How do you reconcile the fact that if we succeed in cooling the Earth, we would then need MORE fuel for heat?

Question

I may not have asked this the best way.

Assuming man is creating global warming and we do something to stop it that works, the Earth would then be cooler than if we did nothing different.

So assuming we succeeded in making the Earth less warm than it otherwise would be, that MUST mean that more fuel and energy will be required in those seasons that require heating or cooling than if we had not done anything.

Is it really a good idea to do something makes us need even more fuel and energy?

Answer 1

Stop trying to be a comedian.  This is a serious issue and your God Al Gore has explained it to you before.

Answer 2

EASYYYYYY ignore AGW and AGC(c stands for cooling) because they aint REAL!!!!!!

Answer 3

I have a feeling that the AGW believers think if we can lower our CO2 emissions and clear the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere we will remain at a constant average global temperature. Who knows, maybe some scientists believe if they can get a handle on how the greenhouse gases control the average global temperature they'll be able to learn how to control it to keep the planet from ever going into another glaciation period.

Answer 4

The question itself contains fallacies so it can't be answered.

The assumption is that when you say "succeed in cooling the Earth" you mean stopping AGW (after all this is the GW forum). If we do succeed in stopping AGW, there will NOT be a need for more fuel for heat.

However, if you mean when you say "succeed in cooling the Earth", that you think there are people out there who are seriously trying to cool the planet down to the point where we would need more fuel for heat I suggest you post this question in "Fantasy and Science Fiction".

Edit to your clarification:

The answer lies in the inherent contradiction in the question:

The assumption is that more fuel (e.g. coal, oil, wood, gas)would be needed because that is what we use at the present.

Yet if we continue using what we use at the present then we won't succeed in preventing further global warming.

To prevent further GW (or as you put it, "succeed in cooling the Earth"), we need to stop using 'fuel' for heat in the first place. That is, we need to use energy (preferably from tidal, wind, hydro, solar, etc), NOT fuel (i.e. burning things!) to prevent GW.

Thus any additional energy requirements resulting from a cooler-than-could-have-been Earth will be coming from 'virtuous' sources: No problem!

Summary:

Stop using "fuel" = "cooling the Earth" = more energy needs than if we allowed GW = energy comes from non-fuel sources because we have already stopped using fuel: A nice, virtuous circle that also has all sorts of other benefits (cleaner environment, less dependence on oil producers = more security, cheaper, etc)

Answer 5

We cannot succeed in cooling the Earth.  We're not even trying to.  What we're trying to do is slow the warming.  There is a further 1°F warming already "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've already emitted.

Answer 6

We'll ask the politicians 20 years from now.  I still remember in the early 80's hearing a news segment from Tom Brokaw how they believed we (today) could very well be in an ice age.  While people didn't really believe that, there were still a lot of people who seriously believed that Global Cooling was out of control.  I guess in the past twenty years we have become much smarter, right?