypothetical?

As for your second paragraph... Physician, heal thyself.

Hypothetically my initial point stands: reducing fossil fuel consumption by replacing it with something else, and artificially manipulating the weather, are in completely different ballparks regarding danger.

What are you trying to argue about?

I dunno, weather modification has been going on since at least the 80s and it’s pretty unnoticeable. I don’t see how we can peacefully stop China and Africa from burning coal, so I’m more interested in unilateral, noncoercive solutions.

Really? How have we been manipulating the weather to reduce climate change since the 80s?

It’s not uncommon in places with droughts.

In which places with droughts have we used weather manipulation to reduce climate change? I'm not talking about increasing rainfall, I'm talking about reducing climate change. Please share a specific example where we've done so since the 80s.

The whole point is that it is hard/impossible to predict, and I am even hesitant to list some ideas because they sound like climate denier conspiracy theories. But just as a hypothetical example, there may be effects from aerosols ejected along with CO2 when burning fossil fuels, which act on shorter time scales in the opposite direction, which could lead to overshoot.

> The whole point is that it is hard/impossible to predict

But it certainly seems much easier to predict compared to the results of further CO2 in the atmosphere. We've lived through the transition period from lower CO2 to current CO2, so it's reasonable to assume we'll see the same effects in reverse. We haven't lived through the period of current CO2 to higher CO2.

> and I am even hesitant to list some ideas because they sound like climate denier conspiracy theories

Understandable, no worries!

> But just as a hypothetical example, there may be effects from aerosols ejected along with CO2 when burning fossil fuels, which act on shorter time scales in the opposite direction, which could lead to overshoot.

Sure, it's possible, but it seems much more likely that continued increases in CO2 will have worse unpredictable effects.

> Sure, it's possible, but it seems much more likely that continued increases in CO2 will have worse unpredictable effects.

I completely agree.