> The major difference

sez who ? :-)

ie We can hazard a guess as to which of the effects we are causing is 
the major one , but often enough we will be wrong.

> is that fossil fuels inject carbon dioxide into the
> atmosphere which then traps more of the suns enormous energy. Our 
> own
> directly added energy release is a pittance by comparison.

Pittances can perturb if positioned perilously.
ie the Lorentz butterfly may bite you unexpectedly when what you were 
doing SEEMED to be insiognificant relative to natural effects.

> Again, fossil fuels cause global warming by CHEMICAL pollution, NOT 
> ENERGY
> pollution.

Neither actually, arguably.
The action is "photochemical" but its a "mechanical" thermodynamic 
effect as a result of this. The sun provides the energy pollution when 
we alter the planet's albedo. Painting ALL our roofs white may help 
:-).

Of course, the *major* contributor to global warming is the currently 
increasing natural output of the sun which has been on an increasing 
part of its variable cycle for several hundred years now*. Our effects 
are, as you note above,  a pittance compared to this. Which doesn't 
mean that our unnatural contributiion wont be what it takes to cause 
the butterfly to flap its wing a century or two earlier, or at all.

Greatest known risk is stopping the Atlantic Conveyor subsurface 
wraming current which keeps the Brits weather only miserable instead 
of ice bound as it ought to be. CO2 levels play a, beleive it or not, 
major part in the mechanisms that drive this process. Push them not 
impossibly much higher than now and they will be able to skate from 
England to France. The really nasty part is that they believe that the 
process can flip over in as little as a decade once it gets going BUT 
can take centuries to millenia to unflip.

* When you look at the graphs published by many of the 'more liable to 
gain from global warming hype' groups you find that they lie severely 
by cutting off the graphs in such a manner as to hide the long term 
solar cycles which are very similar to what we are riding on top of 
now. I'm certainly not saying that GW isn't real - just that

i     The sun is the major contributor.

ii    Our contribution is a small but significanyt fraction whose 
effects are not easily predicted.


> Not to mention chemical poisoning ala smog, lead poisoning ala war, 
> and so
> on.

Fossil fuels do not cause wars.
Wars may well be fought because of them, but if we had a lot more of 
them there would be fewer wars fought over them.
People cause wars (thankyou Mr Heston, you can sit down now).  With or 
without GW and FF there will be people and therefore wars.
Wars are caused by greed, pride and self preference. Whether any or 
all of these are good or bad depends on ones point of view, whether 
its you or someome else doing whatever is under consideration and 
whether moral absolutes exist.

Any primary energy source that is limited in availability will cause 
'trouble' (RoboCop style).

A potentially free unlimited energy source would cause problems 
because of the loss of power (of the other sort) that it engendered.

Solar energy is, perhaps, the most logical one to target as it is 
highly available at most consumer locations much of the time. The 
level varies annually and with lattitude, but there is still heaps 
(technical term) available at most sites much of the time if we but 
were sensible with our collection technology. I'll be addressing that 
later this year. Maybe. :-).

Harnessing ANY energy source results in pollution of one sort or 
another. Some are benign enough in their primary form that the main 
pollution comes from the production of the infrastructure. Others such 
as fossil & chemical fuels (petroleum / coal / wood / ...)  and 
nuclear fission (don't listen to James) are primary polluters as well 
as having infrastructure pollution.  Nuclear fusion promises (lies, 
lies ...) to be essentially pollution free relative to power output 
once we manage to get to the He3 cycle. Other cycles are far worse.

Hmm. Warder wants me to go back now. Anon ...


        RM


        RM


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist