Dear Mr. Law: With respect to your suggestion, you need to do some background reading:
The 1992 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report did a calculation of what would be required for near Earth orbit. Offsetting a full doubling of the CO2 concentration would require reducing the incoming solar radiation by something like 1.8-2% of the incoming solar radiation. The NAS indicated that to limit solar radiation by 1% (so about half the effect of a doubling) would take something like having 50,000 orbiting mirrors, each about 10 by 10 KILOMETERS in size (so, as they orbited, we¹d have many ongoing, but short, mirror-induced eclipses of the Sun). Thin films might well be lighter, but would have to be kept in shape by structural materials, and many are translucent, so greater area may be needed. They also reported on a proposal to insert a deflector of solar radiation at the L1 point (about 1.6M km toward the Sun), where there is equal gravitational pull from the Sun and Earth‹but active management is required to keep any object in place. This would require a deflector of radiation that was something like 1800 km in diameter, as I recall (most cost effectively put in place by building a manufacturing plant on the Moon). More recently, Angel has suggested lofting via electronic launcher from the Earth¹s surface something like a few trillion parasols, each about .8 meters in diameter‹something that would again be quite a large project. I¹ll leave out issues arising from the energy and environmental effects of putting something like this in place‹but suffice it to say that these projects would be enormously costly to put in place and would need to be sustained for generations, and all they would accomplish is to mean we could burn a bit more coal rather than pay the modest extra costs of nuclear, renewables, etc. Indeed, if one wants to put so much investment into going to space-based activities, it would seem far more plausible (to me) to be investing in a space-based contribution to the Earth¹s energy supply (like solar-powered satellites that would beam energy to the surface). Best, Mike MacCracken On 4/27/09 4:34 AM, "Raymond Law" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > I was referred to joining this group with my layman's version of solution to > the subject crisis. The solutions that I am outlining below are a ' mixing > and matching ' of common knowledge, across a spectrum of existing and commonly > used construction products, robotic tools and the use of the space shuttle. > And I believe that my suggestion could be the quickest and cheapest solution > as of today. And I need everybody in the know to chip in and refine my > concepts, e.g., pointing out the problem areas, the weakest links, etc. And > also, when, how and where to go next, in the hope of achieving this goal for > the benefits of all mankind, ASAP . > > > > ______________________________________________________________________________> _ > > > Below is the outline of my concepts in the fast-track solutions in reversing > the global warming crisis. And I have to stress that these are only concepts > and have yet to be developed furthers. > > Main points of my Reversing Global Warming Project : > > 1. The biggest heat source on earth's atmosphere is from the Sun and earth's > inner heat pool. Contrary to other believes, carbon dioxide and other green > house gases would only affect the quality of our air, storing humidity and > altering the reflective/refractive proficiency of solar energy, etc. But they > themselves do not generate heat. And if we try to reverse global warming > along this route, it would take too long for this route to be really > practical. > > 2. However, with today's technology and resources, mankind can still do > nothing in suppressing the heat coming up under our feet ; therefore, the > quickest and surest route is to pull a sun shade/blind over earth. > > 3. With today's knowledge and computer power, and the country's > understandings of earth's atmosphere, positioning acres of solar > refractive/reflective thin films ( widely used in new buildings' window > panes, worldwide and are currently having large volume production in U.S., > China and the European Union ) in geo-stationary orbit, or much lower orbits > if this visor is only need for a finite period of time, should not present > any major problems to the country. . Using mirrors will not be practical in > its handling and in its weight to surface area ratio. > > 4. The average radius of the earth is a known factor, add to it the average > height of the geo-stationary or much lower orbits for placing these solar > films is also a known factor. Thus, we can easily calculate the total > supposed surface area of earth and the hypothetical surface area of the > 'enlarged' earth, basing on earth's average radius plus the average height > of these orbits for those solar films. > > 5. Space scientists and geologists should be able to determine the total > average 'enlarged' area of earth that are exposed to the Sun, couple that > with climatologists computation and putting them all together, they should be > able to tell us the existing heat energy input per hour from the Sun's ray > hitting earth, non-stop. Because there is always a side of earth facing the > Sun. > > Having computed that solar energy intake per given time, then they > should be able to tell us the relevancy of these energy that is directly > affecting the warming and cooling of earth. And say, if the earth needs to be > cooled down by ' X ' degrees in temperature, consequently, we would need to > reduce by how many percent of the Sun's solar energy that might be hitting > earth. > > 6. The refractive/reflective proficiency of all types of solar thin films > are of known factors, couple that to the need of reducing the Sun's solar > energy in terms of computed quantity, they should be able to categorically > determine how many acres of solar films would be needed to blanket earth from > the geo-stationary or lower orbit. Again, we have more known factors > available. > > 7. Finally, deploying all these solar films would necessarily be needing the > help of the Space Shuttle and some miniature, remotely-controllable > robots/jets. These robots/jets, even though simple in designs and > construction, would be needed in drawing those solar thin films out of the > Space Shuttle's cargo bay and trailing those solar films into the > pre-designated orbit/area in space. > > And after these solar films are ready for retraction, these solar films > and miniature robots/jets would serve one more purpose as space trash bags > for collecting all those space junks of known and convenient trajectory along > these solar films' earth-bound pathways. > > Naturally, we would still need to conduct thorough studies on the effect > of how the extreme temperature-variations in outer space would affect the > integrity and performance of those solar films. > > 8. Care would need to be taken not to over-cool the earth. I have been > telling my friends that earth's global warming is a solvable problem. But > global cooling on earth is still beyond humans capability and resources > availability. The recently unusual cold spells all over the northern > hemisphere could be a perfect testimony to mankind's inability to counteract > global cooling. > > 9. Lastly, these solar films must not be positioned over vegetation/green > belts and oceans, as the green vegetation in those areas are wholly > responsible for the production of the oxygen that mankind survives on. The > best locations for positioning these solar thin films would be over the North > and South Poles ( this would also help to produce more ice over the poles, if > so deemed needed ! ) and over deserts ( this would help to cool down the > deserts, albeit a little bit ). > > Looking forward to hearing from you guys, ASAP ! > > Raymond Law > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
