Global cooling

[GURGLETROUSERS]

My physicist acquaintance still has his nightmares about an asteroid strike, but when I can't get to sleep (to dream about Raquel Welch) I consider how lucky the human race hjas been, up to now.

Supposing we'd evolved and developed to our present status a half a million years or so earlier. Here we'd be at that time, sitting at our computers, debating the global warming cause (a bit more pronounced at that time) when the greatest disaster ever was imminent; the Ice Age.

Half the Northern Hemisphere being covered in advancing ice sheets, growing to thousands of feet thick, for thousands of years, and gouging out collosal U shaped valleys which once held our cattle and crops. Now that WOULD be a real disaster! (And I bet no computer would have forecast it!)

Interestingly, in the 1950's there was still debate about whether the Ice Age had really ended, or whether we were merely in another inter-glacial phase. Considering the last retreat was a mere 10,000 years or so ago (less than a blink of the eye on earths geological time scale) I do sometimes still wonder.

But no, it can't be so, can it?

[pointster]

[MalibuGuru]

Ah, Raquel, I was a wee lad, and she was my 1st love. This calls for a duel...

Perspective is everything in life as they say. I've often thought asteroids, famine, bio terror, zombie attack, GMO's, NSA spying, big government, and Britney Spears would be the downfall of our civilization, rather than a warmer climate.

[isobars]

[keycocker]

The "panic full scale leap" into trashing the economy over global warming is a product of the fake media. No liberal supports this but you hear about it a lot from the Right.
It is one of those fake ideas that is tearing up our country , but partisans are not giving it up.
How can they say that they opposes Cos plan and not appear fools?
They need to assign a different plan to liberals and oppose that instead.
Talk and Fox are happy to suggest some stupid ideas to assign to others so listeners can feel smarter.

[keycocker]

Hawaii is the most liberal state so alt energy is roaring ahead. They have taken ten years off the estimated time to 50% alt use in Maui.
We now make about 22% of our power from solar and wind and Maui Electric is having trouble processing new applications.
The windmills make too much power so they are debating a power line to Oahu to sell the rest.
They are planning more mills.
Wind power has proven to be a viable tech when you don't have a giant lobby fighting against it and pitiful little men parroting the oil companies propaganda.

[coboardhead]

GT

I got sort of distracted with your post when brought up Ms
Welch. I wonder how much any of us would have appreciated her had she been completely clad in mammoth skins.

OMG... I just proved global warming is better than global cooling!

[keycocker]

Raquel Welch
A nice warm cave.
Lots of firewood.
Yes.

[pointster]

1. Yet you omitted its all-important plateau effect.

"Plateau effect" results from transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean. Rising ocean temps cause water to expand, resulting in rising sea level - not a good thing for Bangladesh or New York City and a bunch of other places where humans live.

2. "correspondence" (correlation) does not establish causation. Of high CO2 and warmer climate ... which is the egg and which is the chicken, which came first, and what is the causal relationship?

The greenhouse effect does establish causation: more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, more global warming. The physics is really pretty simple.

3. Which is the more effective and/or cheaper way to halt or even reverse dramatic global climate change ... tens of trillions of dollars, or the passage of 30 years (don't forget that the climate nuts were screaming "ICE AGE" just 30-40 years ago). The former bankrupts the free world and achieves almost nothing even over 100 years, whereas the latter is free and apparently effective within a generation or two.

Tens of trillions of dollars wil not "bankrupt" the world. We will have to bring lots of power online as the world's economy develops. We will be spending a lot of money to do so, and we can chose to use fossil fuels to do so, or alternative clean sources of energy. When one considers the externalities of pollution and costs global warming inherent in fossil fuels, wind and solar should be no more expensive, and most likely less expensive.

4. The wind power myth has been busted as a subsidy-inflated hot air balloon. It even knocked T. Boone Pickens off the list of the world's wealthiest men.

T Boone Pickens' play was predicated on high prices for natural gas. He was always about selling natural gas, not on generating electricity.

5. Russia's leading oil scientist says otherwise, and not one of the self-proclaimed oil experts here has denied his proof that oil is abiotic and self-renewing ... i.e., its source is purely mineral, unrelated to dinosaurs.

The Russian theory have never led to the finding of a major oil of gas field. The international oil industry has rejected this theory.

AGW, as an excuse and conduit to globally redistribute the U.S.'s wealth, has been political at least since Charles McCarthy exposed Communism as the conduit

Are you referring to Charlie McCarthy, the ventriloquist's dummy?

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Pointster. ... Wind power is practical and effective in many places, but not so in securing energy supply in our (Britains) vastly overpopulated, heavily industrialised, and power hungry economy of our relatively tiny island.

All studies have shown that without full scale conventional back up, permanently running on standby for when wind power just 'shuts off', we couldn't cope. Even our governments much vaunted stance of generating 30% of our power needs from renewables by the year 2030, is now seen as unrealistic. (What would it be saving anyway, with conventional stations having to be manned and run on permanent stand by?)

Consequently, our government has finally conceeded that we must build a new generation of nuclear power stations, just 'to keep the lights burning.' (regardless of objections by the green lobby.)

As I'm sure you know, other European countries face the same problem. France relies very heavily on nuclear power already, and Germany is building new coal fired stations (won't touch nuclear) so as to guarantee continual power supply for its huge industrial economy.

Also, your notion that fuel (diesel, petrol, gas) should no longer be used for transport will never be acceptable. It smacks of big brother regimentation (beloved of socialist societies) which would be an assault on our personal freedom to travel where we wish, when we wish, and how we wish!