On 11/13/2013 10:49 AM, LizR wrote:
Obviously there is more CO2 in the air than there has been for a very long time, and obviously the climate has changed somewhat in the last couple of decades (warmest on record, again and again). It's hard to prove the connection, of course, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012, 24 rejected global warming. It's a little thing we've come up with to try and understand the world. We call it "science".
I'd say it's a lot better than circumstantial. Direct measurements over the last century have shown global warming. Direct measurement over the same time period have shown increase in CO2. Industrial statistics show that more than enough fossil fuel has been burned to account for the increased CO2. The physics of CO2 in warming the earth has been understood for 150yrs.
Obviously fossil fuel will run out anyway, so even without climate change we'd have to do /something/. I think nuclear is a good short term solution, for sure. Especially subcritical reactors.
But as Telmo points out we can't just wait till fossil fuel runs out and then switch. It takes energy to build nuclear power plants and solar panels and wind tubines. In principle they could bootstrap themselves, but not on the time scale we need to transition.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.