Well, that didn't turn out like we planned....it's cold outside

[John Ranalletta]

Quote

German RBB (Berlin-Brandenburg) public broadcasting recently aired a report (above) on the region’s winter energy woes titled: “Germany’s green energies strained by winter.”

Coal to the rescue

The report acknowledges that all the power is “currently coming mainly from coal, and the power plants in Lausitz” are now “running at full capacity”.

Strangely the RBB report has been taken down from the archives, yet is fortunately available on YouTube thanks to wind energy protest group Vernunftkraft.de.

In the report Daniel Bartig, a mechanic at the LEAG Lausitz plant, tells RBB he is skeptical that green energy can do the job, and says “the greatest share of power is currently coming from coal.”

 

 

Quote

With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, it’s between 0 and 2 or 3 percent – that is de facto zero. You can see it in many diagrams that we have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV. Especially this time for example – there is no wind and PV, and there are often times when the wind is very miniscule.  These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and we’ve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion.”

 

Is this our future if under a green mandate?

 

https://bit.ly/3q6KumM

[AZgman]

Kaizen. Things will be constantly improved over time. It is way too early to give up on clean energy, but it is good to have a plan B!

[Oldrider51]

Another engineering challenge that will be solved. 

[John Ranalletta]

35 minutes ago, 041100S said:

Another engineering challenge that will be solved. 

 

Not without nukes.  Solar, wind, batteries are supplemental, not primary.  They could shutdown foundries and factories 'til the sun shines, the snow melts and the wind blows.  That'd serve two purposes for the greens.

 

[BrianM]

Hydrogen is still a possible player.

[Sonor]

Hey John, are you saying we should nuke the solar panels? <kidding>

 

Seriously, there are problems with a number of green style sources, but I believe this is just a starting point and not the be-all-end-all. 

[dduelin]

A broader view asks, why is it cold in places that should be warmer, and warmer in places that should be colder, and what is causing this? And what, if anything, can we do to mitigate observed global changes over time?

[ESokoloff]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:21 AM, John Ranalletta said:

Quote

 

 

 

Quote

 

Those panels are so last century.

 

And Elon agrees that oil should not be phased out too quick.

 

PS: not necessarily an endorsement of those solar panels.

Just trying to show that the future is not the past. 

[9Mary7]

On 2/11/2021 at 7:51 AM, dduelin said:

A broader view asks, why is it cold in places that should be warmer, and warmer in places that should be colder, and what is causing this?

We live on a living planet....... It warms, cools, seasons change, volcanos erupt, wildfires clean and renew, quakes relive stress, shorelines recede, shorelines extend..........see where I'm going with this?

The hubris to think that we can control or change the weather continually amazes me............ but there's money to be made pushing that agenda so I'll go back to my coffee

[TEWKS]

We do the best we can do as far as minimizing pollution and the rest, is not up to us. 

[BrianM]

2 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

We live on a living planet....... It warms, cools, seasons change, volcanos erupt, wildfires clean and renew, quakes relive stress, shorelines recede, shorelines extend..........see where I'm going with this?

The hubris to think that we can control or change the weather continually amazes me............ but there's money to be made pushing that agenda so I'll go back to my coffee

Need to think about this a different way. 

 

No, humans cannot control or (significantly) change weather. Global warming is not about weather, it is about climate. Yes we can affect the climate over time.

 

0.03% of the atmosphere are trace gases that include greenhouse gases. Those gases already cause an increase of global average temperatures of about 33C (60F).

How much change in those gases is needed for a change of 2 or 3 C?

How sensitive is the Earth's climate to temperature change? Ice ages are a drop of about 6C from today.

 

Systems can be sensitive to changes, the size of the system is irrelevant. Natural systems do adapt, but they have limits. Humans are a significant, continuous source of greenhouse gases. BTW there are some US states that alone emit more than volcanoes in a single year. Can current Earth climate continue to absorb the change without seeking a new equilibrium?

 

I do not see it as hubris, it is better understanding Earth systems, their inter relatedness and sensitivity to change. If you push a system too hard, it will seek a new equilibrium. You may not like the new equilibrium. The current climate of Earth is only been around about 12,000 years - about the length of agriculture and current human civilization. Natural occurances can change the Earth climate, why couldn't humans?

What would Earth be like if we had continued to dump raw sewage into lakes, rivers, oceans?

The collection of garbage (mostly plastics) in the pacific (GPGP) is twice the area of Texas or 3 times area of France. Do you think this has no affect on the Pacific Ocean?

You realize there are human produced chemical compounds (PFOA, PFOS) found around the globe in Humans, animals and plants.

[dduelin]

7 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

We live on a living planet....... It warms, cools, seasons change, volcanos erupt, wildfires clean and renew, quakes relive stress, shorelines recede, shorelines extend..........see where I'm going with this?

The hubris to think that we can control or change the weather continually amazes me............ but there's money to be made pushing that agenda so I'll go back to my coffee

Yes, I do see where you are going. Enjoy the trip.

[ESokoloff]

9 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

We live on a living planet....... It warms, cools, seasons change, volcanos erupt, wildfires clean and renew, quakes relive stress, shorelines recede, shorelines extend..........see where I'm going with this?

Might want to read these.  

[9Mary7]

Ahhhhhh.........The International Panel on Climate Change........ are they the ones that got CO2 declared a toxic substance that must be controlled? Seriously, the "interest" in this theory ( sorry- but it's a theory) is the biggest money pit of the 21st century, and the propagators have enriched themselves to an obscene degree. All you have to do is watch their behavior...... do what they say and not what they do and they will "save" us all.

Gonna go burn some fossil fuel now.... that's where I'm goin....... 

[BrianM]

46 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

Ahhhhhh.........The International Panel on Climate Change........ are they the ones that got CO2 declared a toxic substance that must be controlled? Seriously, the "interest" in this theory ( sorry- but it's a theory) is the biggest money pit of the 21st century, and the propagators have enriched themselves to an obscene degree. All you have to do is watch their behavior...... do what they say and not what they do and they will "save" us all.

Gonna go burn some fossil fuel now.... that's where I'm goin....... 

You do realize calling a theory a theory does not demean it I any way. There is nothing wrong with being a theory, science works by falsification. Nothing in science can be proven true. We tried it, it does not work. Gravity is a theory.
 

What is your basis that humans cannot affect climate?

[9Mary7]

41 minutes ago, BrianM said:

Nothing in science can be proven true.

Is this where I get told the world is flat?

[BrianM]

49 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

Is this where I get told the world is flat?

Nice try.

We can show Earth is not flat. Besides there has never been much consensus for a flat Earth.

Look up falsification, pretty obvious you have no idea what it is or how science works (or worse, don’t care or care to know).

 

Here you go, falsification and flat Earth all in the same video!

 

[John Ranalletta]

Solar forcing and its impact on climate is a theory.

[Rinkydink]

9 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

Is this where I get told the world is flat?

 

No, this is where you are told it’s all your fault and a huge carbon tax will fix this.
All with no guarantee whatsoever that said funds from the tax will fix anything, except John Kerry’s private jet. You should also feel guilty for not wanting to donate and help the cause because you need to do something NOW!!!

[9Mary7]

10 hours ago, BrianM said:

Look up falsification, pretty obvious you have no idea what it is or how science works (or worse, don’t care or care to know).

Wow...... btw resorting to personal attacks won't prove your point. You think I must be ignorant, stupid, or both because I don't buy into the propaganda?? How is that relationship outlook workin' out at parties?? 

[wbw6cos]

[BrianM]

44 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

Wow...... btw resorting to personal attacks won't prove your point. You think I must be ignorant, stupid, or both because I don't buy into the propaganda?? How is that relationship outlook workin' out at parties?? 

I can only go by how you have presented your view of science. Never said you were stupid. Perhaps I could have used more tact, but as a scientist I tend to be more blunt. Sometimes I express frustration at how science is percieved and portrayed by non-scientists. Your portrail of scientific theory is one of them. There is a reason my wife refers to me as Sheldon.

 

You use the idea of theory as if it is something bad. As if being a theory means it is not how things may really work. They will forever be theories. That is actually a strength, not a weakness of science. It allows for later change, the idea can be manipulated to explain new data. Enough new data and the idea may be totally thrown out and replaced with a new explaination. Gravity is an example.

 

What part is propaganda? What is your proof it is propaganda? I am willing to look at evidence and change my position, that is what science does.

[Dave_in_TX]

58 minutes ago, BrianM said:

I can only go by how you have presented your view of science. Never said you were stupid. Perhaps I could have used more tact, but as a scientist I tend to be more blunt. Sometimes I express frustration at how science is percieved and portrayed by non-scientists. Your portrail of scientific theory is one of them. There is a reason my wife refers to me as Sheldon.

 

You use the idea of theory as if it is something bad. As if being a theory means it is not how things may really work. They will forever be theories. That is actually a strength, not a weakness of science. It allows for later change, the idea can be manipulated to explain new data. Enough new data and the idea may be totally thrown out and replaced with a new explaination. Gravity is an example.

 

What part is propaganda? What is your proof it is propaganda? I am willing to look at evidence and change my position, that is what science does.

Many non scientists don't realize that a scientific theory must be backed by facts and observations. unfortunately, many assume it's simply conjecture or an hypotheses.

[9Mary7]

5 hours ago, BrianM said:

What is your proof it is propaganda?

How bout we call it a theory? Will that work?

[Dave_in_TX]

11 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

How bout we call it a theory? Will that work?

Not unless you have some facts (not necessarily proof) to back it up. Maybe call it conjecture.

[Rougarou]

4 hours ago, Dave_in_TX said:

Many non scientists don't realize that a scientific theory must be backed by facts and observations. unfortunately, many assume it's simply conjecture or an hypotheses.

 

Fact-sources are pushing a climate change agenda, here's one-Paris Climate Agreement

Observation-I observe that the United States had contributed more than any other country, voluntary or otherwise.

 

I theorize, it's a money making scheme for a certain segment of the work force. 

[BrianM]

21 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

How bout we call it a theory? Will that work?

So what part of global warming do you disagree with?

 

Please do not mix in policy with the science.

[Red]

 

"I theorize, it's a money making scheme for a certain segment of the work force.  "

 

Just because there are winners in loosers as a result of change, doesn't negate the reality that the change is real.  There will be changes in wealth, health, and life styles.  Look at the change from water power and horse power to steam power.  The change from hand made objects to mass produced objects.  

Edited February 15, 2021 by Red
Punctuation

[9Mary7]

5 hours ago, BrianM said:

So what part of global warming do you disagree with?

I refer you to my original post, re: Hubris.

Feel free to substitute "climate" for "weather" if that makes it easier to understand. It is still a worthless effort to try control the weather  climate.

Destroying the US economy and ultimately the country by chasing the climate change agenda is the height of hubris in my opinion, and the fact that "scientists" love to debate theories on both sides while the country pays the price is disgusting in its callous disregard for us common folk.

[Rinkydink]

 

It has been said that the Earth’s temps have risen and that they’ve cooled....for years.  With all the crap bombarding us from every angle I don’t know who or what to believe anymore. This “scientist” says yes, this one says no. IF, and I mean IF the climate is warming, can it be proven that it is truly man made? Will the fix proposed (by whom again?) be guaranteed to work? Is this just another gooberment boondoggle to throw $$$ at? Call me paranoid but I kind of like to sign a contract with everything spelled out legally and concisely before I shell out my hard earned money on anything major. Answers that are clear cut and verified by objective (read someone not standing to make money on this) professionals. 
 

I don’t disagree we are spewing out pollutants posthaste but it’s not just the good old USA doing the polluting. The Paris Climate Accord seems to punish America a lot more than some of the other major culprits. If this is true I’m not ok with that. Are you?

 

 

[BrianM]

10 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

I refer you to my original post, re: Hubris.

Feel free to substitute "climate" for "weather" if that makes it easier to understand. It is still a worthless effort to try control the weather  climate.

Destroying the US economy and ultimately the country by chasing the climate change agenda is the height of hubris in my opinion, and the fact that "scientists" love to debate theories on both sides while the country pays the price is disgusting in its callous disregard for us common folk.

The greenhouse effect is real. There is no scientific debate about it. Without it, the average Earth surface temperature would be about 60F cooler. This is caused by less than 0.03% of the atmosphere.

 

The effects of humans and global temperature change have been discussed since the late 19th century.

 

In the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels were 180 to 210 ppm during ice ages, 280 to 300 during interglacial periods. CO2 levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution to todays levels of 400 ppm.

 

The increase is from humans - this is how we know

- We know how much co2 is produced by burning fossil fuels (1 gallon of gas produces about 20 lbs of CO2).

- The change in the carbon isotope concentrations matches the above numbers. C14 (carbon 14) is radioactive with a half life of 5730 years. Fossil fuuels have been in the ground long enough for much of the C14 to have decayed. c14 CO2 concentrations have been dropping since the industrial revolution. It does not match natural CO2 isotope concentrations.

- More people live in the northern hemisphere. CO2 concentrations are higher in the northern hemisphere. This difference (delta) has been increasing.

- Atmospheric O2 levels have dropped matching the gain in CO2 levels - matches the rates of fossil fuel use.

 

There is no (scientific) debate that the temperature of Earth is increasing. There is no debate that humans are the cause of the current warming - the additional greenhouse gases are the cause - natural factors cannot account for the warming.

 

The problem arises not because the Earth is warming, it is the rate of change that is alarming. Natural systems need time to react to change. Temperatures are increasing in 100 years what has taken 10,000 to 100,000 years in the past.

 

This seems to be the part you do not like.

 

Science tries to predict. Models have been created to try to predict the effects of increased CO2. There is room for debate about models and their validity. Most models seem to be on the conservative side. Of all the areas, this would be the area of most debate.

 

Scientists tend to stay away from politics. The fact that climatologists are becoming involved and raising alarms about what could happen in the future causes me to have concerns. This is not normal scientific behavior. My guess, they are becoming vocal because they are worried about 'common folk' .

 

I guess what do you suggest we do?

What if they are right and we do nothing? The pain you are predicting could be much less than the pain caused by doing nothing.

How much risk are you willing to take with your children/grand children's future?

Would it be horroble to move away from fossil fuels to a more sustainable energy source?

 

 

[TEDZ]

Your post says 60F cooler?

[BrianM]

22 minutes ago, TEDZ said:

Your post says 60F cooler?

Yes, currently the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 60F gain in global average temperature. Been that way long before the industrial revolution.

 

Remove the effects of the greenhouse effect would result in 60F lower average temperatures.

Less than 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for a rise of 60F.

 

A change of 5C (9F) is the difference between an ice age and not being an ice age.

 

The temperature change responds logarithmically to CO2 concentrations.

[lkraus]

I think you mean 6 degrees cooler rather than sixty.    On a PC, ALT+167 produces the degree symbol, as in 6ºF.

[9Mary7]

7 minutes ago, BrianM said:

Yes, currently the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 60F gain in global average temperature. Been that way long before the industrial revolution.

 

Remove the effects of the greenhouse effect would result in 60F lower average temperatures.

Less than 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for a rise of 60F.

 

A change of 5C (9F) is the difference between an ice age and not being an ice age.

Makes no sense.... we should be in an ice age now by your figuring.....

[BrianM]

1 minute ago, lkraus said:

I think you mean 6 degrees cooler rather than sixty.    On a PC, ALT+167 produces the degree symbol, as in 6ºF.

I am not using a pc.

 

I mean 60 (sixty).

 

The current average Earth surface temperature is about 60F.

 

If we could turn off the greenhouse effect, that temperature would be 0F.

[Rougarou]

7 minutes ago, BrianM said:

Yes, currently the greenhouse effect is responsible for about 60F gain in global average temperature. Been that way long before the industrial revolution.

 

Remove the effects of the greenhouse effect would result in 60F lower average temperatures.

Less than 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for a rise of 60F.

 

A change of 5C (9F) is the difference between an ice age and not being an ice age.

 

The temperature change responds logarithmically to CO2 concentrations.

 

Soooo, if no greenhouse effect was created, the average temp here in my little town would be 60* lower? 28* in July and -11 in Jan.

 

 

 

that would totally suck,,........so, I'm glad the greenhouse effect is in play.  

[BrianM]

5 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

Makes no sense.... we should be in an ice age now by your figuring.....

Where?

Why?

 

I have said nothing that should lead you to that conclusion.

 

Just because our current atmosphere leads to 60F warming, how would indicate an ice age?

 

Please explain your logic.

[9Mary7]

I refer you to Richard's last post.^

[BrianM]

6 minutes ago, 9Mary7 said:

I refer you to Richard's last post.^

That does not explain to how what I posted would lead one to believe that under current conditions we should be in an ice age.

 

Please explain.

 

The greenhouse effect is not going to turn off.

 

If however we could, the new equilibrium would result in an average global surface temperature 60F (33C) cooler. Would all temperatures drop by that amount? Probably not. The changes would probably not be uniform. A system such as Earth is quite complex for such a simplistic uniform change.

[BrianM]

Maybe it is becoming apparent what a small fraction of our atmosphere can do.

 

Remove our greenhouse gases and Earth would be a snowball (Earth has been a snowball in the past). It is a delicate balance of these gases that make the current climate possible. Make a change, and climate will respond. Humans are more than capable of making that change.

 

I do find it interesting that the current state of the greenhouse effect seems to have made the largest impression. This is something I have known about for about 40 years. Yet nothing about the information about human contributions to these gases through fossil fuel use.

[Rougarou]

22 minutes ago, BrianM said:

That does not explain to how what I posted would lead one to believe that under current conditions we should be in an ice age.

 

Please explain.

 

The greenhouse effect is not going to turn off.

 

If however we could, the new equilibrium would result in an average global surface temperature 60F (33C) cooler. Would all temperatures drop by that amount? Probably not. The changes would probably not be uniform. A system such as Earth is quite complex for such a simplistic uniform change.

 

You said average,....so with local average temps being what they are, would local average temps drop to that degree or even close, if so, I don't want any part of it.  

 

Let's shut out all CO2 producing machinery, in a few thousand years, the earth's temp gradually increase to the 60* lower, I am glad I won't be around for that 'cause I do like to have nice warm/hot summers.

[BrianM]

2 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

 

You said average,....so with local average temps being what they are, would local average temps drop to that degree or even close, if so, I don't want any part of it.  

 

Let's shut out all CO2 producing machinery, in a few thousand years, the earth's temp gradually increase to the 60* lower, I am glad I won't be around for that 'cause I do like to have nice warm/hot summers.

Yes, probably all areas would cool if all were removed. That is not going to happen.

 

This system was in equilibrium before the industrial revolution. Staying under 300ppm.

 

Temperature rise is due to human production of greenhouse gases.

 

Remove all human sources of CO2 would cause Earth to return to pre industrial levels. It would not cause these gases to all suddenly go to zero. Look up carbon cycle. These gases existed long before humans.

 

No one is proposing removal of all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

[BrianM]

29 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

 

 

Let's shut out all CO2 producing machinery, in a few thousand years, the earth's temp gradually increase to the 60* lower, I am glad I won't be around for that 'cause I do like to have nice warm/hot summers.

This paragraph is a huge leap in logic.

 

How would one turn off all CO2 production?

 

If by machinery, you mean human, note humans are not responsible for all CO2 entering the environment.

 

The system was in equilibrium (250-300ppm) before we started adding to it. Removal of human sources would not cause a 60F drop. Not really sure where you got that from. It was not 60F cooler before the industrial revolution.

[realshelby]

12 hours ago, 9Mary7 said:

 

Destroying the US economy and ultimately the country by chasing the climate change agenda is the height of hubris in my opinion, and the fact that "scientists" love to debate theories on both sides while the country pays the price is disgusting in its callous disregard for us common folk.

I seem to remember a similar mindset when automobile smog regulations were being introduced. 

 

Yet here we are and there just isn't an argument that those regulations actually helped the economy, jobs, the environment, and our health. 

[9Mary7]

9 hours ago, realshelby said:

I seem to remember a similar mindset when automobile smog regulations were being introduced. 

Apples to oranges..... no comparison.

[Rougarou]

10 hours ago, BrianM said:

This paragraph is a huge leap in logic.

 

How would one turn off all CO2 production?

 

It was sarcasm, obviously, we cannot shut it all down

 

10 hours ago, BrianM said:

 

If by machinery, you mean human, note humans are not responsible for all CO2 entering the environment.

 

I meant machinery, but all animals produce CO2, as well as the earth itself duh.  When asked how I'm doing, sometimes I respond, "so long as I'm sucking in oxygen and pushing out carbon dioxide, I'm doing fine"

 

10 hours ago, BrianM said:

 

The system was in equilibrium (250-300ppm) before we started adding to it. Removal of human sources would not cause a 60F drop. Not really sure where you got that from. It was not 60F cooler before the industrial revolution.

 

You said:
 

Quote

 

The greenhouse effect is not going to turn off.

 

If however we could, the new equilibrium would result in an average global surface temperature 60F (33C) cooler.

 

 

How is a neanderthal like me supposed to take this statement.  "If we could (turn off the greenhouse effect), the average temp will be 60* cooler".  What am I missing.

[BrianM]

13 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

 

It was sarcasm, obviously, we cannot shut it all down

 

 

I meant machinery, but all animals produce CO2, as well as the earth itself duh.  When asked how I'm doing, sometimes I respond, "so long as I'm sucking in oxygen and pushing out carbon dioxide, I'm doing fine"

 

 

You said:
 

 

How is a neanderthal like me supposed to take this statement.  "If we could (turn off the greenhouse effect), the average temp will be 60* cooler".  What am I missing.

My mistake for taking you seriously. 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

On 2/15/2021 at 8:54 PM, Rougarou said:

How is a neanderthal like me supposed to take this statement.  "If we could (turn off the greenhouse effect), the average temp will be 60* cooler".  What am I missing.

 

The greenhouse effect is due to all of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Natural processes have maintained a CO2 balance over the past 11,000 years or so that has kept the earth a good ~60 degrees warmer than it would have been without it.  This is a temp that's been pretty agreeable for us, but lately our consumption of fossil fuels has been increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration and causing a steep (on geological timescales) rise in global average temperature.  The increased temp due to fossil fuel consumption is currently on the order of a degree or two (F) above what it was  before the industrial revolution, but is projected to increase by a few more degrees.

 

"Turning off the greenhouse effect" would mean undoing the small manmade greenhouse effect (eliminating our fossil fuel consumption) and the much larger natural greenhouse effect (due to the natural carbon cycle).  If you could somehow do that and get all of the manmade and naturally occurring CO2 out of the atmosphere, yes, you'd see that 60F drop from current levels.

 

[Rougarou]

22 minutes ago, Joe Frickin' Friday said:

 

 

"Turning off the greenhouse effect" would mean undoing the small manmade greenhouse effect (eliminating our fossil fuel consumption) and the much larger natural greenhouse effect (due to the natural carbon cycle).  If you could somehow do that and get all of the manmade and naturally occurring CO2 out of the atmosphere, yes, you'd see that 60F drop from current levels.

 

 

And that's how I took it, turn it all off and we get cold (not desirable)

 

Quote from above:

"The greenhouse effect is real. There is no scientific debate about it. Without it, the average Earth surface temperature would be about 60F cooler."

 

Hence my questions of why would I want a 60* drop by ridding us of the greenhouse effect,....I wouldn't, I'd want the greenhouse effect happening to keep my nice warm/hot summers.

 

  

Quote

The greenhouse effect is due to all of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Natural processes have maintained a CO2 balance over the past 11,000 years or so that has kept the earth a good ~60 degrees warmer than it would have been without it.  This is a temp that's been pretty agreeable for us, but lately our consumption of fossil fuels has been increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration and causing a steep (on geological timescales) rise in global average temperature.  The increased temp due to fossil fuel consumption is currently on the order of a degree or two (F) above what it was  before the industrial revolution, but is projected to increase by a few more degrees.

 

Yep, per the happy engineering and climatologist graphs, it certainly shows a rise.  With all the doomsday point of no return folks, and the current slow transcend to more green energy, it'll be quite different scale in a few thousand years.  Green energy will come, not as fast as some want, but it's on the way in, I don't doubt that, but I also don't see the extinction of fossil fuels by 2050.