There's lots of renewable energy that's failsafe and doesn't create
CO2, CO, NOx and a slew of other nasty toxins, as well as not
releasing precious helium, but they are not nearly as profitable nor
worth going to war over. There’s also numerous methods of utilizing
our energy a whole lot more efficiently and making it more reliable at
the same time.

Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW.

Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven
when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't
offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as
when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.

Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.

On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.

The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.

“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”

So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?

296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.

I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium)
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.

Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


On Feb 5, 6:36*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low
Solar Activity
* *http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html

* A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of
sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and
2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the
Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum..

* Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt
more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six
year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of
excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the
reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between
maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).
*
* "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the
prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about
the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides
unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global
warming," Hansen said.
*
* According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels
need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy
budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon
dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect
that concentration to continue to rise in the future.

See:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...gy-budget.html