Harry Pollard wrote: > Climatologists offer the theory of sun activity. Historically, the warmer > periods of earth coincide with increased solar activity over centuries. You > think there is no connection?
That could be in addition to the CO2 effects, but as I said, the CO2-typical atmospheric destabilization in lower stata can't be due to solar spots and is new. > Apparently, the scientists think there is. But as it conflicts with the GW > religion, how could you accept it? As I said, "global warming" is the wrong term. Why do you always misrepresent my position ? Because that's the only way you can "win" ? Such as here again: > Try using solar energy to warm New England homes under an overcast sky in > the depths of winter. > Actually, don't try it. The New Englanders would lynch you. Actually, I said about heating: "By using geothermal energy and renewable biomass ?" And no, geothermal energy doesn't bring up radiation. Renewable biomass may include wood but I was thinking of stuff that is renewable in "real time" (otherwise the term "renewable biomass" would be a pleonasm..), e.g. fast-growing plants. > Solar has failed in California, in spite of lots of sunshine and various > governmental subsidies. It is useful for specific situations - such as on > top of mountains - but otherwise isn't significant. A small patch in the Sahara desert gets enough solar energy to cover the global energy consumption. California? Well, not only solar has failed in the state of energy scandals... > Evidence seems to suggest that increase in CO2 follows warming, rather than > the reverse, but we dare not admit that, do we. I thought CO2 comes out of the pipes, whether there are sun spots or not. > CO2 which has now been downgraded in importance, does wonders for > vegetation. More CO2 might solve the question of world hunger. Don't count on it. The destructive weather extremes by far outweigh the slightly increased vegetation growth. They must be happy if anything grows yet. > Meantime a large power plant, for the same wattage will use one truck of > nuclear fuel, 35,000 trucks of coal, or how many trucks of wood? Perhaps > 100,000? Or, 200,000? Meantime the same wattage of solar energy will use zero trucks of fuel. > Over the years the projected sea rise was gradually reduced to about 10 > centimeters. Btw, the evacuation of the island of Tuvalu is already going on. Do you think it's just all in their head ? Chris
