manbearhorse's Comments
Enron started to push for cap and trade on CO2 in the 1990s, and one of the guys they funded to push for cap and trade was, drumroll, Al Gore.
Now, the argument that is supposed to persuade me that global warming is manmade, are these climate-models. However, why would anyone trust a model that is unable to predict the temperature next year, in 2 years, 5 years or 50 years? The obvious answer is apparently that yes, trust the model, which means we should change the CO2-parameter, even when we dont know the outcome. Sure, we know the chemical outcome(less plantfood available), but the atmosphere is a chaotic system. The outcome of changing CO2-content will be negative, positive or neutral regarding temperature.
When you dont know the outcome, you are playing russian climate-roulette AND wasting money that could be used for, hmmm, i dont know, AIDS or something that kills a lot of actual humans instead of imaginary people who live in the future that might have to escape from the sea moving in on them like the worlds slowest tsunami.
Worst case scenario of changing the weather is that CO2-reduction works, and earth goes into ice-age mode. Trust me here, iceage is a baaaaad thing. You cant grow bananas in snow. A reason why people fear "nuclear winters" like ice-ages: Stuff will literally not grow, and 90% of every living thing will die.
Oh, and if CO2-reduction makes it warmer, hey, big bonus! Warmer climate means more growth and food available. Downside is, CO2-reduction will lead to less plantfood available. CO2 is used in greenhouses to speed up plantgrowth after all.
Now, the argument that is supposed to persuade me that global warming is manmade, are these climate-models. However, why would anyone trust a model that is unable to predict the temperature next year, in 2 years, 5 years or 50 years? The obvious answer is apparently that yes, trust the model, which means we should change the CO2-parameter, even when we dont know the outcome. Sure, we know the chemical outcome(less plantfood available), but the atmosphere is a chaotic system. The outcome of changing CO2-content will be negative, positive or neutral regarding temperature.
When you dont know the outcome, you are playing russian climate-roulette AND wasting money that could be used for, hmmm, i dont know, AIDS or something that kills a lot of actual humans instead of imaginary people who live in the future that might have to escape from the sea moving in on them like the worlds slowest tsunami.
Worst case scenario of changing the weather is that CO2-reduction works, and earth goes into ice-age mode. Trust me here, iceage is a baaaaad thing. You cant grow bananas in snow. A reason why people fear "nuclear winters" like ice-ages: Stuff will literally not grow, and 90% of every living thing will die.
Oh, and if CO2-reduction makes it warmer, hey, big bonus! Warmer climate means more growth and food available. Downside is, CO2-reduction will lead to less plantfood available. CO2 is used in greenhouses to speed up plantgrowth after all.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Something that might interest you.
The reason why Denmark can have windmills as a part of their powergrid is because of hydropower-exports from Norway.
Hydropower can be adjusted to give enough power when wind tapers off. Its hard to supplement wind with other power-types like nuclear, gas or coal in the same way as hydropower. This is also why wind will in most cases be a pretty stupid idea when you cant supplement the powergrid with hydropower. Wind is notoriously unstable.
Ive heard that Norway is looking into using danish powerexports of windpower to pump up water into the dams when the danish have extra windpower to spare.
I havent seen the numbers for powerloss.