Generally speaking, I agree with a lot of your posts. However, I think
on this one, you are missing a few points, so I will to try and politely
address them.

On 9/19/2010 3:54 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Well, it's not energy [from volcanoes] per se. It's the gaseous
droplets and particulate matter ejected into the air by volcanoes.

Absolute FACT #1: Carbon dioxide IS a "greenhouse" gas (lets solar
heat in but won't let it escape).

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, cO2 is rather benign and not any real thing to worry
about.

I don't know about "benign"; above a certain percentage, carbon dioxide
will kill you...but that wasn't my point.

The point IS that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as more and more CO2 is
introduced to the atmosphere, more and more solar energy is captured,
thus raising the earth's temperature.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

Anyone growing marijuana or aquarium plants, and supplying them with
excess cO2, knows the voracious appetite of plants for carbon
dioxide. The effect of adding more cO2 is very dramatic on plant
growth. When we finally find another fuel source, the plants will
clean up this problem very quickly. All life on this planet is carbon
based, carbon is a nutrient, not a poison.

Again, no one said CO2 is a poison per se (even though it -will- kill
you above a certain concentration).

The problem with your plant theory is at least two fold:

1) More and more green areas are being "developed" (paved over).

2) The rain forests are disappearing at an alarming rate.

If your plant theory is such a miracle cure (and "cleaning up the
problem very quickly"), why do the ice samples show CO2 is INCREASING at
such a rapid rate? All those plants that were going to save us must be
loafing. ;-)

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

However, there is one detrimental effect of cO2. It is dissolving in
the oceans which provide a natural buffering (absorbing) medium. This
is causing a slight rise in the acidity of the oceans, and
particularly near shorelines, and this is detrimental on the shells
of mussels, clams, etc. There are probably other problems with the
excess cO2 that I am not aware of, as this is not a great matter of
concern to me.

You are correct...and there -are- other problems that -should- be of
concern to you (Law of Unintended Consequences). Bottom line is we (the
world population) cannot just keep pumping bazillions of tons of CO2
into the atmosphere, year after year, and not expect to have negative
consequences.

On 9/19/2010 7:31 PM, John Smith wrote:

More nuclear plants would be a good answer, until we find the next
energy source, however, there is even more opposition to the use of
nuclear power plants than coal/oil fired plants. One thing is for
sure, nuclear will only be a temporary solution when we run out of
oil/coal, as this is in limited supply also.

I almost agree with you, but unfortunately, with your nuclear power
solution, you overlook two critical issues:

1) Nuclear fuel is extremely energy intensive to produce. Takes a lot of
time and power to run those centrifuges...and due to fear of nuclear
proliferation, breeder reactors may not be on the horizon any time soon.

2) We have to live with and safely store the waste from the nuclear
power plants for a while, like say, 50,000 years or so.

Regards,
Joe