Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels,
a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected
rates?

Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit
fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world
is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons,
both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels,
with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed
nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy
demands.

It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of
catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is
the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking
alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil
reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be
not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also
safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil
reserves.

But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from
hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually
meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading --
making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:43:53 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil
fuels

Umm...I think you left something out.

Nuke-U-Ler? That was deliberate.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Mar 27, 9:43 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels,
a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is
there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected
rates?

Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit
fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world
is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons,
both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen
are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels,
with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed
nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy
demands.

It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of
catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is
the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking
alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil
reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be
not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also
safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil
reserves.

But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from
hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually
meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading --
making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.



you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:33:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Umm...I think you left something out.

Nuke-U-Ler? That was deliberate.

I suspected as much. Is that because it's politically unpopular, or
because
you think it's a bad idea?

I'm entirely in favor of fusion, entirely opposed to fission.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.


And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.

And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now
than
we did then. Particularly when you take into account that the average
desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which
was
possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago.
Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to
keep
up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it
wouldn't
be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology
improves --
particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot
even
imagine today will suddenly appear.

Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish!

yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are
going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable.

I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my
argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point.

since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I
like to stack the odds in my favor.

I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe
place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i
jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question
is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do
we do to fix it.


Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:
Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some
are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are
convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it
necessary for us to act TODAY, on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...


Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise.

Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
 

In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...


Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to
me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next
several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the
while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back
the US auto industry.

Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and
instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on
our consuption of fossil fuel.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com



That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise.

Cool. Now all we have to do is work on Darfur. g



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com