Your numbers assume 100% coverage with solar panels and 100% conversion of solar energy to electricity. The BEST solar conversion is about 21% and typical is more like 13-17%. You also appear to want to chop down all the forests and destroy all agriculture and wind farms to provide the typical 6-8 hours per day of usage that you can get from solar energy..
1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.
So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.
1. WHAT radical and quick change? An increase of
2. Sure there are but, except for fission, they are 3 to 30 times more expensive to create/use.
3. Yes, and once again they're roughly 3 to 20 times more expensive. That's NOT fiduciary responsibility.
So it sounds like MightyMartian is spouting the party line and has no real knowledge of the facts.
Absolutely nothing wrong with fission if done properly although even fission is currently more expensive than fossil fuels (between 1.5 and 2.5 times). I would suggest changing to something other the uranium based reactions though. Uranium was used because we could do it relatively easy with early tech, we have better tech and options now if the Government would allow it.
A little thought reveals that any number in this sequence where the number you're adding to the end (n) is has a factor of 3 makes the whole number also divisible by 3. A little more thought reveals that where (n) has a factor of 3 the sequence of (n-1) will also have a factor of 3. This alone knocks out 2/3 of the possible numbers in the sequence that may be prime.
3600 cubic miles is roughly 10 percent of the mass of earth. If that much erupted I think nothing would exist afterwards, especially N Am. Earth's orbit would probably be changed if there was an eruption that size.
There's nothing like enhancing your facts to make a point. I believe the more accepted numbers are 15-20 years for methane and between 50 and 90 years for carbon dioxide although there is evidence that about half of atmospheric CO2 lasts less that 30 years.
That map is 5 years old. To get the it up to the beginning of this year you'd have to shrink the US 7%, shrink the EU 5%, and increase China 34% (This is from memory). The US and EU shrinkage is mostly due to the economic downturn and will go back up eventually.
There is no amount or type of evidence, even in principle, which would answer climate change alarmists. They will disavow the fundamental principles of science if that is what is necessary to protect their beliefs.
There fixed that for you.
Wow, a presentation from a corporation with a vested interest taken as fact without question (the second one from google docs).
I checked it out. It assumes it will work for 20 years with almost zero maintenance and one generator swap. This goes against observed fact which has large wind turbines having massive failures at between 1-2% per year. That's not a large number but these failures usually have to be rebuilt almost from scratch which increases the cost. It also doesn't include transmission costs. I'd guess their cost recovery estimates of 3-5 month payback should probably be doubled. It also does not count the cost of backup generation capacity for when the wind doesn't blow - note that capacity would be used full-time if the turbines didn't exist but the backup capacity has to be maintained even when not in active use.
The NW passage was not suitable for cruise ships in 1906. Besides none of the crossings via a temporary route say anything much about climate.
How do you know? The link you gave says they made the NW passage in 2006 only because of an icebreaker. It says almost nothing of the conditions in 1906. The second part of your statement is true although AGW advocates claim it does when it's happening "now."
second there is no such "surface data.org" web site
Also Mann's hockey stick (which was popularized by Gore) has been discredited. It's been shown that the algorithm he used will produce a hockey stick from almost any data because it preferentially selects/emphasizes the data that will create a hockey stick.
Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money. -- Arthur Miller
