Re: Global warming

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:29:08 GMT, Dave K <dave.k@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:33:37 -0600, Ernie B.
<ebaresch_REMOVE_@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:11:15 GMT Dave K wrote:

Wally, the fact it is going on is really not the debate. The real
debate is whether of not what man does on this earth causes, or
contributes to it.

... or can do anything about it.

...Or willing to even if they could.

People may be willing to do something about it, but simply dubious about the
approach.

It appears that significantly reducing the amount of CO2 _produced_ will be an
extremely tough thing to do, given lack of cooperation from may sectors. The
political will and wherewithall to accomplish a consensus that will necessarily
lead to a lower quality of life for those involved appears to be beyond us and
everyone else.

And, even if the CO2 emissions were driven to zero, there is still plenty of
CO2 in the atmosphere, where it will remain for a very long time.

Further, there is not a consensus that even with the CO2 we have in the
atmoshpere being absorbed by natural means, no more CO2 put into the
atmosphere, whether the climate would cool or not. That is, the temperature
has been rising fairly steadily, with intermittant fluctuations, pretty much
since the last ice age 25,000 years ago. Maybe zero CO2 emissions will cause
the temperature to go down, and maybe it won't.

Now, if we spend the supposed $45 TRILLION DOLLARS that this is supposed to
cost by the year 2050, which doesn't mean driving emissions to zero anyway, and
it DOESN'T WORK, then what?

That is, beyond all the possible things that could go wrong, the global warming
alarmists HAVE NO PLAN B. They're putting all their eggs in one basket, which
is the reduction of CO2 emissions, with NO GUARANTEE that is will ultimately
save the earth.

So, if the GW alarmists want some cooperation, maybe if they came up with a
plan B, they might get some.

Plan B can be any of a variety of technological solutions that have been
published already. Things like injecting sulphur into the upper atmosphere to
reflect solar energy back into space, seeding the oceans with iron to cause
algae growth that will also mitigate the effects of insolation, orbiting solar
power satellites that will both provide clean power and shade the earth from
the sun, and large projects like placing a sun shade at the L3 Lagrangian point
between the sun and the earth, also to shade it.

The difference with most of the plan B approaches is that they would,
unequivocallly, work. Shading works, 100%. Put anything in the shade, it
cools. The algae idea is the only one that would need to be shown on a large
scale to see if it really works.

And, after putting all our eggs in the CO2 reduction basket, if it doesn't
work, and we're $45 TRILLION DOLLARS poorer, we may not HAVE the resuorces to
implement a plan B.

So, this needs to be worked without the global warming alarmist's narrow
approach if they expect to get universal cooperation. And getting such
cooperation in the last 10 years has also been hampered by some really cool
temperatures. The global warming rise in temperature has been wiped out. We're
right back where we were in 1998. That further weakens the GW alarmists
position.

Life is a short term thing.

Another reason for most people alive today to not be overly concerned about GW.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming
    ... real debate is whether of not what man does on this earth causes, ... It appears that significantly reducing the amount of CO2 _produced_ ... with a plan B, they might get some. ... projects like placing a sun shade at the L3 Lagrangian point between ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • AGW revisited -- James Randi
    ... An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the ... become convinced that "global warming" is and will be seriously ... that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not ... CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: interesting look at global warming
    ... my claim was never "earth is warming faster now than at ... And surely surely surely the temperature changed much faster ... tell me why it warmed from 1850 to 1900 when anthropogenic CO2 ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: interesting look at global warming
    ... your claim is now that the "earth is warming ... any time during the 5 billion years it has existed" but rather "earth ... And surely surely surely the temperature changed much faster ... tell me why it warmed from 1850 to 1900 when anthropogenic CO2 ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: What the hell is this government up to?
    ... experiencing does not correlate at all well to the changes in CO2 ... Venus absorbs less energy from the sun than the earth due to its ... unfortunately most of that carbon is in its atmosphere. ... Can you find a reference for Venus absorbing less energy than Earth? ...
    (uk.legal)