Hi Mark,

The problem is not an easy one to solve. I did some research on Arizona and temperatures, before I came out here, and discovered that 115 degree summers have been recorded regularly over the last forty years.

Temperature here is not the byproduct of greenhouse gases - or the trapping of heat - but rather the absence of them.

The lack of humidity lets more sunlight through. Basically, it is similar to being at a higher elevation where the atmosphere is thinner.

One of my greatest "fears" is that the sun is much more variable in output than anyone would like to admit.

Just a one-one hundredth of a shift in solar ouput projected towards earth could easily account for drastic "global warming" and the destruction of a planet like earth.

Solar activity is cyclic. Our planet's rotation on the galactic arms and movement through space of varying fundamental vibrations may easily account for cycles of energy transference of incalculable length.

It is much more likely that global warming will occur regardless of greenhouse gases. In fact it is also possible we may speed up global warming by cutting down on particulate emissions.



Indeed particles and pollution intercept much of the sunlight and reduce the temperature.

Here's an example - Phoenix,AZ San Diego, CA and Lake Forest CA are all within several hundred miles of eachother and debatably can be considered to receive sunlight of equal doses as it travels through space.

On a given day in June, Phoenix may be 105 degrees - San Diego may be 74 degrees and Lake Forest may be 67 degrees.

These are pretty consistent ratios. The difference in temperature is clearly linked to the passage of sunlight through the atmosphere.

The smoggiest of these regions is Lake Forest, California - and this region also has the lowest temperature.

The hottest is Phoenix which has the least smog.

So from a limited model and based on historic temperatures - one could make a solid case that the layer of pollution which hangs over LA - keeps it cooler.

The smog layer of LA just begins to dissipate as it reaches San Diego - and the temperatures increase slightly.

So indeed a thick pollution layer over San Diego - might bring down global temperature. Just as a thick pollution layer might cut down UV and temperature in Phoenix.

The world is the sum of its temperatures at any given time, and temperature is clearly linked to the amount of sunlight which makes it to the ground.

If particulates bounce back rays in the upper atmosphere - where there are lower temperatures - then global warmth should DECREASE. It is only when more sunlight makes it into the lower atmosphere and the ground that sunlight increases temperatures on earth.

That is why scientists as recent as thirty years ago feared pollution would create a new ICE AGE - and cool the earth by blocking out the warming sunlight.

This seems a much more likely scenario based upon HARD DATA.

Wouldn't it be ironic - and terrifying - that man sped up global warming in a hysterical attempt to cut down pollution and supposed "greenhouse" gases?

The trapping "bounce-back heat" effect of these gases is easily offset by their initial earth cooling capacity in any model of global temperatures.

Indeed, a model could be generated which showed that pollution controls on cars increased US temperatures. Since the 1960's were significantly cooler than the seventies.

I think this is Larry's point - that models are fallible and with insufficient data - inaction IS preferable to action which may indeed make things worse and not better.

Clearly, if a thick layer of smog orbited our planet, blocking out sunlight - drastic cooling would result. Global warming would not result. The ice ages which are likely a component of earth's cyclic temperature shifts would return. Ice ages were probably previously caused by the pollutants created by volcanic activity - pollutants which make human emissions appear almost insignificant.

The life-snuffing volcanic pollution might've easily choked the dinosaurs in the same manner as it did the citizens of Pompeii. Global warming did not kill the dinosaurs.

Indeed polluting LEO with small particulates - might very well prevent the global warming we are witnessing.

But I would not recommend any action until more data can be obtained. Unfortunately, like the big bang and other hypothesis low on data - many unscrupulous or simply greedy scientists can blow smoke out their posteriors and write up papers which support almost any conclusion.

As the next generation of scientists grow up hearing about global warming - it is natural that many will assume there is some truth to the model. Unfortunately I have learned that many models can be popular - and last for decades - even if totally erroneous. In many ways each scientist must take all science and re-evaluate it. That is what scientists do. You cannot accept wholesale the conclusions of someone else's as yet unconfirmed hypothesis - but make your own models, collect your own data and then compare. It is all too easy to overlook crucial processes occuring in the atmospheric changes of our planet.

As someone who knows what 120 degrees feels like - I think it is safe to say I don't want global warming to occur any more than the most devoted environmentalist. However, I am not reactionary and will not advocate action which may make things worse, while giving a false sense of security - and slowing research which may indeed be crucial to saving mankind and making his stay on the planet more enjoyable and and enduring.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1