Global Warming is a natural phenomenon that will prove to be one of the greatest challenges that our civilization will ever have to deal with; the human race picked an unfortunate time to have an industrial revolution/population explosion on the global warming/cooling cycle, as researchers have determined that we are not quite at the peak temperatures and CO2 levels of the warming cycle. Enjoy the warm weather while it lasts; there will be another Ice Age in about 50,000 years, give or take 10,000 years...

Has anyone seen information on what the total, worldwide, release of GHG is on an annual basis from all sources,natural and man-made? What proportion of GHG by category, CO2, CH4, SF6, H20, etc. are natural occuring and what are man-made? This data could give us an idea of how big the problem is and which portions of it are most impacted by man-made or man controlled GHG. Energy efficiency, renewable resources and other conservation measures are prudent approaches to both GHG and fossil resource issues, but let us understand what we really are dealing with and what is our ability to impact the issues we are trying to address.

So if global warming is partially man-made (that's an IF), does that mean the man-made part can possibly be un-made (without severe population adjustment) and, if it is possible to become a GHG neutral species, that humanity's contribution to a GMT correction will be enough to prevent the sky from falling? Prove it.

OK, let's say you proved it (which you didn't). Now we know that if we eliminate fossil fuels we can "save the planet" - (at least until the next "environmentalist" fear of an ice age threatens to freeze out countless species we depend on makes us rethink CO2 and view it as our savior).

Now let's examine the impact of two electricity generating technologies that could lead the way to a fossil fuel free planet AND reduce GHG emissions: wind and nuclear. Let's limit this comparison to existing technologies - not include yet-to-develop "mass energy storage" technologies or "life cycle uranium utilization" that each could clearly can make a real difference. Since they are not commercially ready, let's leave them out for now, k? Let's not add new hydro either (because we have finally learned not to) and lets assume manufacturing will continue to operate on a 24/7 schedule and not limit our energy intensive processes to times of blustery weather (because we won't, and even if we did, we'd need quadruple the manufacturing and processing infrastructure we have today, which, incidentally, just might change our carbon shoe size).

The challenge: Compare wind and nuclear on three fronts: land use per capacity credited MW, dollars per capacity credited MW (Including transportation costs and amortization of infrastructure to extract, enrich and transport new and spent fuels (and storage costs) as well as transportation costs of delivering electrons to market. Finally, compare wind and solar on facility construction resource utilization, again, per capacity credit factored MW.

Give each three point five trillion dollars and ten years.
Which technology can deploy more electricity capacity?
Which has the greatest environmental impact? Visual impact? Species damage impact? And which is kinder to end user budgets?

To the bridge abutment metaphor - There has always been the possibility that the human race will come to an end. One way to preserve it in the long run is to colonize off planet. Should we start today investing heavily in that idea, too?

Be right back - I need to get a sweater.

That reminds me - what is the GHG impact of government mandated sweater wearing or outlawing of air-conditioning in favor of fans and evaporative coolers? What about reproductive freedoms? Extrapolate population growth trends another 1,000 years . . answer still the same?

One thing is for sure, we are trending toward getting "all the government we pay for." We'd better make sure we keep our hands on THAT wheel - and our foot on the brakes (however worn out they may be).