DouginUtah wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
[Snip of Swingman's opinions]

I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

-Doug


Then you need to take a statistics class. There is a profound difference
between correlation and cause. The street lights reliably are correlated
to come on when the sun sets. But the sun does not set BECAUSE the street lights
come on. In scientific research, correlation is relatively easy to establish
and can even hint at causal relationships. But actually demonstrating causality
is MUCH harder.

That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels
in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. The macro trend
for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial
CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carbon cycle. Is it
worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history
of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today -
and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time.

THIS IS AN OPINION NOT FACT: My guess is that the reason the models are so wildly wrong
today is twofold:

1) Climate modeling is more-or-less a "complex system" mathematically. Such systems
show wildly changing outputs with very small changes in input - the so-called
Lorentz Butterfly Effect. The number of precision of variables you have to consider
and, more importantly, their degree of precision, is far outside our present understanding
of climate. Our guesses are thus too coarse to be of much use.

2) We do not have enough long-term reliable planetary climate data to build upon.
Climate fluctuates over geologic time, not 50 years. For models to make any real
sense, we need way, way, way more data than what we have today. Worrying about GW
because there was few degree fluctuation in the last couple of decades is like worrying
about urinating in the ocean - it's a real, but insignificant, factor.