The Maine Solution to Global Warming

Hi Mark,
I would love to open a dialogue with you but I do not have your email address. I know you tried to give it but the only thing that came through was mwallach@... You can get to me by sending me an off-line message at ljan910 @... Notice I had to leave a space or my email address would not have transmitted properly just one of the quirks of Yahoo
In this respect I want to highlight the comments I received from another space interest web site as a result of the practically identical post I send to this group. This is some of the best information I could ever have hoped to receive as a result of the post.
Best regards,
Leon Neihouse
(snip)
Consider the following:
1. Though it is not being widely spread by the Anthropomorphic Caused Global Warming (ACGW-aka: Human Caused) community, one of the 'major supporting' documents they have been using to 'prove' global warming is mans' fault ACTUALLY says the opposite in its conclusions section:
_http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20040802/_
(http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20040802/)

This is used as part of the 'answer' to those who 'doubt' human caused
global warming by asking if the Sun isn't the 'main' component of climate
change.
The 'answer' usually being that the Max Planck Institute study sited in this
new release shows "No solar" increase since 1940, or that the "data does not
show the sun to be a contributor to the global rise in temperature" etc.
Which is 'true' except that these statements are both taken out of context AND
edited.
What the report says is that using satellite based solar observations, (now
considered THE only source of accurate solar data since becoming available
over 30 years ago has shown HUGE inaccuracies in previous data) the MPI and a Finnish solar observatory group were able to accurately model solar
contribution to Global Climate change and apply that model to factors available through historical sun spot data, (found to be very accurate) and radioactive isotopes from ice core samples as well as some other indicators. With this model and data they have been able to accurately trend solar contribution to the global climate back almost 11,400 years. (To the end of the last Ice Age) This article, (not mentioned on the ACGW sites and is a follow up to the study that IS mentioned)
_http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.html_
(http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.
html)

Clearly shows that the current trend of global warming IS caused by
increasing solar activity which, as of 2004, was at it's HIGHEST levels in the
last 800 years!
The model clearly shows that the Sun, not human activity is responsible for
Global Warming, however, (big however here) the model with the sun as the
major factor does NOT match global temperature rise along the curve over the
last 30-43 bringing into question what has caused THIS rise. The report concludes with this statement:
"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar
radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit
the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase
in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within
this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present
global warming.

These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between
variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point
of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly
as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the
emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal,
gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since,
according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field,
the significant increase in the Earths temperature since 1980 is indeed to be
ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."

The second report concludes with this statement: "Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stressthe fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research."

Adding to this 'problem' with the conclusions is the fact the 'contested'
period includes the Challenger disaster which significantly delayed a solar
observation satellites replacement launch by almost 10 years in which data was 'gathered' through vastly inferior and questionable 'secondary' satellites.

Since the Human Caused Global Warming period shrinks from the 'beginning of the industrial revolution' to only the last 30 years, (maybe) this calls into
question a HUGE amount of the 'catastrophe' Global Warming models which
predict any sort of 'tipping' point as expounded upon by Mr. Gore and others
who seek government intervention due to human cause on Climate Change.

2. The 'controversy' over Human effect on Global Climate is far from over or
settled in any manner. The problem with Mr. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is
that it ALSO ignores several 'inconvenient' sets of data that seem to imply
that Global Climate change is occurring on other planets of the Solar System as
well as Earth, that there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in that
atmosphere than currently, that the actual contribution of CO2 to 'greenhouse'
warming is in question, that the historical CO2 record both shows that CO2
emission can proceed or follow global temperature change by up to 800 years,
that 'natural' emissions of CO2 are a huge part of the 'overall' quoted CO2
total yet the 'charge' is that the high CO2 level is solely man-made, that the
'consensus' on Human Caused Global Warming is no such thing, and for every
institution that 'supports' Human Caused Global Warming, there are a significant portion of scientists IN those organizations that support NO such conclusion?
I could go on. Add to this a world wide movement to 'prove' and 'correct' Global Warming no matter the actual science, (as displayed by the United Nations Report On Climate Change which is on public record as having to have its science 'adjusted' to fit the conclusions presented by the politically motivated panelin a summery written before the report was even finished) and the political climate is NOT going to be condusive to the type of program your proposing.

3. Kicker here, the model that has accuratly showed the Sun to be the major
contributor to Global Warming has ANOTHER use in that it accuratly shows the solar activity cycles over the last 11,400 years. Again from the follow up
study let me highlight this:
"Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades."

Meaning that solar activity is going into a DECREASING period, possibly far
enough to be looking at the begining of a new Ice Age in a matter of
centuries. The model is not a predictor of future solar activity, but the
cyclic nature of such activity CAN be used to model future activity. We don't have enough accurate data on solar process' at this point to tell if this will be a
long-term (Ice Age) or a short term (Middle Ages "Little Ice Age" solar
minimum) down turn. Some estimates put the beginning of Global Cooling as close as 2012.
_http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html_
(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html)
_http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html_
(http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html)

(snip)
If you haven't already I suggest you 'google' Solar Power Satellites and
Global Warming and look for some of the (currently) more radical ACGW pages. You'll easily find very well written articles 'citing' obscure and hard to
confirm 'studies' that show that microwave beaming of power from such
satellites will cause everything from massively increased global warming to vaporizing the oceans killing all life on the planet. You and I may know that this is bull, but science and rational debate are not on the current agenda. (For either side it seems)

5. (snip) there are a lot of other options, many which don't generate 'thousands' of Gs acceleration. Modular Laser Launch Systems are one that is very scaleable and economic:
_http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf)
_http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf)

Microwave Beamed Launch is another possibility, here is a comparison of the
two launch methods:
_http://monolith.caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf_
(http://monolith.caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf)
_http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf_
(http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf)

Both of these are readily 'scaleable' from a small initial suborbital test
launch set up to a full scale high-rate launcher, whereas an EM launcher or
Sling-A-Tron must be built to full scale in one shot. Something to consider.
(One thing to remember about all these launch systems so far mentioned is that their payloads PER LAUNCH is going to be quite small, @... for most, and they are going to be required to put dozens or even hundreds of payloads a day into orbit in order to build even the smallest test SPS. This is going to
require in and of itself a large orbital infrastructure and the ability to
'chase-down' and capture most of these payloads in various orbits to return to a central location for building the SPS systems.)

Another possibility is 'parterning' with another company/organization that
is pursuing the same goals as you to increase your leverage. You mentioned
needing a 'construction' shack in LEO, and had suggested the ISS. (snip) has
pointed out several flaws in this idea, I need to point out another: Your
suggested launch site would find it VERY difficult to launch parts to the ISS
due to the orbital plane the ISS is currently in. You might consider a more 'conventional' approach to launch services by teaming with the Space Islands Group:
_http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html_
(http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html)

Their goals and yours are very similar and they have had interest shown
already by international partners. Though the proposed use of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle is in doubt due to NASAs decision to design and operate the VERY NOT Shuttle Derived Ares-I/V, there is always the possibility of getting private funding. (The Group already has written contracts for leasing the Vandenburg Shuttle Launch pad) Even figuring into the equation 'conventional' launch services have been found to be 'economical' to use for SPS construction given the 'correct' global economic situation. Companies like Space-X, or even Lockheed-Martin might be able to provide cost effective launch systems.

(snip)
While most of the parts needed for an SPS CAN be EM launched, your also
going to be having to launch the supplies to implement and support the large
orbital infrastructure required but not mentioned in your proposal as well. (snip)
Here is a presentation presented by Dr. Jordin Kare at the 2003 Space
Elevator Conference that shows just SOME of the hurdles and bumps that could come up along the way:
_http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf_
(http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf)

You might want to give it a look over before you get to deep into planning.

(snip)
One of the things we always seem to have 'lurking' on the list is a good
amount of intelligent, creative, and well-read individuals that can help flesh
out your plan. (snip)