New threat to Earth-based astronomy

If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
among them a Nobel laureate.

This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
climate change.

Complete article he

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL

wrote:
If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
among them a Nobel laureate.

This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
climate change.

Complete article he

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL

It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
interferred with amateur astronomy.

Don't Be Evil wrote:
wrote:
If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
among them a Nobel laureate.

This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
climate change.

Complete article he

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/16/international/i112951S42.DTL

It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
interferred with amateur astronomy.

Maybe it's payback time; those cities you cited are among the worst
light-polluters interfering with amateur astronomy.

:-)

The proposal cited in the article (above) however would also affect
professional
observatories. If the atmosphere itself is dimmed with pollutants, ALL
are affected.

Seriously, though, it would seem that, perhaps, mylar (or carbon nano
flats or
something else) sheeting could be placed in orbit (near SOHO?) to act
as a
shield when/if necessary to eliminate the need to muck with Earth's
atmosphere.

Don't Be Evil wrote:
It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
interferred with amateur astronomy.

You're quite right - that, in itself, wouldn't be terrible.

However, what *is* terrible is that we can't save these cities without
both interfering with amateur astronomy AND without filling people's
lungs with gunk by doing it the *right* way.

By putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This doesn't mean shutting down all the use of oil, gas, and coal and
going to wind power and solar power instead - that would so drastically
constrict the world economy as to leave people starving everywhere, and
that, too, would interfere with amateur astronomy, among other things.

No. Instead, shut down the use of oil, gas, and coal, but *more* than
replace the energy they produce with as many nuclear power plants as
are needed! Clean, *abundant* energy(thanks to reprocessing, of course,
otherwise there wouldn't be enough uranium), fully sufficient to power
a new economic boom like that of the 1960s.

John Savard

wrote in message
oups.com...
Don't Be Evil wrote:
It would be terrible if saving New York, Miami, Rio De Janeiro, Los
Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sidney, Cape Town, Hamburg, and London
interferred with amateur astronomy.

You're quite right - that, in itself, wouldn't be terrible.

However, what *is* terrible is that we can't save these cities without
both interfering with amateur astronomy AND without filling people's
lungs with gunk by doing it the *right* way.

By putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This doesn't mean shutting down all the use of oil, gas, and coal and
going to wind power and solar power instead - that would so drastically
constrict the world economy as to leave people starving everywhere, and
that, too, would interfere with amateur astronomy, among other things.

No. Instead, shut down the use of oil, gas, and coal, but *more* than
replace the energy they produce with as many nuclear power plants as
are needed! Clean, *abundant* energy(thanks to reprocessing, of course,
otherwise there wouldn't be enough uranium), fully sufficient to power
a new economic boom like that of the 1960s.

John Savard

Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
you'll begin to make a difference.

peace,
jon

Jax wrote:
Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
you'll begin to make a difference.

Well, in that case just build a bit more nuclear power generating
capacity, and use it to make hydrogen fuel for the cars.

That, of course, is more problematic, since running out and buying a
new car is expensive - and since people who have cars are richer than
those who don't, it's hard to see the government paying for it.

John Savard

wrote in message
ups.com...
Jax wrote:
Yep, that'll save 31% co2 emissons. With an additional 40% reduction
you'll begin to make a difference.

Well, in that case just build a bit more nuclear power generating
capacity, and use it to make hydrogen fuel for the cars.

That, of course, is more problematic, since running out and buying a
new car is expensive - and since people who have cars are richer than
those who don't, it's hard to see the government paying for it.

John Savard


Switch all cars to hydrogen and gain another 15% savings. Only 25% more to
go!

peace,
jon

On 16 Nov 2006 11:54:28 -0800, wrote:

If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to
draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution
deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the
planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists,
among them a Nobel laureate.

This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global
haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off
climate change.

Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
in another 20 or 30 years.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
in another 20 or 30 years.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

I agree. We barely have to political will to stop increasing CO2
output, nevermind starting to reduce it. And, natural forces may
already be starting to amplify the effect. For instance, the snowcover
is melting in the arctic, resulting in less sunlight being reflected
back into space.

However, they may be way lower-tech solutions. How about painting
roads, roofs, parking lots, etc white? How about growing more trees,
maybe diverting water from the Great Lakes to do it? Burying trash
instead of burning it?

Greg

Unfortunately, we've allowed things to get so out of hand that drastic
measures are probably going to be required. There might still be time to
reverse things without such measures, but I just don't think the
political will is there to really try. So that leaves "geoengineering"
in another 20 or 30 years.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Do *you* have the will? Are you off the grid yet? Is your electricity
green? Have you given up driving a car with an internal combustion
engine? Are you prepared to give up *your* lifestyle living in the
sticks to accomplish the goal of reducing CO2?

Political will comes from individual leadership. In this country, you
*are* a leader. Aside from castigating others for their indolence, how
are you leading?