Re: Global warming

Dave Head wrote:
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.

Looks that way. And of course the amount of sacrifice is being
continually misrepresented by oil and coal companies and their investors.


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.

Half-life of a century, I think, though I'd have to double check.


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.

Of course, there's going down, and there's not rising catastrophically.
I'll take either scenario.


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?

Isn't that a bit like saying "if the tub is full, and we pull the drain
plug, what if it doesn't work?"



That is, beyond all the possible things that could go wrong, the
global warming alarmists HAVE NO PLAN B.

Simply a complete falsehood.


They're putting all their
eggs in one basket, which is the reduction of CO2 emissions,

Simply a complete falsehood. See 'Methane', 'Nitrogen Trifluoride',
'carbon black', etc.


with NO
GUARANTEE that is will ultimately save the earth.

News flash - no such guarantee will ever exist, on any issue, at any time.



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.

There's a bit of an acid rain question with #1, I think. I favor #3. =)



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.

Unless they intend to procreate. =)



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming
    ... It appears that significantly reducing the amount of CO2 _produced_ will be an ... save the earth. ... plan B, they might get some. ... and large projects like placing a sun shade at the L3 Lagrangian point ...
    (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)