Text 7469, 95 rader
Skriven 2005-10-05 08:50:48 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 7465 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Dial down the Sun?
==============================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer_removeme@mindspring.com>

> Solving the global warming "problem" today is like paying David Sarnoff to
> invent a plasma screen TV in the 40s, impossibly expensive, if possible at
> all, and no market for it at any price.

Who said anything about solving it *today*?

I think you overestimate what I'm proposing by orders of magnitude.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be sticking our heads in the sand and
ignoring the problem.  If we totally ignore it, I'm afraid we're fried in the
long term.  Acknowledging the problem is the first step in any solution.

We should be allocating some more research money into modeling the problem on
computers. We already do that, but we need more, and it nicely dovetails into
weather research, so it's a double plus.

We should also *start* thinking about possible solutions and start doing small
scale experiments.

Cutting emissions will help some, but not the way the Kyoto agreement proposes,
but even if there were something perfect to replace Kyoto, this still isn't a
full solution and shouldn't be treated as such.

- Bob Comer


"Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4342f095$1@w3.nls.net...
>
> "Gary Wiltshire" <gaw@sover.net> wrote in message
> news:op.sx43slaaeipai0@news.barkto.com...
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:53:28 -0400, Mark <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer" <bobcomer_removeme@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4342e834@w3.nls.net...
>>>>> The prediction didn't include a nuclear war.
>>>>
>>>> It must have been before my time then.  One thing is for sure, we've
>>>> learned a whole lot since then.
>>>
>>> There you have it, the crux of my argument. Unless you don't think we'll
>>> know much more 30 years from now than we do now, I see no reason to
>>> implement expensive plans to solve a problem that isn't proven. It'll be
>>> more efficient, thus cheaper, to implement later, if it even turns out
>>> we
>>> should be doing something. Had we solved the ice age "problem" back
>>> then,
>>> where would we be today? Ans: The same place since we could no more heat
>>> up
>>> the Earth then than we can cool it now. <but lighter a few 100 billion
>>> dollars>
>>>
>>> http://www.techcentralstation.com/052705X.html
>>> The Discount for the Future
>>> "Given all the uncertainties about climate change itself and whether in
>>> any
>>> event the impact of climate change on the environment would be positive
>>> or
>>> negative, it is not exactly an open and shut case that one should spend
>>> a
>>> lot of present-day money on reducing CO2 emissions now. Perhaps it would
>>> be
>>> better to save one's pennies to pay for adaption to climate change, if
>>> indeed active adaption should become necessary a couple of generations
>>> down
>>> the track."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I remember reading "proof" that New York City couldn't grow past a
>> certain size because it was unfeasible to remove the resulting horse
>> manure.  We cannot realistically imagine where we'll be technologically
>> in a hundred years.
>
> A hundred years ago the "horseless carriage" was an unreliable rich man's
> toy; in probably less than a decade it solved the horse manure problem
> rather tidily and for free <g>
>
> About 50 years ago we barely had TV and color was still on the horizon,
> now we have wall sized plasma screens
>
> About 30 years ago we didn't have VCRs, now they've already been eclipsed
> by both DVD-R and hard drive storage.
>
> Solving the global warming "problem" today is like paying David Sarnoff to
> invent a plasma screen TV in the 40s, impossibly expensive, if possible at
> all, and no market for it at any price.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)