[geo] Re: Policy Exchange Comes Out for Geoengineering
Too bad we're not smart enough to relocate our trusty but physically dark moon to Earth L1, and interactively keeping it there in a controlled station-keeping halo orbit. http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Jun 28, 9:33 am, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Policy Exchange is a very influential conservative British thank-tank with close ties to the Conservative Party. They recently released a climate report titled Climate Change Policy - Time for Plan B http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Climate_Cha... Their Plan B involves smarter mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering: In an ideal world therefore, climate change concerns would be addressed primarily by reducing GHG emissions and implementing appropriate adaptation measures, possibly alongside some CDR techniques if justified in terms of cost and risk. However, in light of the policy failures already discussed in this paper, the UK and EU would be irresponsible not to undertake serious planning for scenarios where rapid “emergency action” is required in response to the arrival of low probability but high impact scenarios, and the application of SRM techniques may be the best measure available. (pp. 45-6) They offer a fairly balanced assessment, and their overall approach stands in stark contrast to organizations on the American right, for example AEI. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comhttp://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms
As you already know, there's nothing bad about diatoms. After all, they were here first, and without them we certainly couldn't have emerged as the human species that we are. Most O2 dependent life on Earth owes everything to those diatoms. There's more science about Earth that's restricted, withheld or obfuscated to suit, than science made public. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Jun 23, 3:16 am, BHASKAR M V bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: Dr Gorman I am referring to all three - Diatomaceous Earth and live diatoms as a SRM solution. Nano silica with micro nutrients to keep the live diatoms alive and cause further bloom after they fall into the oceans. DE is NOT in nano size. Is is in microns. Michael I understand that Crystalline silica of 1 micro or more is carcenogenic and amorphous silica is not. Diatoms are amorphous silica. DE is approved by EPA for human contact use and indirect consumption - water filters, grain silos. It can be sprinkled on beds to kill bed bugs, rubbed into pet fur to kill bugs, etc. regards BhaskarOn Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Gorman, My conceptual sketch was just that...a sketch of an idea. If diatom blooms can be triggered at long range and at low cost, it would be a useful tool on a number of levels. I do need to admit to a serious lack of background research before offering the sketch. I made an assumption which has proven out to be wrong. I have, today, found that DE has significant lung cancer implication. I withdraw the conceptual sketch. Thanks for your patience, Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:57 AM, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.comwrote: ** I am not clear as to whether live diatoms are being suggested or just diatoms because they are nano silica particles as in diatomous earth. If the latter then Gregory Benford suggested the spreading of diatomous earth as diatoms in the stratosphere, about four years ago (1) as an SRM method. From a separate direction I suggested that the particles could be produced by adding tetra ethyl silicate to aviation fuel.(2) This might have various practical advantages such as exact control of particle size. Such particles in the troposphere would have very short lifetime -rather like the Icelandic ash clouds so limited SRM effect and all the disadvantages to air travel etc wouldn't they? john gorman (1) Search for saving the Arctic in this group- I cant make teh link work! (2)http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm - Original Message - From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms Hi Micheal Thanks. Your proposal is quite interesting. A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways, these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom. Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps be used along with our nano powder. The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted. This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution. There are mountains of these all over the world. http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour Scroll down for some very good photos. regards Bhaskar On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought. *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms * *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for* *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation* *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group* Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels. Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well known but that issue is outside of this proposal. Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have
[geo] Re: DailyMail: Artificial Clouds in Qatar Stadium...
How much global warming is each km2 area of artificial cloud going to add? Are we actually suggesting that each cloud isn't going to absorb and thus secondary/recoil radiate energy? http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Mar 27, 8:03 am, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: A little offtopic... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1369525/Artificial-... Pie in the sky! Qatar invents artificial clouds to beat the heat at 2022 World Cup By SPORTSMAIL REPORTER Last updated at 1:53 PM on 26th March 2011 Comments (25) Add to My Stories Qatar have developed artificial clouds to provide shade for stadiums and training grounds at the 2022 World Cup. The extreme heat in summer months in the Middle Eastern country has led to concern about conditions at the tournament, with some suggesting it should be played in the winter. Qatar say they will air condition the stadia via solar power and now scientists at Qatar University have designed the 'cloud' which can be produced at a cost of US $500,000 (£310,000) each. State of the art: An artitist's impression of the Al-Rayyan stadium which will play host to World Cup matches Saud Abdul Ghani, head of the mechanical and industrial engineering department, told Gulf News the 'clouds' are made from a lightweight carbon structure carrying a giant envelope of material containing helium gas. Four solar powered engines move the structure via remote control. The decision to award Qatar the tournament sparked controversy when it was announced following a vote by the 22-man executive committee in December. Russia were named hosts for 2018 at the same time. Didn't see that one coming: FIFA chief Blatter reveals Qatar will host the 2022 World Cup in Zurich last year Time to go, Blatter! FIFA chief must only get two terms in future, insists Bin Hammam With temperatures soaring as high as 50 degrees Celsius in the summer there was speculation the World Cup would take place in the winter and alter the fixture calenders of the major leagues across the globe. It was also suggested that some matches could be played in other areas of the Arabian Gulf due to the close proximity of the stadiums in Qatar. FIFA have since dismissed both ideas, insisting the tournament will go ahead in the summer and all matches will take place in Qatar. Qatar beat bids from Australia, the United States and 2004 World Cup co-hosts Japan and South Korea. Fan-fare: Qataris celebrated when they were awarded the 2022 World Cup at the vote in December The FIFA committees' decision came as a slight surprise after the US and Australia bids had been highly-fancied. Qatar's Emir Sheikh Mohammad bin Hamad Al-Thani said at the time of the vote that the decision to award the nation the hosting rights for the 2022 World Cup marked a 'milestone' for the sport in the Middle East. Al-Thani said: 'On behalf of millions of people living in the Middle East, thank you. Thank you for believing in us, thank you for having such bold vision. Thank you also for acknowledging this is the right time for the Middle East. We have a date with history which is summer 2022. 'We acknowledge there is a lot of work to do and we stand by our promise and we will honour the sacred trust given to us today. We will deliver with a lot of passion and we will make sure this is a milestone in the history of the Middle East and in the history of FIFA.' Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1369525/Artificial-... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
Lots of methods would temporarily do the trick, but then the moon itself is very usable as is, and as such it's also worth hundreds of trillions to us. Once that moon got relocated to the Sun-Earth L1, its many terminator craters become highly valuable locations, including for astronomy because of their location and inside always avoiding direct sun and earthshine, and their constant temperature as well as reasonable shielding from local and solar radiation. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 17, 9:29 am, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to blow dust out of moonscape by using thermonuclear devices, although this is bad for satellites, it could create a rotating dust cloud to dim some of the sunlight. It would destroy astronomy, but save the Earth? Albert Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:25:51 -0800 Subject: [geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1 From: bradg...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Using the centripetal force of a tethered mass (say 10 million tonnes), as the tug that's located 2x L2 (122,700 km) further out, is what’s going to literally pull this off. Don’t always trust my math, because I’ve estimated an initial tug force of only 3.466e6 kg, though obviously this tethered mass and/or its radii can be adjusted to suit, and of course this only gets better as the moon is moved further away. 3.466e6 kg of pulling force doesn’t sound like all that much, but then it’s continuous, whereas an hour it becomes worth 12.477e9 kg, and a month becomes worth an impulse of 8.984e12 kg, and a full year provides an impulse worth 1.078e14 kg. I give this centripetal applied force at least a good century to create a significant exit velocity once the tethered mass has been established, that way if anything goes terribly wrong, at least I will not be around to take any heat. Realistically this moon relocation could take a thousand years, and that’s a very good thing because by then we’ll be at each others throats or otherwise going postal. Obviously there'd be some reaction thrusting taking place for navigation of the tethered mass, as well as using additional reaction thrust on behalf of pulling harder is obviously another option, including what the William Mook version of his thermonuclear rocket impulse thrust could speed this whole process up considerably. This entire process is certainly a whole lot more complex than I’ve suggested, mostly because the moon velocity by itself is representing a lot of kinetic energy that has to get diverted and spent (slowed down) before parking it in the sun-Earth L1 halo zone, but at the very least this could be fully computer simulated in full 3D interactive format that I bet a smart 5th grader could manage. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 16, 9:47 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: As long as I’m crazy enough to be proposing the use of our moon in order to geoengineer a way out of our GW/AGW mess, we might as well consider directly utilizing the moon itself. Our moon has been shrinking and/or deflating as it cools (roughly 100 nm/year) and further solidifies, so we might as well take full advantage of whatever's inside of its extremely thick and robust crust of paramagnetic basalt that’s highly fused and protecting the inverted density of whatever’s within its thick shell. At 7.35e22 kg, our moon is definitely a heavy sucker that’s perhaps only 0.1% hollow or porous as is. However, besides our desperate need of creating interactive shade for geoengineering our GW and AGW problems away, Earth can always use minerals and precious metals or rear-earths, and what could possibly be more rare-earth than our paramagnetic moon. So, before and/or during the relocation process of gradually moving our moon out to Earth L1 where it’ll be interactively maintained as our station keeping shade, we should also tunnel into and mine out that moon to the tune of at least extracting 10%, leaving us with a 6.615e22 kg moon that’s nicely hollowed out below that extremely thick and highly protective crust. Actually most of that tunnel excavated mass would remain with the moon, as well as converted into basalt tether fibers and otherwise utilized for the 2xL2 centripetal mass that’s necessary for pulling that moon further away. This vertical tunnel of 12 meters diameter (or if you like as tight as 4 meters) and the interior excavation process leaves us with an extra or surplus 2.5e19 m3 of vacant space, in addition to all that’s otherwise exposed as naturally hollow and/or porous about our moon. Giving everyone a volume of 1e9 m3 or one km3 is enough to accommodate 25 billion of us humans in relative safety (in some ways
[geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
As long as I’m crazy enough to be proposing the use of our moon in order to geoengineer a way out of our GW/AGW mess, we might as well consider directly utilizing the moon itself. Our moon has been shrinking and/or deflating as it cools (roughly 100 nm/year) and further solidifies, so we might as well take full advantage of whatever's inside of its extremely thick and robust crust of paramagnetic basalt that’s highly fused and protecting the inverted density of whatever’s within its thick shell. At 7.35e22 kg, our moon is definitely a heavy sucker that’s perhaps only 0.1% hollow or porous as is. However, besides our desperate need of creating interactive shade for geoengineering our GW and AGW problems away, Earth can always use minerals and precious metals or rear-earths, and what could possibly be more rare-earth than our paramagnetic moon. So, before and/or during the relocation process of gradually moving our moon out to Earth L1 where it’ll be interactively maintained as our station keeping shade, we should also tunnel into and mine out that moon to the tune of at least extracting 10%, leaving us with a 6.615e22 kg moon that’s nicely hollowed out below that extremely thick and highly protective crust. Actually most of that tunnel excavated mass would remain with the moon, as well as converted into basalt tether fibers and otherwise utilized for the 2xL2 centripetal mass that’s necessary for pulling that moon further away. This vertical tunnel of 12 meters diameter (or if you like as tight as 4 meters) and the interior excavation process leaves us with an extra or surplus 2.5e19 m3 of vacant space, in addition to all that’s otherwise exposed as naturally hollow and/or porous about our moon. Giving everyone a volume of 1e9 m3 or one km3 is enough to accommodate 25 billion of us humans in relative safety (in some ways better than anyplace on Earth could provide, because the crust of Earth is relatively thin, broken and very unstable). I’m certain that others here in this Geoengineering Group of expertise can muster up creative alternatives and/or suggest better utilizations, but just to kick this moon relocation topic up a spare notch or two is what I’ve intended by suggesting this excavation process that offers many advantages besides providing for the tethers and most of the tethered tug mass that’s going to gradually pull our moon further away from Earth. Just tunneling in at 12 meters diameter through 60 km of its fused paramagnetic basalt crust is going to be worth excavating 21e6 tonnes that could be utilized for all sorts of benefits (including oxygen and water), whereas processing surface basalt plus assorted crater rubble that’s in no short supply, and loads of dust should also give us tonnes of valuable He3 that’ll make everything profitable all by itself. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 5, 10:22 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: It's not as hard as you might think, and we'd get up to 3.5% shade, although that could easily be adjusted to suit, and there are a few other benefits besides terrific job security for at least a century. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
Using the centripetal force of a tethered mass (say 10 million tonnes), as the tug that's located 2x L2 (122,700 km) further out, is what’s going to literally pull this off. Don’t always trust my math, because I’ve estimated an initial tug force of only 3.466e6 kg, though obviously this tethered mass and/or its radii can be adjusted to suit, and of course this only gets better as the moon is moved further away. 3.466e6 kg of pulling force doesn’t sound like all that much, but then it’s continuous, whereas an hour it becomes worth 12.477e9 kg, and a month becomes worth an impulse of 8.984e12 kg, and a full year provides an impulse worth 1.078e14 kg. I give this centripetal applied force at least a good century to create a significant exit velocity once the tethered mass has been established, that way if anything goes terribly wrong, at least I will not be around to take any heat. Realistically this moon relocation could take a thousand years, and that’s a very good thing because by then we’ll be at each others throats or otherwise going postal. Obviously there'd be some reaction thrusting taking place for navigation of the tethered mass, as well as using additional reaction thrust on behalf of pulling harder is obviously another option, including what the William Mook version of his thermonuclear rocket impulse thrust could speed this whole process up considerably. This entire process is certainly a whole lot more complex than I’ve suggested, mostly because the moon velocity by itself is representing a lot of kinetic energy that has to get diverted and spent (slowed down) before parking it in the sun-Earth L1 halo zone, but at the very least this could be fully computer simulated in full 3D interactive format that I bet a smart 5th grader could manage. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 16, 9:47 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: As long as I’m crazy enough to be proposing the use of our moon in order to geoengineer a way out of our GW/AGW mess, we might as well consider directly utilizing the moon itself. Our moon has been shrinking and/or deflating as it cools (roughly 100 nm/year) and further solidifies, so we might as well take full advantage of whatever's inside of its extremely thick and robust crust of paramagnetic basalt that’s highly fused and protecting the inverted density of whatever’s within its thick shell. At 7.35e22 kg, our moon is definitely a heavy sucker that’s perhaps only 0.1% hollow or porous as is. However, besides our desperate need of creating interactive shade for geoengineering our GW and AGW problems away, Earth can always use minerals and precious metals or rear-earths, and what could possibly be more rare-earth than our paramagnetic moon. So, before and/or during the relocation process of gradually moving our moon out to Earth L1 where it’ll be interactively maintained as our station keeping shade, we should also tunnel into and mine out that moon to the tune of at least extracting 10%, leaving us with a 6.615e22 kg moon that’s nicely hollowed out below that extremely thick and highly protective crust. Actually most of that tunnel excavated mass would remain with the moon, as well as converted into basalt tether fibers and otherwise utilized for the 2xL2 centripetal mass that’s necessary for pulling that moon further away. This vertical tunnel of 12 meters diameter (or if you like as tight as 4 meters) and the interior excavation process leaves us with an extra or surplus 2.5e19 m3 of vacant space, in addition to all that’s otherwise exposed as naturally hollow and/or porous about our moon. Giving everyone a volume of 1e9 m3 or one km3 is enough to accommodate 25 billion of us humans in relative safety (in some ways better than anyplace on Earth could provide, because the crust of Earth is relatively thin, broken and very unstable). I’m certain that others here in this Geoengineering Group of expertise can muster up creative alternatives and/or suggest better utilizations, but just to kick this moon relocation topic up a spare notch or two is what I’ve intended by suggesting this excavation process that offers many advantages besides providing for the tethers and most of the tethered tug mass that’s going to gradually pull our moon further away from Earth. Just tunneling in at 12 meters diameter through 60 km of its fused paramagnetic basalt crust is going to be worth excavating 21e6 tonnes that could be utilized for all sorts of benefits (including oxygen and water), whereas processing surface basalt plus assorted crater rubble that’s in no short supply, and loads of dust should also give us tonnes of valuable He3 that’ll make everything profitable all by itself. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 5, 10:22 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: It's not as hard as you might
[geo] Re: Budyko's Wet Blanket Analysis
Controlled sun-block, such as via an interactive/adjustable shade at the Sun-Earth L1 is about as good as it gets. However, no way will everyone be happy no matters what is done, so there's really no point in trying to make everyone happy, because that's never going to happen. The Sun-Earth L1 is not the best place for any manned outpost or OASIS/ gateway, but it is a very good location for our moon that can block/ shade up to 3.5%, or gradually navigated so as to block nothing, or best utilized to interactively beam energy selectively to Earth from its tether dipole element that reaches to within 6r of Earth. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 10, 6:41 pm, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: Should be titled: Everything That Could Possibly Go Wrong and Some Things That Couldn't Because the Author is Unable to Think Straight http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-... What Could Possibly Go Wrong: Blotting Out the Sun Geoengineering could cause more problems than the global warming it aims to stop By David Roberts Posted 02.03.2011 at 10:46 am 22 Comments Sun Shade Filling the stratosphere with sulfur aerosols could cool the globe, but it could also cause widespread drought and destruction Jamie Sneddon [picture that would not load shows elephants freezing to death.] Engineering the atmosphere to forestall the worst results of global warming was once considered too hubristic to seriously contemplate. The grim prospects for passing an international climate-change treaty have changed that. Last year the National Academies of Science in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K. both convened meetings on geoengineering. The schemes generally fall into two categories—CO2 capture (pulling carbon dioxide from the air) or solar-radiation management (reflecting sunlight)—but it’s a form of the latter, which involves using airplanes or long hoses to pour sulfate aerosols into the lower stratosphere, that’s the most audacious. Once in the stratosphere, the theory goes, the aerosols would reflect some solar radiation and prevent a devastating rise in the average global temperature. The theory is not crazy. In 1991, after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, the average global temperature dropped by about 1° F from 1991 to 1993. But administering such a program well would require an unprecedented degree of international coordination and funding, and the odds of miscalculation are high. And the potential negative consequences are, in the worst case, extreme. Consider a hypothetical scenario in the year 2030. Severe storms and floods, prolonged droughts and wildfires have become commonplace. China has become the world’s largest economy, and two decades of coal-fired hyper-growth have overwhelmed the country’s advances in clean energy and efficiency. It is losing nearly 2,000 square miles a year to desertification, at a cost of $10 billion annually. Its eastern agricultural regions, which once fed a substantial fraction of the world’s population, have seen water tables decline precipitously from drought and overuse. Food shortages have become widespread. Under pressure to address climate change yet unable to slow growth without risking domestic unrest, the Chinese government pressures the U.S. and the European Union to cooperate on a program of geoengineering. It proposes launching military aircraft into the lower stratosphere to release several million tons a year of sulfur-based gases, with the intent of reflecting sunlight and blunting the rise in global temperature. The U.S. and E.U. balk, and China goes ahead alone. Lacking the power to stop it, Western countries look on in dismay as Chinese jets take to the sky. [Or, Western countries tell the bosses in Beijing no more parts for those planes we sold you! Or, we/they won't buy cheap Chinese toys and goods anymore, except they won't be that cheap by 2030. Or we could shoot down their planes, which might lead to nuclear war, which I doubt they would find acceptable. China could develop a large air force for this purpose in 20 years, but that's not likely.] The U.S. soon has no choice but to step in as a partner, if only to stabilize the delivery and geographic dispersal of the particles. [Hey, if the program the Chinese are running is ineffective, why should the U.S. get involved if we don't want to? Not logical!] With the world’s two most powerful nations now perceived as “in charge” of the climate, other countries suspect that they are manipulating the weather to their own benefit. Every flood or fire is seen as a Sino-American responsibility. [With unchecked global warming that might be the case anyway.] After about five years, scientists begin to realize that blocking
[geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
Exactly, at roughly 50% the ocean tides we have now, and otherwise happening exactly the same every 12 hours (noon and midnight) so that there's never any human or other biodiversity confusion, should go a long ways towards improving matters for our infrastructure functionality, as well as benefiting most other life on the planet, not to mention the 3.5% potential shade and terrific reduction in tectonic modulation, plus multiple advantages for our utilizing the moon itself. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 8, 3:06 am, O Morton omeconom...@googlemail.com wrote: also, lower tides means less risk from raised sea level... On Feb 5, 6:22 pm, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: It's not as hard as you might think, and we'd get up to 3.5% shade, although that could easily be adjusted to suit, and there are a few other benefits besides terrific job security for at least a century. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
At 7.35e22 kg, our moon is definitely a heavy sucker that’s perhaps only 0.1% hollow as is. However, besides our desperate need of interactive shade for geoengineering our GW and AGW problems away, Earth can always use minerals and precious metals or rear-earths, and what could possibly be more rare than our paramagnetic moon. So, before and/or during the relocation process of moving our moon out to Earth L1, we should dig into and mine out that moon to the tune of at least extracting 10%, leaving us with a 6.615e22 kg moon that’s nicely hollowed out below that extremely thick and highly protective crust. This excavation process leaves us with an extra 2.5e19 m3 of interior vacant space, in addition to all that’s otherwise naturally hollow about our moon. Giving everyone a volume of 1e9 m3 or one km3 is enough to accommodate 25 billion of us humans in relative safety (in some ways better than anyplace on Earth could provide). I’m certain that others here can muster up alternatives and/or suggest better utilizations, but just to kick this topic up a notch or two is what I’ve intended by suggesting this excavation process that offers many advantages besides providing most of the tethered tug mass that’s going to gradually pull the moon further away from Earth. Just tunneling in at 12 meters through 60 km of fused paramagnetic basalt crust is going to be worth excavating 21e6 tonnes. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” On Feb 5, 10:22 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote: It's not as hard as you might think, and we'd get up to 3.5% shade, although that could easily be adjusted to suit, and there are a few other benefits besides terrific job security for at least a century. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
It's not as hard as you might think, and we'd get up to 3.5% shade, although that could easily be adjusted to suit, and there are a few other benefits besides terrific job security for at least a century. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
