On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:55 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:



"Dan" wrote:

And getting back to the original point -- there is a long, long
stretch between observing and even accepting data that suggests some
human induced forcing of atmospheric phenomenon and concluding
therefore that disaster is upon us.

Thus the wider the bands of uncertainty grow the farther out the models go.

But here's what we know:

CO2 is the primary persistent greenhouse gas.

CO2 makes the planet warmer. If it didn't, the place would be frozen.

There's 35% more of it now than at any time in the last 800 thousand years
or more.

Humans put that extra 35% in the atmosphere in the last 200 years. That is
a geological instant. A lot of the effects, especially methane feedbacks,
may not even have begun yet. Meanwhile, we are adding more GHGs all the
time. Party on dudes!

A warmer climate will shrivel glaciers, melt sea ice, magnify drought and
flood events, raise sea levels, alter habitats and move agricultural zones.

How much? Nobody knows for sure, but we have a pretty good idea what the
planet was like the last time it was 3C or 6C hotter than it is now.

How lucky do we feel? Lucky enough to just muddle ahead and wait to see
what happens? I don't think we should. The only home we've got is getting
run down and used up. We need to think about taking better care of it.

The jury's out on the cause-effect relationship. We see a correlation
-- that does not necessarily imply causation, and the IPCC waffles on
this point as well.


OK, so where is the CO2 coming from? Propose some other sources which
can be checked (and do a little searching -- you'll see they have
been).

So the first Big Question is -- is CO2 increase anthropogenic?

The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

Uh, no. That the CO2 increase is from humans is pretty definite. The
IPCC said there's a 95% chance the current warming is caused by
humans.


Nevertheless, for argument's sake, IF we accept the hypothesis that
the earth is warming at a steady rate that will result in measurable
change to global and regional climates, there is no model that
adequately predicts the impact of these changes, long or short term.
They may in fact be benign or even salutary.


Well, no, but why take the chance and experiment with our only
planet? It's much better to err on the side of caution. If a forest
fire is burning a quarter-mile from your house, do you say, "there's
no model that predicts the fire will burn my house or if it does, if
that will be a bad thing"?

Thee time span for all these cataclysmic results is also in great
doubt -- 100 - 400 - 1,00 years?

Hardly a hurdle for humans, given our remarkable ability to adapt.

As an aside:

It's amazing how much more coherent and convincing your arguments
appear when you're not sniping.

I'm not signing up for the cause, just making an observation.

Dan