shade the poles to slow or stop global warming with SPS

Mike Combs wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

As for the S.P.S. that are placed in the Sun-Earth L1 point (quite
stable, but not stable enough for long occupation).

And another problem is that we can't talk about any object at that location
shading any particular part of the globe. At that distance from the Earth,
objects will cast (partial) shadows bigger than the Earth.

And this is a problem... Why?

When I'm in a forest, lots of light hits the ground, yet things are
cooler becuase there's certain amount of shade. You need not create
totality on the ground to achieve a reduction in input energy and sunlight
that would have missed the earth anyway is unimportant to the equation.



John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

wrote in message
...
Mike Combs wrote:

And another problem is that we can't talk about any object at that
location
shading any particular part of the globe. At that distance from the
Earth,
objects will cast (partial) shadows bigger than the Earth.

And this is a problem... Why?

No, I get the point that totality is neither necessary nor desireable. All
I was saying was that it was meaningless to talk about placing something at
the Earth-Sun L1 point and talk about shading any particular region of the
globe. You would be shading the entire globe.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

Mike Combs wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

As for the S.P.S. that are placed in the Sun-Earth L1 point (quite
stable, but not stable enough for long occupation).

And another problem is that we can't talk about any object at that location
shading any particular part of the globe.

I never said it would shade out the sun, just reduce the local flux.



At that distance from the Earth,
objects will cast (partial) shadows bigger than the Earth.

No. The sun is bigger than the light-sail craft and the earth. The
earth's full shadow forms a cone pointing away from the sun. You can
point the cone of the light-sail at the area of interest and have the
largest effect on that part of the earth.
----snip

"Alfred Montestruc" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Combs wrote:

As for the S.P.S. that are placed in the Sun-Earth L1 point (quite
stable, but not stable enough for long occupation).

And another problem is that we can't talk about any object at that
location
shading any particular part of the globe.

I never said it would shade out the sun, just reduce the local flux.

And please note that I never said it would shade _out_ the sun. You added
the word "out". I understand what we're talking about. Why do you think I
inserted the parenthetical "partial" in the below?

At that distance from the Earth,
objects will cast (partial) shadows bigger than the Earth.

No. The sun is bigger than the light-sail craft and the earth. The
earth's full shadow forms a cone pointing away from the sun. You can
point the cone of the light-sail at the area of interest and have the
largest effect on that part of the earth.

My point is that the tip of the "cone" from the light-sail won't come
terribly close to the Earth. To use astronomer's terms, the penumbra of the
light-sail will be several times bigger than the Earth by the time it gets
here, and so won't be shading one part of the Earth while leaving other
parts unaffected. That seemed to be the implication of the original
proposal stating that it be used to "shade the poles".

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

wrote:


As for the S.P.S. that are placed in the Sun-Earth L1 point (quite
stable, but not stable enough for long occupation).

It is for guided light-sail powered spacecraft.




They might not be suitable for a space based solar power collectors for
Earth's use, due to Earth's rotation,

I pointed out that one can put relay stations in lower orbit (like 24
hour orbit).



imagine all of the work needed to
be done just to get the power transmitter arrays and power receiver
arrays to connect with each others.


That is a major profit center.



And also it might be hard to control these shades at shading at the
right place or even shade at all.

I don't think so. It will involve some programming, but given the
scale of any deep space project, that will not be a significan issue.



Then there's matter if these things are able to stop or drastically
slow the melting polar ices at all.

Agree but like I said on the scale of project we are speaking of it is
not a big ticket cost.

As for melting ices at the polars.

Well... It's due because the Earth is adjusting itself.

The problem is that... are melting ices at the polars bad?

I mean that... most of the shallow seas around the world were used to
be land. With them existing as seas, people can travel easily using
water.

And also the melting of the ices at the north pole will improve sea
traffic at the northern polar seas.

The cost is in land lost to use by people like the Netherlands or other
low lands.

In message . com
wrote:

As for melting ices at the polars.

Well... It's due because the Earth is adjusting itself.

The problem is that... are melting ices at the polars bad?

Depends on your point of view, do you regard evacuating and relocationg
the population of every coastal city round the world as "bad"?

Anthony

Anthony Frost wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

As for melting ices at the polars.

Well... It's due because the Earth is adjusting itself.

The problem is that... are melting ices at the polars bad?

Depends on your point of view, do you regard evacuating and relocationg
the population of every coastal city round the world as "bad"?

the right question is probably "do you consider the melting of nothern
permafrost god or bad" - because that effect will be far larger than
mere evacuation of coastal cities.


Anthony


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++