[Geof]

And a point Mariss did not include in the Ethanol example is that more energy is consumed in the growth of the corn and all the subsequent processing steps than is produced in the resulting Ethanol. This has been and still is denied by the Ethanol advocates with the silliest argument I have seen so far being the statement that it is not correct to include the energy utilized to make pesticides and fertilizer used on the corn crop as an input energy.

And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence. really is the bottom line. It is a long way off even at current levels of fossil fuel consumption because there are still immense quantities of coal, and, if a successful way of tapping them is developed, even vaster deposits of methane hydrates.

And I can hear you saying that these all release CO2 which is correct. If we want to continue with our energy profligate lifestyle there is no alternative. If all the predictions from the IPCC are correct our descendants have some serious problems to solve. I think that all the stuff about mass extinctions and greater weather extremes is nonsense. As I have mentioned previously there is no evidence that this has happened with earlier warm spells. And as Lomborg points out some of the changes such as agriculture being enhanced in northern regions actually are positive.

The really big problem certainly will be sea level rising; this is likely but may be overstated. The Antarctic continent is still going to remain frozen and already there are indications that some regions are experiencing increased precipitation which is going to increase the amount of water tied up in that ice mass. In addition while permanent sea ice cover in the Arctic will diminish it is possible that precipitation in the form of snow could be greatly increased on the land area surrounding the Arctic Ocean. This is something that does not seem to have been considered but fifty years ago the possibility of greatly increased snow fall arising from increased open Arctic waters was postulated. The context was not global warming but a proposal by the Soviets to increase the shipping season for their Arctic ports by spreading coal dust on the ice. The theory was that the black would absorb solar radiation better leading to an earlier and more extensive summer melt. This would lead to a delayed freeze up in the Fall giving the extended port accessibility. The plan was not put into practice because of the fear that the extra open water in late Fall and early Winter would create a moisture source for enhanced snow fall. The concern was not and is not without merit; the prevailing winds blow from the north, i.e. from the water, and greatly enhanced snow fall down wind of open water is well know. This is the 'lake effect' experienced down wind of the Great Lakes. It is too early to know for sure whether this has already started but definitely the freeze up in the Canadian Arctic is occurring later in the season; we know that from the hungry Polar Bears. I have seen reports that some areas in the north have had greater than average snowfalls for several years now but it is impossible to say whether this is just a weather cycle with a period of a decade or so or whether it is a permanent change; only time will tell. However, if this increased precipitation does occur it is possible that it could enhance the mass of the permanent land based snow and ice cover in the north including the Greenland Icecap. Combined with increased accummulation in the Antarctic the future may hold lower sea levels not higher.