Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
... snip
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage
volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very
minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The
idea that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire
planet (of which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor
atmospheric constituent is pure hubris.

Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and
making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local
pollution. But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yet so many are buying in to it that they are willing to cause
economic (and in other countries survival) hardships on others rather
than taking logical steps to increase energy production. A growing,
prosperous economy cannot continue to use less and less energy
(conservation) yet continue to grow and prosper. When alternate
sources become competitive, they will be used; forcing their use and
subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the development of
alternate energy sources.

From your sig, and with all respect:
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.

Is this why we haven't experienced warming since about 1998? And why last
year has been one of the coolest on record? Also is this why
climatologists are indicating that for the next 10 to 12 years we can
expect to see a decrease in global average temperature due to "natural
causes"? These causes, by the way that weren't predicted by the models
extrapolating a rise in global average temperature over the next 5 decades.

Sure, one can apply models of increased CO2 concentration and show an
increase in temperature. What these models fail to do (and are frankly
incapable of doing) is take into account that the atmosphere is a
remarkably complex closed-loop control system that will mitigate those
effects by increased plant growth. Get the models to properly predict,
from only a posteriori data the average climate in a known time period,
then use those models to predict climate within a reasonable future period
(say a period of 10 years). After that, if the models have shown
reasonable agreement with real measurements, then maybe the GW community
will have a valid leg to stand upon. Until then, using hysteria and
unreliable models to dismantle and destroy our society is beyond
reprehensible.

Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because it
is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the importance
of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much? On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5 degrees
K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase! But less
than a few hours and you're cooked.

You have to realize that things that in relative terms are minor can
still affect life in a major way. Can we adjust? We don't know, because
we don't really know how much things are going to change. Will the
planet survive? Sure, by all records Earth has been much hotter and much
cooler before, compared to now, but our society may not. Should we try
to prevent extremes like we are seemingly having success in combating air
pollution in our big cities? I think we should.

The temperature swings predicted by even the most rabid GW zealots nowhere
approach a 10 degree F temperature increase in the coming years (your 5K
increase). The question of whether human action could affect that in any
significant way is quite debateable.

What leads one to believe that the current average temperatures are/were
ideal? The climatological changes over the centuries, including the
mini-ice age during the Middle Ages and other such swings in climate show
that natural state of the climate is to be unstable. Cooling is as bad for
humans as greater warming, probably even more so as it affects food
production adversely (just ask the farmers in Greenland).



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough