Let's go back to my earlier suggestion and answer the questions one at a time. The first is, is there global climate change occurring that can be described as the troposphere energy density increasing? I presume from your many declarations that you think this is the case. Is it? Because if this is the case then studying it to learn what causes it, and then to figure out if there is some way for mankind to limit the detrimental effects of it, should those effects actually be detrimental, hardly seems inappropriate.
If you are ever entrusted to run a technically challenging project, I hope you do consider spending some of your budget examining issues that you know you are going to encounter during the project, as well as those you, or others think you may encounter. And then plan "work around" and alternate approaches (all plural, and not by accident).
The entire argument you make comes down to money. You don't want to spend it investigating the potential of global climate change, or the potential "work around's" or alternates ahead of time, should the problem become so apparent that even those who don't want to see it can no longer deny it is upon us.
The entire "innovation" and "high tech" business world was an offshoot of the space program. Another big government project that Microsoft alone has paid back to our government in taxes. Without the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Projects (each with lots of work around's and alternate plans that were prepared, some implemented, and some not) it is likely that America might not have been investing in the basic research and then development of technologies that spawned the microprocessor.
No, TnT, you are motivated by your own all consuming greed and selfishness. You won't benefit so you want to "see the evidence yourself" and you will only accept cataclysmic conditions as evidence. Which may not happen in your lifetime even if we do nothing. The rest of your argument goes back and forth, but the fulcrum is your personal attachment to your dollars. Don't spend it investigating the problem and don't spend it investigating potential solutions.
So, back to the first question. Is global climate change, regardless of the cause, bringing us a higher energy density in the troposphere?
Keep the answer simple. Yes or no. We can go from there. Jim
Yes obviously there is an increase in energy as you put it. This energy is the absorption of radiation from both the sun and the earth's reflected radiation.
So no onto something in your post here that has piqued my interest.
Are you saying that "OK we may not actually have any real effect either positive or negative, but just think of the technology that will come from the spending initiatives."? Because that is what it sounds like when you talk about the space program.
As for not spending money on the potential of global climate change...
Let me ask you the following question. Would you spend money on trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
That is what this boils down to. Mother Nature is at work. The earth warms and it cools. This is the circle of life. The arrogance that is displayed by people who think they know better is astounding! This is the same thought process that has allowed our forests to turn into tinder boxes. We have preached fire prevention in our forests for so long that we now have the problem that we have not let mother nature take her course. If we had allowed the natural fires to happen, we wouldn't see the catastrophic conflagrations that we have been seeing in the past 20 years.
So yes, I am very reluctant to spend any more money, increase taxes, decrease production output, or whatever because someone somewhere thinks that this is the end of the world as we know it and they can save us if we only give them more grants to study the ice cores from 200,000 years ago for the 14th time.
The fact is the information is there. We are not doing anything that is significantly increasing the temperature of our beautiful planet.
Go sell your fear and hatred somewhere else.