I think David puts it well; and his last line is totally consistent with my view of the geoengineering group. As an informed scientist, albeit without training in climate science, it is difficult not to buy into some role for increased CO2 concentration in warming during the industrial era, but to also not ignore hundreds and thousands of documented warming cycles that have occurred, a few per millennium, without benefit of extra CO2. Ignoring history is narrow in the extreme.
I am mindful of the question asked by the youngest child of a Jewish family during a Passover Seder, who says, "Why is this night different than any other night?" My answer is, it is mostly not different but there is something new in the air and it is extra CO2. The geoengineering group is also painfully not mindful of geological history which shows that the warming since the last ice age from 10 to 12 C to the current ~15 C is not different either. It has occurred a half dozen times during the past 540 million years; once it starts up it continues on to 25 C although not monotonically. There is much we do not understand and we should be humble in our ignorance. That said I have concluded that ignorance trumps certainty and as technologically advanced humans we ought to be prepared for a warmer planet. We cannot ignore Mother Nature. In my ignorance but possessed of good scientific and engineering instinct I see that research into geoengineering is highly prudent for the short term and implementation will be essential for the long term. Hence, I suffer when observing the clear bias of most of the group toward the IPCC, (which repeats over and over again the mantra; CO2, CO2, CO2,...) hoping I suppose that the drippings and crumbs left by the climate science crowd will feed geoengineering. Unfortunately, the IPCC group is not generous because they think correctly that geoengineers may well steal their dessert. There will be no funding unless some go after it and get it from people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet etc. and do some experiments that begin to build a credible foundation for geoengineering. Geoengineering won't get it from governments, who for political expediency has allowed itself to come under the spell of the IPCC mantra. Amazingly one group got it from venture capitalists, who could smell profits. Most of what goes on here is chit chat before the meal waiting for the waiter to come take the order. It will be a long wait. -gene Eugene I. Gordon (908) 233 4677 [email protected] www.germgardlighting.com From: David Schnare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:26 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: More on current solar minimum .... Gents: While I am becoming more and more convinced "the sun did it", and through multiple mechanisms, the geoengineering crowd has, for the most part, drunk the cool aid. They are at core AGW types. The only reason I'm still supporting geoengineering is because I'm not CERTAIN that it's the sun and because geo is so darned inexpensive. Further, we may need it to heat the planet one of these centuries. All in all, however, any discussion of non-AGW sources of warming is simply lost on this group. Cheers, David Schnare On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: This is kind of silly because it is all known. Moreover, it ignores that high energy particles that can enter the Earth's atmosphere when sunspots are low and cause clouds to form that causes cooling. It ignores the fact that sunspots produce huge amounts of UV radiation and the UV is absorbed in the atmosphere also heating the Earth. When sunspot counts are down the UV is down. It ignores that hundreds of prior warmings occurred without benefit of CO2 emissions and probably were largely caused by increased sunspots. Why is there any doubt that although CO2 is the cause of some recent warming it is not the dominating effect that IPCC claims. The AGW supporters have ignored sunspots but can longer duck the issue. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of VNBC INC Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 4:08 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: More on current solar minimum .... Assuming that the lack of sunspots will cool the earth, it couldnt have come at a better time. AMEN On Oct 7, 3:31 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > Few weeks old... > > http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-gener... > > Sunspot drought to test global warming theory > MATT CAWOOD > 17/09/2009 1:32:00 PM > > EARTH is experiencing a sunspot drought which, if it persists, may > deliver a make-or-break test of the theory of anthropogenic global > warming (AGW). > > Along with a dearth of sunspots, NASA reports other signs of a current > lull in the sun's activity, including a 50-year low in solar wind > pressure and a 12 year low in the sun's brightness. > > Some scientists believe that these signs point to more than just a low > point in the 11-year solar cycle. The sun may be entering a "deep > solar minimum". > > Previous solar minimums-the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, the Sp orer > Minimum of 1460-1550 and the Dalton Minimum of 1790-1830-coincided > with periods when Earth's climate was colder than average. > > While the link between solar minimums and a dip in global temperature > isn't fully established, some believe that a solar minimum over the > next couple of decades may be an acid test of whether greenhouse gas > emissions are the primary cause of Earth's sudden warming. > > Among them is University of New England researcher Dr Robert Baker, > who has for several years been working on a theory that the sun is a > key driver of Australian rainfall. > > The Dalton minimum occurred around the turn of the 18th century, and > another minimum was recorded around the turn of the 19th century. > > If this roughly 100-year pattern repeats, Dr Baker believes we may be > in for another multi-decade minimum with correspondingly lower global > temperatures. > > "If we have a solar minimum and global temperatures continue to climb > over the next decade, it will have established carbon dioxide as a > potent force on the Earth's climate," Dr Baker said. > > "It's going to be a very good scientific test of carbon's real > effect." > > Dr Baker says the sun's influence on global climate is underestimated. > > He has for several years been tracking 11-year solar cycles against > the Southern Oscillation Index, with remarkable accuracy-until this > year, when the relationship suddenly fell apart. > > Dr Baker believes this may be because the solar minimum has overridden > the smaller cycles he's been tracking. > > He is now working on a paper outlining a theory that the sun's cycles > influence rain-bearing cloud over the Pacific Ocean. > > How much cosmic radiation enters the Earth's atmosphere, and how far > it penetrates, in Dr Baker's view largely depends on the polarity of > the sun and Earth's magnetic fields. > > His idea is that when the Earth's magnetic field has been neutralised > by negatively-charged particles from the sun, certain forms of cosmic > radiation enter the atmosphere and encourage plankton development in > the oceans. > > Plankton give off dimethyl sulphide, which is regarded as a potent > agent of cloud nucleation-that is, water molecules cluster around the > compound to the point that rain droplets are formed. > > Other forms of radiation in other cycles kill off plankton, Dr Baker > believes, inhibiting cloud formation. > > Dr Baker says he has found a relationship between these processes and > the El Nino-La Nina cycles. > > In its review of Sun-Earth interactions, the Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged that the sun influences Earth's > climate patterns, but determined that human influences are now > overriding those from the Sun. -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
