All you have to do is look at the results of the Medieval Warming Period.
Google some pictures of the Canadian Shield. I see LOTS of trees. Lots of water. Your entire post is hysterical ranting with a bunch of (incorrect) opinion and guessing.
I guess Ice Ages are easy to frivolously dismiss when you live in a place like Rio.
Even at 30 years, it's all noise.
However, at our stage of understanding the system, climate engineering is probably not such a good thing to be doing. The planet isn't an experiment that we can easily clean up after we make a mess. We can't 'nuke it from orbit' just to make sure.
That is a major issue with the carbon sequesters and everybody else. We're really running in the dark. We need to put quite a bit more energy (pun intended) into understanding the system before we blithely go and tinker with it (like we are doing at present).
I think we agree on that point - that carbon legislation is not a good idea and that we should allow the economy to naturally evolve beyond the use of carbon. Not that legislation would work anyway, only the lowest emitters would sign on.
It's been suggested that we could ALREADY be in an ice age if it weren't for the extra CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The real argument is legislative - Given that developing nations will overshadow developed nations in CO2 emissions, legislation will do nothing except harm the World economy.
We can argue about whether or not the Earth is warming/cooling and whether that warming/cooling is due to man, but the AGW Alarmist arguments totally break down when they get into value judgements about the supposed facts.
The only real fact is that a person's opinion that warming and adding CO2 is beneficial is every bit as valid as someone saying it's not.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
you got more government.
A team of scientists led by Joachim Saur of the University of Cologne in Germany came up with the idea of using Hubble to learn more about the inside of the moon. “I was always brainstorming how we could use a telescope in other ways,” said Saur. “Is there a way you could use a telescope to look inside a planetary body? Then I thought, the aurorae! Because aurorae are controlled by the magnetic field, if you observe the aurorae in an appropriate way, you learn something about the magnetic field. If you know the magnetic field, then you know something about the moon’s interior.”
If a saltwater ocean were present, Jupiter’s magnetic field would create a secondary magnetic field in the ocean that would counter Jupiter’s field. This “magnetic friction” would suppress the rocking of the aurorae. This ocean fights Jupiter’s magnetic field so strongly that it reduces the rocking of the aurorae to 2 degrees, instead of 6 degrees if the ocean were not present. Scientists estimate the ocean is 60 miles (100 kilometers) thick — 10 times deeper than Earth’s oceans — and is buried under a 95-mile (150-kilometer) crust of mostly ice.
That’s more water than contained in all of Earth’s oceans.
Amen.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss
