As I was just emptying the clothes dryer these thoughts came to me:

What if we thought about our participation in curbing anthropogenic climate change in the same way we approach car safety?

Every time we get in a car, we put on our seatbelts. Further, most of us drive safely, and we make sure are cars are in safe operating condition.

We don't plan to get into a serious car accident and there is no guarantee we will involved in one, but the probability is out there. We wear our seatbelts because we know that the laws of physics are against us and there is plenty of data out there that reports that accidents could happen. None of us are walking around with those statistics in our heads; we have just accumulated that understanding through the news, photos, and anecdotes from people we know.

One of us not wearing a seatbelt will not make a difference to the overall statistics in regards to deaths and serious injuries. However, as we have all begun to wear them, and through demand require improved safety design in all cars those numbers (as a percent of population) have dropped significantly.

This could be a good analogy for anthropogenic climate change. Just like we can never completely stop the deaths and injuries associated with driving (or eliminate the laws of physics that can sometime hurt us), we can bet on curbing the effects.

More, we have collectively decided that the potential wasted cost of seatbelts and safety design is worth the risk of never getting in an accident. When we get in our cars, we take the conservative approach to the potential of harm, by putting on our seatbelts, driving safely, and maintaining safe cars. With micro changes in our behavior, we have reduced the potential for harm on a macro scale.

Why wouldn't we make a few changes in our behavior (not to say that we aren't already) not to do the same when it comes to climate? Even if the models, data, and scientists are wrong, isn't it worth the cost and effort - even if macro climate change is outside of our ability to affect it in any way?

I'm glad my dad always told me to put on my seatbelt and more clothes on the line.

Have you still got a pub nearby Donkeyman, they seem to have outlawed most of the pubs round here and turned them into eateries or Co-ops....Never mind about stopping smoking in them, I think the death nell sounded about the same time Tesco (and others) started selling cheap beer.....

As I was just emptying the clothes dryer these thoughts came to me:

What if we thought about our participation in curbing anthropogenic climate change in the same way we approach car safety?

Every time we get in a car, we put on our seatbelts. Further, most of us drive safely, and we make sure are cars are in safe operating condition.

We don't plan to get into a serious car accident and there is no guarantee we will involved in one, but the probability is out there. We wear our seatbelts because we know that the laws of physics are against us and there is plenty of data out there that reports that accidents could happen. None of us are walking around with those statistics in our heads; we have just accumulated that understanding through the news, photos, and anecdotes from people we know.

One of us not wearing a seatbelt will not make a difference to the overall statistics in regards to deaths and serious injuries. However, as we have all begun to wear them, and through demand require improved safety design in all cars those numbers (as a percent of population) have dropped significantly.

This could be a good analogy for anthropogenic climate change. Just like we can never completely stop the deaths and injuries associated with driving (or eliminate the laws of physics that can sometime hurt us), we can bet on curbing the effects.

More, we have collectively decided that the potential wasted cost of seatbelts and safety design is worth the risk of never getting in an accident. When we get in our cars, we take the conservative approach to the potential of harm, by putting on our seatbelts, driving safely, and maintaining safe cars. With micro changes in our behavior, we have reduced the potential for harm on a macro scale.

Why wouldn't we make a few changes in our behavior (not to say that we aren't already) not to do the same when it comes to climate? Even if the models, data, and scientists are wrong, isn't it worth the cost and effort - even if macro climate change is outside of our ability to affect it in any way?

I'm glad my dad always told me to put on my seatbelt and more clothes on the line.

So basically Surfermom, we should return to the model of 19th century man that I described on an earlier post........But it escapes me where......It's happening a lot just lately..

No, not at all. The big cat is out of the bag. My thoughts are that we continue to implement best practices that you mentioned in some of your previous posts and give the science the benefit of the doubt.

The melting of polar ice, which is releasing more methane, and in some cases exposing anthrax and polio, is definitely a concern as it seems to produce the positive feedback loop that you describe, OGF.

One of the reasons you aren't hearing as much about methane is that even though it has a greater effect apples to oranges, carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are more vast in quantity, therefore having a greater overall potential impact and grabbing most everyone's attention.

Yes, there is some belief that a tipping point has been reached, and that we are on our way to at least a 5°C increase. We are on our way with a had 2°C increase since 1880 (an incredibly short amount of time on the global stopwatch). The last time we saw this much increase, it was referred to as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, taking place 55 MYA and it lasting 200,000 years. Mass extinctions occurred in marine and terrestrial environments.

What's fascinating is that all that warming triggered the appearance of something else:

An explosion of the mammal population that led to the evolution of man.

I wonder what might happen if we have another long, hot epoch?

Thanks Surfermom and hello......

Just one more thing though if I may......
Isn't CO2 heavier than air and tends to stay close to the ground, while Methane is lighter than air and collects in the upper atmosphere?[/QUOT n

Im not sure about that OGF? But lets wait for the lady to answer?
Donkeyman!