Re: your mail

[KellySt@aol.com]

>> that a lot of IR reflective gas has been added to the atmosphere without
>> changing the temp, and no one has a coherent explanation for how it would

> that is not true.  the _has_ been a temp rise over the last
> 90-100 years.  It is small, and it cannot be _proven_ to be
> caused by the greenhouse gases, but it has occured.

Between mid 1800's and mid 1900's the temp droped about 2 degrees F, from mid
1700's to mid 1800's it went up much more than that.  (1700's was tail end of
the little ice age.)

> > --increase the temp, and the whole idea is vigorously 
> > debated, I'ld say it ---

> Only by those who are afraid to have industrial society 
> collapse around thier ears if the environmentalists win. 

Hardly.  Very little about the climate has any hard strong scientific
support.  Or even strong data.  There is a big debtae over weather the
climate is coling, heating, or none of the above.  None of the above geting
yelled at by camp up and camp down.  The only reason global warming gets so
much more press is the ecologists are pushing that one.

> The Industrialists are right about one thing,  we can't stop
>  yet.  if we quit burning petrochemicals, we would be 
> starving inside of three months.  

The cities would die of polution and lack of water sooner than that.

> But the environmentalists are right about something too, 
> we _will_ one day have to stop burning oil, because we are 
> going to run out one day.

Not really.  Oil geologists figure we have about 200 years worth on earth.
 If you want to use near eath comet cores you get a few thousand more years
worth.  Academic thou.  The oil industry expects their markets to colapse in
the mid 21st century as fussion and usable bateries come on line (there more
convenent, and smell better)

> BTW, Space-based solar energy beamed down by microwave
> will not solve the greenhouse problem, but will make it 
> worse instead.  Energy (microwaves) would be entering 
> the earth's atmosphere, (we'd choose a particularly 
> transparent frequency, to avoid losses)  and then be 
> consumed by various items (television, motors, 
> light-bulbs etc) which waste large amounts of energy 
> as heat.  The heat would be held in just as it is now,  
> (when talking about a planet, radiation is the only means
> of heat shedding) But there would be a much larger 
> influx, because solar panels would be collecting sunlight 
> that would have otherwise missed the earth.

You of course are ignoring the power plants the microwave plants would
replace.  Conventional power plants usually generate more heat than
electricity.  But microwave conversion is highly efficent (90%-99%).  So the
microwave beem sent down to replace a power plant would eliminate 1-2 times
its own power in waste heat from the old power plants.  The waste heat from
the consumer appliances is of course the same eiather way.

Kelly