Earth will manage to get hotter

BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 10:22 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.
You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.
I still like the billion mylar balloons at high altitude concept; it's
very simple, they can be turned out at almost nothing per balloon, and
sunrises and sunsets are going to look very wild indeed with the whole
sky full of glittering points of light.
Could you bounce microwaves off of these things for telecommunications
or OTH radar?

Pat

The new and improved L1 is actually very stable.

The new and improved L1?

You folks really don't get the big picture, or even the medium
picture.

How about the small picture? Like the screen on my old digital
camera?

You are looking at everything as though through a straw, and
at best that's a pretty damn narrow FOV.

Is that something like a POV?

If so, what's a narrow POV? Is that a POV where you see only one
thing? Like moving the moon to save the world perhaps?

I say; we run those full blown supercomputer simulations, then we
speak.

What is it we'll be simulating?

BTW; How many dozen of those spendy supercomputers do we own these
days?

We? I don't own even one. This computer is an Athlon X2 4200+, and
it suits my needs for video work.

Cheers

Rich

-
Brad Guth

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Rich wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

That's a lot of light pressure.

Sure. But a solar shade necessarily experiences a lot of light pressure.

OK, I had thought you were referring to the moon, not solar shades. My mistake.

I don't see how the moon at earth L1 could provide what "you'd want".

The moon, no. You'd want a much much lighter object, and more area.

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

Cheers

Rich

Paul

Rich wrote:

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity).

Paul

In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:
Rich wrote:

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

On May 19, 2:09 am, wrote:
In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:

Rich wrote:

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

****, as long as we are in the land of the absurd why not just place
something in -close- orbit around the Sun?


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

In article . com, Eric Gisse writes:
On May 19, 2:09 am, wrote:
In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:

Rich wrote:

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

****, as long as we are in the land of the absurd why not just place
something in -close- orbit around the Sun?

Go ahead. The question still remains. How do you place something
that can remove a sensible amount (say, few percent) nof the Earth
bound solar radiation, using a reasonable mass and being reasonably
stable against radiation pressure.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

On 19 mayo, 06:09, wrote:
In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:
A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

Saving Paul some typing:

On 9 mar, 10:56, "Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
Eric Swanson wrote:
Of course, there's more to it than just getting the material to L1 or
wherever. There's the problem of station keeping, as the solar pressure will
drive these low mass shades out of orbit and away from shading the Earth.
Station keeping requires some structure and some form of propulsion, perhaps
solar powered ion engines. These things would have a limited life and would
require maintenance on occasion. When they wearout, they would need to be
replaced. All in all, the idea looks really bad to me.

The sentiment in the final sentence doesn't follow from the preceeding ones.
Sure, active stationkeeping of the shade(s) would be required (probably by
controllable reflectors), and the devices would have finite lives. So what?
Lots of useful devices require maintenance and replacement, and are still
successes. The key here is the cost of installing an optimized system
vs. the cost of alternatives (going to war to stop the fossil fuel producing
countries from burning fuel -- how much would that cost?)

Light pressure can be countered at the L1 position by putting the shade
slightly sunward of that point. Also, if the shade is engineered to do
small-angle scattering, the light pressure force is greatly reduced (the
photons are only slightly deflected, not totally reflected, so most of their
momentum is not transfered to the shade). Forces from the solar wind
may be a more serious issue for the very low-mass shade, since it can
vary on short timescales.

See also
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1859907

On May 18, 7:29 am, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 pm, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)
Errr, is not L1 unstable?

Our moon's L1 is merely interactive. Our Moon's L1 (as is) can be
efficiently established and maintained for a given science platform.

Earth's L1 is a whole lot more stable, and thus a bit less interactive
than is our moon's L1.

More stable? Is this the same as stable? Does it not still take fuel to
keep research spacecraft at earth L1 (or orbiting it)?

Are you saying our moon hasn't sufficient energy to spare?

Can you explain as to how much energy per tonne and per year it takes
for keeing a good Earth L1 science platform like ACE up and running?


The (Earth+moon) L1--Sol should become more stable than our existing
Earth L1 with that darn salty old moon causing all sorts of those
pesky orbital gravity fluctuations.

And L1 is about 4x the current lunar distance. Given that an eclipse
at the current distance sweeps a narrow path across the earth it
would seem that the moon at that distance would provide very little
shade, if any.

It'll provide more shade than you think (roughly 3 fold as much as
necessary to offset GW), though it's not actually as much shade as
many (including myself) had previously been suggesting.

If this is true then it would cause global cooling, would it not?

That is true, but we humans have proven that we know how to seriously
pollute our environment with our nifty soot, CO2 and loads of toxic
elements to boot, so there's not to worry about too much global
cooling.


My best swag
of today is suggesting a whole Earth solar influx drop of -22.5 w/m2,
although my 2D CAD and subsequent math is based upon flat disk areas
and not of spheres.

So it would indeed cool the globe. By how much?

I just stipulated, that by day it's worth -22.5 w/m2 (you silly folks
do know what a watt of energy is, don't you?)


And what effect would this have on plant and animal life?

As I'd said, it's mostly good news, not that each and every known
species of life is going to appreciate getting a touch cooler (aka
back to normal).


Certainly you have the way better 3D CAD and all of the right 3D
simulation math and graphical examples that'll nail this one down to
the +/- mw/m2

I like the Fututurama approach better, and it's much more doable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_m...elated&search=

Like most others that summarily suck and blow, you obviously think
this is funny, don't you.

I think Futurama is funny. Don't you?

Yes I do. But the onging demise of our environment is not terribly
funny.


You think the demise of Earth's environment
is just what your faith-based mindset ordered, whereas yourself plus
others of your silly kind think that's only too funny that so many
have died,

How many have died? And of what? I don't understand your point.

And your kind never will understand.


of many others are soon enough going to die,

How many are going to die?

Hundreds of millions, which obviously is rather funny within your
mindset.


Actually I kinda thought we were all gonna die. But what do I know,
eh?

That's way too simple, taking the easy way out isn't playing fair.


or at least
wish they were dead before the next big GW related fiasco hits.

"[Y]our silly kind"? Just what species are you? Have you ever used the
name Trelain?

And the "next big GW related fiasco"? What was the last one?

The last ice age this planet will ever see was the big one that's
still thawing out to the very last km3 worth of ice, and for good
measure younaysay folks of denial can add a few spare degrees C on top
of that.

There's another atheist news group of denial that needs your all-
knowing naysay support. I think it's called hell.naysay.denial.bigot,
or something like that.


And I really think that this is more in the realm of a thought experiment,
as it ain't something we can currently do. We can barely lift a few tons
into LEO today.

Or do you have some method for moving the moon? Please, elucidate.

Yes I do happen to have at least one good method of moving that big
old salty moon of ours. Unfortunately, it has to do with the regular
laws of physics that your hocus-pocus conditional physics simply isn't
going to appreciate one damn bit.
-
Brad Guth

If all the "Ice Sheets Melt", no one will actually care, the rich will
get richer and Earth will become less populated. That's an atheist
faith-based sort of holy grail win-win for their old gipper.

Since Venus, Sirius, our moon's L1, the moving of our moon to Earth's
L1, the regular laws of physics and of the best available science is
still so taboo/nondisclosure and/or topic off-limits, whereas I
thought I'd share a little something other that's warm and fuzzy from
the honest beer keg wisdom of "G=EMC^2 Glazier".

What if NASA and Eclipse / What if Milky Way Core Eclipse
On May 15, 3:49 pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
That's the biggest eclipse,and we have to look along its plane than we
are blocked by its massive very bright hub(core) We can't see that
there is a star on the other side that has a blue marble planet. They
can't see us, nor will there be a time we can send radio waves across
this Black hole hub. It is a mutual blind spot. Mother nature does not
want humankind to have company. Beeert

That's a perfectly good enough way to look at it. After all, if we
actually knew of another universe like ours, or even of an intelligent
life capable other planet, we'd most likely want to dominate it and/or
we'd simply pillage, plunder, rape and nuke it for all it's worth, and
then some.

If a super black hole of creation produced our vast Universe, then as
such there has to be at least that one other universe that shot out
the other pole. At least that's the required reaction of known
physics that has to coexist, or else we're down to the Atheist worthy
singular implosion that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In our own back yard, Mars is still a totally weird little planet that
simply doesn't have the salt that it takes, as for being a certified
member planet from the same origin as Earth (one of us doesn't fit the
mold), yet there's still no other contributed arguments pertaining to
that little matter of fact. In fact, Venus along with it's rather
newish planetology worth of substantial geothermal energy loss, of
20.5 w/m2 being a good 256 fold greater than Earth, is anything but
from the same realm of planetary creation as Earth or Mars.

Our physically dark moon is still a whole lot saltier than can be
explained by way of anything NASA/Apollo, and yet that too is of a
taboo/nondisclosure topic rating, as are those naked anticathode
matters of gamma and hard-Xrays, along with the planet Venus and a few
other missing items that a given unfiltered Kodak FOV by rights and
within film dynamic range should have recorded.

We're so used to being screwed over by our own kind, but has Usenet's
bone gone soft on us?

I was just wondering about this lack of bone because, as for the fence
jumping atheistic sort of borg like collective they are, going with
the flow of the winning side regardless of whatever moral issues, and
as usual without a speck of remorse, seems to have been what their
usual Old Testament thumping past has always been associated with.
Their being naysay as to anything that's off-world intelligent is also
another rather odd trademark that's associated with their flavor of
'show me the money' atheism.

Much like our badly failing environment, evolution mutations of what I
perceive as the lost of nifty attributes, and/or of mostly negative
going DNA/RNA attributes, has currently been the accepted if not the
cultivated norm of atheism (no wonder the honestly faith based
alternatives are so much smarter and otherwise open to other
interpretations). In the ideal terrestrial limited and thus skewed
science and conditional physics world of Usenet Atheism, whereas in
order to out-live one another, all it takes is loot and 100 fold more
energy to burn than others are getting access to.

Being educated as dumb and dumber so that you can be formally
snookered and most easily dumbfounded past the point of no return is
still a good part of their mainstream status quo, of having learned
from whatever's the best hype and conjecture worth of eye candy and
orchestrated infomercial science, and otherwise from whatever their
conditional physics has to offer is an accepted moral past, present
and future, of where the ends justify the means of collateral damage
and the carnage of the innocent.

In Usenet Naysay Land:
All of the sudden, it's becoming perfectly OK that we haven't actually
walked on the moon. How odd.

All of the sudden, life on planets and even a few moons (including our
moon) that are clearly worse off than Venus is becoming humanly
doable, and somehow worthy of our spending those hard earned billions
upon billions (actually it has become trillions), as in no big
freaking deal. How odd.

All of the sudden it's perfectly OK that there have been far better
than nuclear energy options, as long as we don't ever talk about
investing or much less utilizing such, or much less share a good word
on behalf of the secondary benefits of having this spare clean energy
as for creating Lh2 and h2o2.

Since the regular physics of our very own moon or of any such orbital
mascon related issue is taboo, thereby our best terrestrial science of
planetology still hasn't an honest physics clue as to why Earth has
been getting hotter, and that too is OK by usenet standards as long as
your two feet arnt getting too wet or too hot and you can afford
whatever's the cost of energy, along with the cost of storm recovery
or whatever's the spendy task of relocation.

Public supercomputers of the necessary complex 3D orbital, of
substantial tether loading and of complex lithobraking/impact
simulation capability are still being kept off-limits, as per
remaining taboo/nondisclosure rated. Folks in charge, like so many
others claiming to know all there is to know, as such still can't
manage to lift an honest science or physics finger unless it's on
behalf of polishing something worthy of their atheism that's rather
oddly Old Testament and thus in one way or another Jewish worthy
(because that's where most all the serious loot currently is).

WWIII over global energy domination is just a touch of two buttons
away, is apparently no big deal in the bigoted eyes of these atheistic
fence jumpers that are going over to whichever's the winning side
anyway.

All of the sudden it's becoming an accepted matter of fact that 99.9%
of Usenet's status quo naysayism is actually white and/or Jewish to
boot. I'd ask for an ethnic and/or faith-based showing of hands, but
that too would be against the best wishes of these status quo
rusemasters that prefer to remain as cloak and dagger spooks and moles
that have no intentions of ever constructively contributing to any
given topic that's not already scripted within their koran.

Apparently being an Atheist in denial is equal to being a born-again
liar, because they always get to pick and choose the winning side,
including as often as that side changes hand or of taking whichever
mindset that happens to suit whatever ulterior motive or hidden agenda
that needs the most butt protecting or vote getting, making their
fence jumping religion of Atheism the all around best choice of
science and physics that hasn't a stitch of remorse to lose.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth

wrote
on 17 May 2007 09:45:56 -0700
.com:

[snip for brevity]


Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, out to being parked
within the orbit of Earth's L1 is an all around win-win for everything
and everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to
become a little worse off (sorry about that).

It would be, if you can explain how we could -- somehow --
get two pieces of space rock -- I'm not sure how big they/d
have to be, but it depends on the thrust -- to impact the
Moon at precisely the right points to change its orbit
from its current affair to the L1 Lagrange point.

For the record, the moon is 7.35 * 10^22 kg and is
currently orbiting at a speed of about 1 km/s, so we're
talking quite a momentum shift here. Best I can do is a
few decades, with the incoming rocks hurtling in at about
72 km/s. (30 km/s Earth velocity, 42 km/s velocity of
the rock as it comes in a retrograde orbit from very far out.)

I'll admit to wondering whether we'd have any detrius
kicked up and fall on Earth or not. At best, we'd have
two additional moons. At worst, we'd have a hell of a
pair of collisions with Earth as the spent rocks bounce
off the Moon then hurtle directly towards our muddy marble.

And then there's the fine tuning; if the Moon isn't placed
at exactly the Lagrange point, how are we going to move it?

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com