Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense

Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.

If we really want to do anything about global warming this is clearly
the route we should take. It is absolute nonsense to talk about 2050
without reference to the technologies which will be available then. So
1% of the world's economy will be devoted to reducing carbon emissions.
If one part in 10,000 of the world's economy were to be devoted to
research we could find a solution to both these problems.

I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. Hence the folly of politicians and people like Stern.
This is even without an enhanced program of research. 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.

We really ought to be thinking much more about how technology will look
in the future. Aircraft will be controlled completely by computers and
using liquid hydrogen. What we should be doing is developing innovative
technologies rather than telling people not to fly.

Carbon trading is nonsense and dangerous nonsense .If we accept that
poor governance is the main cause of poverty carbon trading is absolute
madness. North Korea produces very little CO2 and its nuclear weapons
program would get an enormous fillip from any carbon trading scheme.
Carbon trading will also encourage fundamentalism and have a
detrimental effect on the position of women in Moslem countries. You do
not need women if either :-

1) A sticky black substance comes out of the ground.
2) Mad economists like Stern donate you money.

If money were to be given to NGO such as Oxfam and Cafod this might be
different. Putting money in the hands of bad governments must be the
height of folly.

Stern is nonsense and is DANGEROUS nonsense to boot.

On 30 Oct 2006 13:17:15 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
[snip rest of this duck]

Ok, whatever might be done about putting reflectors in orbit to
decrease the sun hitting the Earth, we won't be putting any
at L1 to do that. L1 is the equilib. point between the Earth
and the moon, and it's about 6/7 ths of the way to the moon.
So, what does that mean? It means that if you put something
there it will be providing very slightly more shade than the same
area of the moon. And the moon's shadow will be competing
with it. In other words, it will be useless for the purposes.

They're referring to the earth-sun L1 point, not the earth-moon L1
point.

Now say "never mind..."

Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
[snip rest of this duck]

Ok, whatever might be done about putting reflectors in orbit to
decrease the sun hitting the Earth, we won't be putting any
at L1 to do that. L1 is the equilib. point between the Earth
and the moon, and it's about 6/7 ths of the way to the moon.
So, what does that mean? It means that if you put something
there it will be providing very slightly more shade than the same
area of the moon. And the moon's shadow will be competing
with it. In other words, it will be useless for the purposes.

There's also the question of how stable things are if put there.
Off hand, I'd expect them to be not very stable, especialy if
they presented a huge surface area to solar wind.

If you want to play games with mirrors to affect climate on the
Earth, you want them in LEO or GEO.
Socks

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 13:17:15 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Ian Parker wrote:
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
[snip rest of this duck]

Ok, whatever might be done about putting reflectors in orbit to
decrease the sun hitting the Earth, we won't be putting any
snip
They're referring to the earth-sun L1 point, not the earth-moon L1
point.

Now say "never mind..."

I've posted in the past about a scheme to do this - you put a couple of
lenses and an array of mirrors near L1.

One some 10000Km lens produces an image of the sun, a few dozen
kilometers across.
There you place an array of mirrors.
Another smaller lens close to this array focuses this onto earth.

From earth, this looks like a ring in the center of the sun, which can
either be slightly brighter than the rest, or all the way down to black.

You can actively control weather this way.

FWIW we have aircraft completely controlled by computers now. 747-400
springs to mind as well as various Airbusii. Sure, they have pilot
backup but they can do it by themselves - except for finding the runway
for takeoff and then the gate after landing.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in news:1162268853.294925.225030
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

FWIW we have aircraft completely controlled by computers now. 747-400
springs to mind as well as various Airbusii. Sure, they have pilot
backup but they can do it by themselves - except for finding the runway
for takeoff and then the gate after landing.

And except for handling emergencies, and anything else the programmers
didn't think of.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In sci.space.policy Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"WaltBJ" wrote in news:1162268853.294925.225030
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

FWIW we have aircraft completely controlled by computers now. 747-400
springs to mind as well as various Airbusii. Sure, they have pilot
backup but they can do it by themselves - except for finding the runway
for takeoff and then the gate after landing.

And except for handling emergencies, and anything else the programmers
didn't think of.

You don't have to reduce the error rate to 0.
Just to below that of what pilots get - logically.

And to call them completely computer controlled in normal operation is
probably a bit much.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
And except for handling emergencies, and anything else the programmers
didn't think of.

Emergencies can in point of fact be handled quite well. A neural
network can land you when half of one wing is missing.

Pilotless aircraft are particularly important

1) In the military sphere. 20g can (potentially) be pulled by air
superiority fighters. The Predator is one of the workhorses of Iraq and
very small aircraft could revolutionize surveillance in a counter
insurgency war.

2) Executive aircraft. Their economics could be transformed if the
pilots seats were taken out. A 2 seater exective could function like a
car.

- Ian Parker

For discussion by scientists of the facts of global warming see
http://realclimate.org

wrote in message
ups.com...

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
And except for handling emergencies, and anything else the programmers
didn't think of.

Emergencies can in point of fact be handled quite well. A neural
network can land you when half of one wing is missing.

Pilotless aircraft are particularly important

1) In the military sphere. 20g can (potentially) be pulled by air
superiority fighters. The Predator is one of the workhorses of Iraq and
very small aircraft could revolutionize surveillance in a counter
insurgency war.

2) Executive aircraft. Their economics could be transformed if the
pilots seats were taken out. A 2 seater exective could function like a
car.

- Ian Parker

Posting while drunk?

--

Scott

Drain the swamp. Deport Islam. Until Muslims observe and protect
human/religious rights of others they should not be allowed to remain in the
West. Islam, as practiced, is incompatible with Western freedom.