'Sunshade' for global warming could cause drought

http://environment.newscientist.com/...e-drought.html

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:25:25 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...e-drought.html

It's always something.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:25:25 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the
hosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:http://environment.newscientist.com/...e-drought.html
:
:It's always something.
:

Well, you should have known that, Rand. Some of these people won't be
happy until we're back living in caves with dung fires.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Aug 2, 8:31 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:25:25 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the
hosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:http://environment.newscientist.com/...shade-for-glob...
:
:It's always something.
:

Well, you should have known that, Rand. Some of these people won't be
happy until we're back living in caves with dung fires.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

At least "dung fires" are 100% renewable, create little CO2 and zilch
worth of NOx.

I'm in favor of relocating our moon to Earth's L1, whereas that'll
give us shade to burn (sort of speak), and roughly end up with 50% of
the existing ocean tidal action, as well as having much less imposed
as tidal induced trauma for the interior of mother Earth to deal with.

BTW, caves are extremely energy efficient, whereas even ice caves are
perfectly livable with minimal needs of artificial heat required, as
well as being the least saturated with the likes of Radon or any
number of other nasty elements, of which oddly our frail DNA has never
evolved enough to deal with. Go figure.
- Brad Guth

wrote in message
oups.com...
http://environment.newscientist.com/...e-drought.html

I'm kind of glad because it might mean that the best remaining option is a
space mirror. That proposal might have its share of problems, but might
spur space development.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Aug 2, 6:25 am, "
wrote:
http://environment.newscientist.com/...shade-for-glob...

Speaking about planetology "drought"; it seems Venus has a rather bad
case of drought, that is unless you consider the spare/surplus
teratonns worth of acidic h2o that's within them nifty clouds.

However, compared to orbiting our terribly drought worthy moon, or
especially that of being situated at the moon's L1, Venus L2(VL2) is
at least way cool, it's even cooler than any ISS orbital average, and
cooler yet if an artificial shade gets utilized, or made warmer if a
remote mirror directs sunlight upon whatever's halo parked within VL2,
or the station-keeping halo orbit itself can be made as large or as
tight as need be.

A better understanding of shade may eventually become self
explanatory, such as for relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is not an
option that we can afford to pass up. We need that little spot of
shade, as well as we badly need a whole lot less tidal forced internal
trauma that's keeping our 98.5% fluid Earth a touch warmer and more
internally active than need be.

Unfortunately, of these hocus-pocus WMD days, you simply can't hardly
tell one Yiddish infomercial spewing rusemaster from most any other
faith-based damn fool (especially of them pesky born again types).
So, whom can we trust?

Physics and of the best available science that's replicated seems as
though it should at least function on behalf of understanding our
physically dark and anticathode moon, that's crystal dry and otherwise
saturated with gamma and Xrays in addition to being hot as hell by
day, that which has been hot enough to keep vaporising its sodium
which starts melting at 371 K, and vaporises at 1156 K while under the
pressure of 1 bar (perhaps as little as 374 K at 3e-15 bar).

That moon of ours is simply not made of Earth. Earth hasn't even the
least bit similar impacts nor deposits of what's causing such terrific
surface mascons to exist on that somewhat salty moon of ours.

Why doesn't Earth have its fair share of bigger and better surface
impact mascons?

In other words, why and/or how did our salty old moon get so impact
mascon populated, and Earth somewhow having missed out on most all of
that heavy mineral action?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 2, 10:38 am, "Mike Combs"
wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

http://environment.newscientist.com/...shade-for-glob...

I'm kind of glad because it might mean that the best remaining option is a
space mirror. That proposal might have its share of problems, but might
spur space development.

And oddly, you folks don't think the daunting task of relocating our
moon to Earth's L1 would spur anything. Gee whiz, what a surprize.

Just because our physically dark and somewhat salty moon is saturated
in gamma and Xrays doesn't mean that it can't be utilized on behalf of
protecting Earth, especially from the likes of village idiots that
can't think outside of their terrestrial faith-based box.
- Brad Guth