Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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.

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

The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

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.

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

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.

the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results

as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information
so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated risks

one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united states
depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer
(yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even july)

global warming will likely melt the snow early
invalidating the assumptions underlying water management
so that the western united states will likely need
a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation
which will be very expensive
perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers
which will be very expensive

given the expected costs of doing nothing
what is the cost of doing something and preventing this?

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:36:27 -0700
mariposas rand mair fheal wasted precious
bandwith with:

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.

the jury is unlikely to be in until its too late to alter results

as usual a decision must be made on incomplete information
so instead of preceding in certainity we precede on estimated
risks

one estimated risks is the water supply of the western united
states depends on mountain snow packs persisting into summer
(yes we really do have snow in the mountains into june and even
july)

global warming will likely melt the snow early
invalidating the assumptions underlying water management
so that the western united states will likely need
a completely overhaul of the entire system and water allocation
which will be very expensive
perhaps bringing economic ruin to farmers and fishers
which will be very expensive

given the expected costs of doing nothing
what is the cost of doing something and preventing this?


The "jury" has been in for quite a while. Only the flat earthers are
unable to understand the science of human-caused climate change.
Ice cores dont lie. And neither do photograpic databases.

FYI

--
www.alternet.org

"Dan" wrote:

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.

You can call it waffling if you like. I call it caution.

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

The resounding IPCC answer -- maybe.

They sound pretty sure, to me:
=========================
The increase in CO2 mixing ratios continues to yield the largest sustained RF
of any forcing agent. The RF of CO2 is a function of the change in CO2 in the
atmosphere over the time period under consideration. Hence, a key question is
'How is the CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and
land cover change distributed amongst the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial
biosphere?'. This partitioning has been investigated using a variety of
techniques. Among the most powerful of these are measurements of the carbon
isotopes in CO2 as well as high-precision measurements of atmospheric oxygen
(O2) content. The carbon contained in CO2 has two naturally occurring stable
isotopes denoted 12C and 13C. The first of these, 12C, is the most abundant
isotope at about 99%, followed by 13C at about 1%. Emissions of CO2 from coal,
gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are
less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to
its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil
fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in
atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of
CO2 from fossil origin. Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric
CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic
signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other
components (Francey et al., 1995). These changes can easily be measured using
modern isotope ratio mass spectrometry, which has the capability of measuring
13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 to better than 1 part in 105 (Ferretti et al.,
2000). Data presented in Figure 2.3 for the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2
at Mauna Loa show a decreasing ratio, consistent with trends in both fossil
fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios (Andres et al., 2000;
Keeling et al., 2005).

-4AR WG1, 2
========================


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.

I disagree that the hypothesis predicts a steady rate. There are too many
other things going on to say that.


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

Here it comes:

It Depends.

What do you mean by "cataclysmic?" Which result? What level of GHGs at what
time?

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

One foot sea level rise in 400 years? Not too tough.

One meter in 100 years? Colossally expensive and disrupting.

And that's only one thing. What about the death of coral reefs, disruption of
the Gulf Stream, burning of the Amazon forests?

The scariest thing about this to me is the grumbling from some scientists that
the IPCC is way too conservative in what it puts in the reports because of
over-sensitivity to "alarmist" charges. These folks are saying the there's a
chance the **** is *really* going to hit the fan, and sooner than we think.
Are they right? I don't know. Hell, *they* don't know. They're just saying,
"You better think about this." (Not that any of the pol's at the Bali
Conference paid much attention; they were at a cocktail party or something.)

So, it depends.

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.

I have a history with this subject. I'm used to being attacked by shrieking
political zealots and talk radio zombies in such discussions .

You don't fit those categories, but it takes a while to realize that
sometimes. Thanks for your patience.

On Mar 11, 7:34 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

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

One foot sea level rise in 400 years? Not too tough.

One meter in 100 years? Colossally expensive and disrupting.

The inconclusiveness is palpable. There is no broadly accpeted
consensus on this possible outcome. No one of any sense -- IPCC or
otherwise -- is predicting a sea level rise of that magnitude in that
short a time.

As far as "expensive" -- that gets me thinking about the Gulf Coast,
and how in the 80s there were few houses along that stretch because
there were Hurricanes from time to time. Then some genius figured out
there were no hurricanes during storm season, so out come the
brochures and in comes the money.

Ten + years later the entire northern panhandle is coated with way-too-
expensive houses. And then -- guess what? Oh no!. Yep. Hurricane.

Oprah et all on scene with cameras -- "Look at the devastation!"

Of course a sea level rise will be expensive -- we build stuff INCHES
above a "sea level" that we don't have the owner's manual for.

I don't see the IPCC-friendly literature supporting the rate of rise
postulated and secondarily, the impacts may be salutary.


And that's only one thing. What about the death of coral reefs, disruption of
the Gulf Stream, burning of the Amazon forests?

Coral reefs are dying? All of them? That seems like suspect news...

The amazon jungle being cut down is not a result of Global warming.
It's a result of agricultural and economic expansion in a once
(relatively) uninhabited area. We in North America survived that
catastrophe between 1650 and 1930 -- our forests were flattened across
the entire continent.

The difference is there's a worldwide communications grid making us
cognizant of the event in the Amazon.

But -- trees grow back. Pennsylvania has more "woods" today than
anytime since 1780. Much of the (nearly) sterile old growth forests
were replaced with more vibrant and diverse younger stage growth.

The Gulf Stream "disruption" assumes that the Atlantic is a steady
state system. Oceans are far from steady state! (As my Navy friends
remind me in pathetically regular intervals). Salinity, density,
temperature, current speed, turbidity and a host of other factors are
in constant change.

Greenland's increased contribution of fresh water MIGHT be due to
increased warming, however there is evidence that suggests that
melting of an unusually dense ice cap remnants of the last little ice
age trump pure increased global temperature melting.


I have a history with this subject. I'm used to being attacked by shrieking
political zealots and talk radio zombies in such discussions .

The recent push the shriek-fests on various "news media" has
contributed to the decline in civil discourse. But we expect as much
from them.

But within our colleges, universities, and academic societies we've
seen a subtle shift from questioning speculation to kowtowing to bully
tactics. If you don't believe me you haven't spent much time in the
aforementioned places.

All sides -- pro-IPCC conclusions and those who don't agree -- for
whatever reason -- need to research, ponder, and then proffer their
thoughts and ideas for vetting. This is a vulnerable position and most
people don't like being corrected, or even questioned. But one of the
"rules" in this process is that I agree not to treat you as less
intelligent, less able, less wise, or less caring because I didn't
reach the same conclusions as you.

But what's happened in *this* debate is that the tyranny of the
cautionary principle takes hold and thus we MUST all agree or else we
are imposing grave danger on all!

Maybe we are.

But we're abiding an even more pernicious danger if we toss out the
civil discourse that has forwarded all our progress in so many areas
to this time, and is the only hope for addressing these problem if
they are as real as some believe.

Dan

In article ,
Dan wrote:

As far as "expensive" -- that gets me thinking about the Gulf Coast,

makes me think about water and electricity in the western usa

arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

"Dan" wrote:

Boy; I go away for a few hours and look how the work piles up!



But what's happened in *this* debate is that the tyranny of the
cautionary principle takes hold and thus we MUST all agree or else we
are imposing grave danger on all!

Maybe we are.

But we're abiding an even more pernicious danger if we toss out the
civil discourse that has forwarded all our progress in so many areas
to this time, and is the only hope for addressing these problem if
they are as real as some believe.

Of course. There's always more talking to do.

But it is absurd to believe that we can double the atmospheric volume of the
most important, persistent greenhouse gas and nothing much will happen. The
very idea defies the laws of physics.

So, sure; let's continue the civil dialog. But let's not pretend that
there's any doubt that there will be consequences for what we're doing, or
that it won't be our fault if those consequences are disatrous for future
generations.

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