Actually I think I recall that sun light measurements over the decades are showing that less sun is reaching the surface at least.
On 2/8/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thomas malloy wrote: >>Dr Ball won't make the headlines by pointing out that plant growth >>is stimulated by an increase in CO2 levels I am afraid. >The increased plant growth is a self correcting element . . . It is self correcting in a sense, but before the correction runs its course, it will kill off most present species, flood New York City, Venice, Florida and Bangladesh, and return the world to the state it was in the age of the dinosaurs. As far as nature is concerned that state is no better or worse than the present, but the people who survived the catastrophe will not enjoy it. To call this "self-correcting" is like saying that famine and disease are nature's way of correcting overpopulation. Or that the spread of the Sahara and Gobi deserts is the "correction" nature applies when people destroy the water table and cut down all the trees. >>Indeed there is some self correction built in the system, so what? >>You really believe climate can't change drastically, one way or >>another, under human influence? >The climate is changing because the Sun is putting out more energy. >Only a fool believes that we can do anything about it. I doubt very much that the Sun is putting out more energy, but if it is we could easily fix the problem by spreading large Mylar parasols in space. This calls for a space elevator, but the prospects for an elevator are better than ever. It is now estimated to cost around $6 billion, it will take about 5 years, and it can probably be done with materials that should be available in a few years. That method also might work for conventional global warming, but I doubt it. In any case, we can easily reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50 to 90% with existing technology such as plug-in hybrid automobiles, and we can eliminate it altogether in a few decades, so why bother with things like space elevators? This would not cost money. On the contrary, it would save fantastic amounts, after the initial investments. As one expert said of compact fluorescent light bulbs: "this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat." - Jed
