Written last: With some sadness I've moved this into [OT]. It ***is*** [TECH] (reasons below) but there are a few people who get upset by such for whatever reason that OT is a safer haven. ______________ IPCC discussions, starting today, on ways to reduce insolation levels and/or increase planetary albedo. Posted with this tag [TECH] and thread as it's: A real discussion on global scale (very literally) technology <- starts NOW at an official international above**-government level by the people who have most chance officially to bring it about re real engineering ie Geoengineering [their term] the whole world with specific reference to SRM (Solar Radiation Management) [their term](real discussions on real ways to reduce or change the effects of "sunshine") (ie real science (we hope), real engineering (we hope), real enough (whatever) that world governments are jointly paying people to write papers and hold international conferences). For those who have not meant the term, SRM most usually means "making the sunshine less strong or less effective" , typically on a global scale. 'Less strong' means stopping more of it from getting down here and 'Less effective' typically means making more of it go back where it came fr= om. While I have discussed SRM in various ways with various people for many decades, seeing it on an IPCC agenda for a meeting that starts tomorrow in Peru gave me the shivers (literally) . "Cool, and or something else, your world, Sir?" Agenda on IPCC site here http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/Geoeng_Agenda_final_2011_06_= 17.pdf SCRIBD abstracts (24 pages) with enough detail to make your teeth curl. Anyone without curly teeth after skimming this stuff is one or more of not an engineer, not human, not awake, not sane, irresponsible, or ??? .. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57920959/Joint-IPCC-expert-meeting-on-geoeng= ineering-keynote-abstracts Included in the abstracts are various papers on gross CO2 sequestration systems, "The policy, governance and socio-economic aspects of geoengineering"*, and more. **** Bottom of p16, top of p17 sounds good until thought through. To me it sounds ~ as follows. Other translations welcome: "This is WAY too hard to try to get international legal consensus on, AND we are better off NOT using international legal agreement to do it. Past efforts to do similar things in an international legals framework were way too hard. There must be some other easier way of doing things this large and radical ...". Some fascinating suggestions for SRM in the abstract. I could list some but if you're interested you'll read it ... :-). Russell ** Inter in English means ~ "between". In the name IPCC the I =3D Intergovernmental but the practical meaning is at least somewhat "above" or "outside". On 13 January 2010 00:31, Russell McMahon wrote: > Of late I've stayed away from the fascinating topic of Global Warming (PC > appelation now 'Climate Change') despite the vast bun fights that have be= en > raging across the net and indeed across the world. > > The following is NOT an entry into the current fray but rather notificati= on > of a truly fascinating (says I) paper on Climate Change which *MAY* do mu= ch > to explain what has been happening to our climate in recent decades and > centuries and millenia, and also what may be going to happen in the next > century or so. > > Anything with this degree of explanatory power (given that all current > models have approximately none with any degree of reliability) would > guarantee its originator at least 1 Nobel Prize, if not several, were it = not > that he died in 2006, and Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. I > understand that the idea is not his original one but a development of a l= ine > of thought. > > If you read in a peer reviewed journal material which could be summarised= :: > > The sun's own orbit has eight characteristic patterns, all > determined by Jupiter's position relative to Saturn, with the other plane= ts > playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smoot= h > and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth > heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop pa= th. > These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on > Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. O= ne > of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 1= 7th > century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next > cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be > felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold. > > You might be excused in thinking that the astrologers had got in on the > process. But, in very fact, this is hard science (or meant to be), althou= gh > certainly open to debate (as is all true science). > > This paper http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf > explains the idea. > And this page (if you'll excuse the site, which will annoy some and cheer > others http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/12/there_are_cold.html > gives a brief introduction. > > At a minimum, skimming the paper is highly recommended if you want to be = in > at the start of what *MAY* prove to be the best explanation of climate > change over many centuries that you'll see in your lifetime. And may not > :-). > > Put really really basically - the sun orbits about the mass centre of the > solar system. Due to the suns mass relative to all the rest the mass cent= re > is up to about 2 x solar radii away from the sun's surface, but can vary > widely with planetary alignment. Needless to say, Jupiter plays a > significant part in this, but the planetary system overall is chaotic and > exact patterns do not repeat. There are however cycles which have similar > characteristics and the major effects of these can be observed - one such > has a period of 179 years. The 18th century "little ice age' matches nice= ly > with this. The theory predicts a new cooling cycle to start in 1996 with = the > effects starting to be evident with an especially cold winters from > about 2010. As the paper was written in 2007 this is not too bad an advan= ce > prediction - but the following predictions are much longer term and more > specific. Solar cycle 24 (just struggling into life now, perhaps, about 2 > years late) will be lower than 23, and 25 and 26 lower again, leading to = a > "little ice age" in cycle 26. The cooling cycle will finish in about 2050= .. > > FWIW some of the predictions match those of NASA's top sunspot man. > > The paper suggests mechanisms of the effect on the sun of the various > interactions which might (and might not) explain what is thought may then > happen :-). > The paper is speculative and, needless to say, has various detractors. > > This discussion gives it both support and a rough time > http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/64934-rhodes-fairbridge-solar= -jerk.html > > Fascinating. > > > Russell > > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .