Beetle;
Since you started this thread, I guess it is only fitting that I give you the news that will render this thread, moot. First, let me explain to you how physics works. You presented me with a problem. You have this ball which is absorbing short wavelength UV radiation. As the ball heats up, it will emit long wavelength IR, radiation. At some point, the ball will reach a state of thermal equilibrium, and the temperature of the ball will remain constant.
Then, you threw a sabot (sorry straffo:-) into the works. The ball is surrounded by an ever increasing CO2 gas, which is blocking a portion of the IR energy. The surface of the ball is heating up. What to do?
Physics 101. Build a small shack or shanty in your backyard. Place glass panels on the roof. Glass will pass UV radiation, and block IR radiation, so it acts in exactly the same manner as atmospheric CO2. Put one thermometer on the wall inside the shack, and one thermometer on the wall outside the shack. Wait a few hours after the sun comes and read the thermometers. You notice that the temperature inside the shack is higher than the temperature outside the shack. What to do?
Remove a few of the glass panels on the roof . Wait a few hours and take another reading. Great! The temperature in the shack has come down. You now realize that if you reduce the CO2 gas surrounding the ball, you will achieve the same effect. But wait, we are doing physics, not politics here remember, so is this the only way to lower the temperature?
You have noticed that at night, the temperature between the inside, and the outside of the shack is the same. The next day you replace glass panels on the roof, wait a few hours after the sun comes up, and take another reading. Sure enough, it is hotter inside the shack than outside the shack. You place a large, picnic, umbrella over the roof, wait and few more hours, and take another reading. Great! The temperature in the shack has once again come down.
I gave you one solution, plant more trees to absorb the CO2. You said there was not enough time for the saplings to mature. Yet, you claim that if the Americans simply cut their greenhouse emissions, we can save the planet. Is that claim based on physics, or on politics?
I gave you another solution. Block some of the incoming UV radiation. This is perfectly valid physics, but for someone with an agenda, it is really bad politics. Your response was to laugh and laugh, and then float a a large BS sign. I wonder why Beetle ... physics, or politics? My concern was that it would cool down the planet too much ... and what was the cause for your hysteria?
Let me give you some real good physics here Beetle. Place a 1000km concave Fresnel lens, that is a few mm thick, at the Lagrange 1 point between the earth and the sun. Spin the lens to keep it rigid. Every twenty days or so, give it a slight nudge, since the solar wind will tend to push it away from L1. NASA engineers said it will cost about ten billion dollars to build, and another ten billion to maintain over the life of the lens. The reduction in solar energy will be about 1%, more than enough to offset any increase in CO2 emissions. Yes, Beetle, you can google this one.
I don't know what scam you Greens are going to dream up next, but I am sure it will be fun to watch. As far a global warming goes, well, as your lawyer friend Bill Clinton would say, it is moot. If anyone asks me about global warming, I am going to point to the Fresnel lens. Feeling a bit warm, then take ten billion Euros out of your economy, and build the lens. Meanwhile, leave my economy, and my SUV alone.
Adios Beetle, see you in the next thread:-)
-Rotax447
