<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You re-posted comments made by Craig Venter, from my post in the thread "Synthetic Life Forms...," as though I wrote the text included below that you re-posted. This text was sourced from a speech given by genius geneticist extraordinaire Craig Venter, available at the URL below. I am flattered. But do not post content I did not write headed by "Ted Moffett wrote:" while not including the true sources name, which I had carefully included at the bottom of the excerpt from Craig Venter's speech.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html">http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>As far as solar energy forcing of recently observed global climate warming (which is being significantly masked by "global dimming," the cooling impacts of human sourced atmospheric aerosals), this topic has been sliced and diced and argued and counter argued, by the best climate scientists in the world. You can read some of the discussions among climate scientists regarding solar climate forcing, and other cosmic influences, at the URL below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>After reading over these discussions, from my admittedly layman's perspective, I conclude the evidence that there will be a long term increase in solar energy (in the next 100 years, not in the millions of years when the sun will expand into a red giant star and heat the Earth dramatically) that will significantly increase Earth's temperature, to be speculative. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial, to 560 ppm, or even higher, quite likely given current trends of increasing fossil fuel use, global deforestation, cement production (we don't hear much about this), carbon sink reversal, potential methane hydrate breakdown (releasing methane) etc., is likely to dramatically change Earth's climate. These predicted atmospheric CO2 increases are not speculative, and the feedback mechanisms they may activate are potentially severe. I am more concerned that anthropogenic warming may induce large scale methane releases from methane hydrates, than I am about increases in solar radiation exacerbating climate change:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/methane-pulse.html">http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/methane-pulse.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From article at URL above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM, ~55.5 Million years ago) is a well-known example from the past of a period with drastic climate change due to massive releases of methane from hydrates<sup>5-6</sup>. Carbon isotope measurements in ocean cores with sediments from the PETM suggest that 1500-2000 Gt of methane carbon was released within a few thousand years<sup>5,7-9</sup>. This massive methane release had a profound effect on climate. Paleoceanographical evidence from ocean cores indicates that ocean temperatures increased abruptly by 1°C to up to 8°C, depending on the location<sup>10-11. </sup>It has also been suggested that large temperature swings during the last glacial have been caused by abrupt releases of methane hydrates<sup>12-13</sup>. In addition, there is growing concern that the expected future global warming may lead to hydrate instability and thus to an enhanced emission of methane, imposing a strong positive feedback that amplifies anthropogenic warming. It is thus very important to quantify the impact of such a methane hydrate scenario on the climate system. </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/1/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted Moffett wrote:<br>><br>> In closing:<br>><br>> It is my hope that we can embrace, not fear, the necessary science to<br>
> help our planet.<br>><br>> I feel it is imperative that we begin to find ways to adapt to climate<br>> change, while at the same time working to mitigate it. Unfortunately<br>> we are already on a path toward significant change, but if we apply<br>
> ourselves I believe we can find ways to create alternatives to burning<br>> oil and coal. We need multiple simultaneous approaches to solve this<br>> problem, with the goal of net zero carbon emissions to stabilize<br>
> atmospheric concentrations and ensure our survival.<br><br>I hate to be the voice of doom and gloom here, but it may not be that<br>simple. According to this article from <a href="http://Space.com">Space.com</a><br>
(<a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html">http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html</a>), the<br>"Total Solar Irradiance" which measures the total solar energy output in<br>
all wavelengths has increased 0.1 percent in the last 24 years. While<br>this seems a small number, it could have caused notable climate change<br>if the increase has been sustained for a century or more. There is<br>reason to believe that it has, though direct measurements by satellites<br>
have only been accurate enough to measure this for 24 years.<br><br>Of course, pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere has only exacerbated<br>the situation and reducing our carbon footprint would certainly help.<br>If, in fact, the Sun's variation is one of the major factors of climate<br>
change as this study suggests, then this will only help to a certain<br>degree. We may be in need of some out-of-the-box thinking on this one,<br>stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations may not be enough.<br><br>Paul<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>