[ExI] Why Global Warming Will Be Far Worse, Far Sooner, Than Forecasts Predict

spike spike66 at att.net
Sat Sep 14 19:04:10 UTC 2013

>... On Behalf Of BillK

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>... Also, the IPCC projections have been crudely wrong and grossly 
> exaggerating the signal from even the cherry-picked research they 
> quoted. Brin is laughably off...

>...Makes you wonder how bad it has to get before the global warming deniers
start to hesitate...BillK


BillK, this is one of those fields of science which has been and is being
ever more mired in a morass of political corruption, which is obscuring the
signal.  The notion of global action to counter climate change is championed
by the current US administration, which is showing itself to be perhaps the
very most corrupt and incompetent in American history, with the IRS scandal
growing by the day.

>From a purely scientific point of view, it is very clear that atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels are rising.  It is very clear that carbon dioxide does
transmit high frequency EM radiation and trap lower frequencies.  From the
well-known spectrum of the sun and the spectrum reflected by the earth's
surface, it is a fairly easy top level calculation if we settle for single
digit precision, to see that increasing carbon dioxide will increase global
atmospheric temperatures, even after we take into account Boltzmann's
equation.  All this is really just college sophomore level physics, beyond
reasonable refutation.  The oddball fluctuations, such as this year's
mysteriously absent Atlantic hurricanes, are just noise, obscuring the long
term signal.  Even then, missing hurricanes would not have obscured the
signal as much, had not the global warming scientists insisted that global
warming would necessarily mean more and bigger hurricanes (we don't know

But it seems in every case the paths to reversing the atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels are self-defeating.  Germany has invested heavily in ground
based solar.  That country has plenty of money but is otherwise inherently
ill-suited for that technology: not enough sun, not enough clear sky, not
enough ground area.  The nations best suited for ground based solar, such as
the Saharan Desert nations, have plenty of sun, plenty of ground, plenty of
clear skies, few environmentalists, but not enough money.  

The USA has money and plenty of sunny desert, but we also have a powerful
environmental lobby to stop our blanketing the desert southwest with ground
based solar.

The best solution that I can think of is if American, Russian and German
venture capitalists offer to buy most of Mauritania, Algeria, Morocco and
Libya, then blanket that vast unoccupied land with ground based solar, the
power from which is used to do biomass to liquid fuels, which will be worth
a fortune.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list