Global Warming Remedy #1

[Dr What]

Point all wheel driven vehicles in the direction of the Sun.

 

Then at a designated moment everyone accelerate as hard as the vehicle will, then roll to a stop. Repeat.

 

The Earth will be moved "out" of its orbit from the Sun... all actions having an equal and opposite reaction an' all... of course, more distance = less heat.

 

Possibly it may be more efficient to point the vehicles in the opposite direction to the Earths orbit to speed earths orbit to counter

centripetal effect of the Suns gravity allowing Earth to move away from it... If you are good with arithmetic you may like to crunch the numbers vis a vis

vehicles pointed at the sun versus vehicles pointed in the opposite direction of the Earths orbit.

[fiveworlds]

Only the earth has a molten core and changing how the earth moves will most likely cause volcanic eruptions and who knows what else.

[swansont]

Point all wheel driven vehicles in the direction of the Sun.

 

Then at a designated moment everyone accelerate as hard as the vehicle will, then roll to a stop. Repeat.

 

The Earth will be moved "out" of its orbit from the Sun... all actions having an equal and opposite reaction an' all... of course, more distance = less heat.

Why do you think this would change the orbit?

[Lord Antares]

He thinks the friction force of the vehicles braking will push the earth away from the sun.

 

Besides being a ridiculous idea, it wouldn't work.

I guess if you were to attempt it in a hypothetical scenario, you would need to get all the vehicles lined up along or behind one another all parallel to one another and they would have to be facing away from a sunset.

Of course, it would be physically impossible that they would all end up facing the same way as the earth is curved, but even in a hypothetical scenario where this could be done and where there would be enough force, the earth would just rotate a bit.

 

If you split the vehicles in two groups on opposite sides of the earth, both rougly facing away from the sun, I don't know what exactly would happen, but in a realistic scenario, you couldn't get past the fact that there is not enough energy and earth's curvature would stop all vehicles facing in the desired direction.

[Function]

wat

[swansont]

wat

 

 

It's What.

 

Dr What.

[John Cuthber]

It's a bit late for an April fool joke

[Function]

If OP even dares to pull (or rather, push?) us away from the sun. It's about bloody time it's getting hotter. Tired of the cold and rain.

 

The "wat" was a reference to an overrated internet meme, btw.

[Velocity_Boy]

Point all wheel driven vehicles in the direction of the Sun.

 

Then at a designated moment everyone accelerate as hard as the vehicle will, then roll to a stop. Repeat.

 

The Earth will be moved "out" of its orbit from the Sun... all actions having an equal and opposite reaction an' all... of course, more distance = less heat.

 

Possibly it may be more efficient to point the vehicles in the opposite direction to the Earths orbit to speed earths orbit to counter

centripetal effect of the Suns gravity allowing Earth to move away from it... If you are good with arithmetic you may like to crunch the numbers vis a vis

vehicles pointed at the sun versus vehicles pointed in the opposite direction of the Earths orbit.

Mmm...I think maybe you're forgetting that the Earth is a sphere?

 

So, given the shape of our planet it would be impossible to point all it's vehicles toward the sun.

 

And also when all these vehicles accelerated the cumulative force exerted upon the Earth's surface by the rotation of the tires would not be anything remotely close to being a coherent single force working on one directional vector. So diverse in fact would be the forces of all those cars and trucks, pointing in all those differing directions on the sphere, that they would all but cancel each other out.

 

Thus, having not even a miniscule total effect on the Earth's orbital path.

 

Again, the sphere is the problem. So, even a tiny planet like Mercury could be covered with three times the number of vehicles per square mile as is earth, and their unison propulsive forces still wouldn't budge the planet.

 

But of course you're just having us on, aren't you, mate?

 

Hope so! LOL

[Strange]

Only the earth has a molten core and changing how the earth moves will most likely cause volcanic eruptions and who knows what else.

 

 

Probably not: https://what-if.xkcd.com/41/

[Ken Fabian]

Of course the net effect would be zero - and not because the amount of force is so small compared to Earth's mass as to be almost insignificant but because when the vehicles decelerate and stop the forces from that would be equal and opposite to the initial accelerations. Rolling the vehicles to a stop rather than braking merely spreads the same total transfer of momentum out as wind and road resistance with zero change to Earth's orbit.

 

No, the solution to ongoing global warming is to stop pumping GHG's into the atmosphere - less fossil fuel powered motor vehicles, not more, no matter which direction we point them - only unlike the proposal under discussion the net result when we stop will not be the same as when we began. Reversion to pre GHG driven climate would require pulling CO2 (and methane etc) out of the atmosphere - and even then we would never truly get back to how it was.

[Nature Geek]

No, the solution to ongoing global warming is to stop pumping GHG's into the atmosphere - less fossil fuel powered motor vehicles, not more, no matter which direction we point them - only unlike the proposal under discussion the net result when we stop will not be the same as when we began. Reversion to pre GHG driven climate would require pulling CO2 (and methane etc) out of the atmosphere - and even then we would never truly get back to how it was.

Oh, where is the fun in that. Humans have demonstrated repeatedly that they would rather ignore problems or pretend that they don't exist, and when forced to face the reality, come up with some crazy idea out of a James Bond bad guy playbook, or a cartoon.

 

My guess as to what humans will do about global warming.... absolutely nothing. So far my answer seems right on track. Then, when the coral reefs are all dead and the oceans have displaced millions from the sea coasts of the planet, we will all act surprised and suddenly look to science to FIX IT!

 

[Argent]

No, the solution to ongoing global warming is to stop pumping GHG's into the atmosphere - less fossil fuel powered motor vehicles, not more, no matter which direction we point them - only unlike the proposal under discussion the net result when we stop will not be the same as when we began. Reversion to pre GHG driven climate would require pulling CO2 (and methane etc) out of the atmosphere - and even then we would never truly get back to how it was.

So, a partial solution to global warming, adapting the OP's idea, is to point all the vehicles on the planet towards the sun, then throw away the keys.

[Ken Fabian]

Oh, where is the fun in that. Humans have demonstrated repeatedly that they would rather ignore problems or pretend that they don't exist, and when forced to face the reality, come up with some crazy idea out of a James Bond bad guy playbook, or a cartoon.

 

My guess as to what humans will do about global warming.... absolutely nothing. So far my answer seems right on track. Then, when the coral reefs are all dead and the oceans have displaced millions from the sea coasts of the planet, we will all act surprised and suddenly look to science to FIX IT!

 

 

I think we'll do a lot more than nothing but far less than is needed. For some people to try - and there are actually a lot of people trying - and still failing is still better than no-one trying. It's a cumulative problem and the affects can be lessened or made worse by what we do so achieving a reduction in the worst case is still better than the worst case. I sometimes wonder if ultimately the direct climate impacts will be less damaging than the bad decisions in response to those impacts; using more fossil fuels as part of climate adaptations, repairing and hardening infrastructure or using more to power more air conditioners or to build dykes and power flood pumps. Or breakdowns in international agreements, isolationism that could see nations that imagine benefits to themselves or (more disturbingly) harm to their enemies and rivals from a warming climate welcoming the early stage changes whilst failing to look beyond that to the later stage ones, made worse. And there is the raised potential for conflict, in a world where there will be more WMD's than ever before in more hands than ever before.

 

Ultimately serious underlying issues around sustainable resource use and population are not solved by a transition to low emissions - yet I think that transition is what we can do and so we should. On the positive side the advances in renewable energy should not be underestimated; it's continued growth and being preferred over coal and gas look likely to accelerate and older analyses of costs and benefits, based on earlier, higher costs, will keep getting rewritten. The largest part of new energy generation being built is wind and solar and the well of innovation underpinning their future growth looks a long way from running dry.

 

Also I suspect that one of the most important more near term benefits of the renewable energy success story will be a breakdown of the economic alarmist "too hard, too expensive" position that has united so much of commerce and industry in opposition to strong climate and emissions policy. I'd like to think Trump and the doubt, deny, delay attempts are a last doomed effort to pretend their way out of the climate problem and not the beginning of an every nation for themselves collapse of co-operation.

 

With lessening political obstruction policies can be developed and enacted that are not so full of inadequate goals, loopholes, exceptions and compromises. Who knows, even nuclear would benefit from a political shift away from denial and obstruction - given that the largest base existing political support for nuclear (in "Western" developed nations) is currently being rendered ineffective because it is within the same political groupings that have preventing and delaying strong climate action as a higher priority.

 

 

So, a partial solution to global warming, adapting the OP's idea, is to point all the vehicles on the planet towards the sun, then throw away the keys.

Up ramps that take them into space? Unless they not merely achieve orbit but escape Earth's gravitational field altogether the planetary orbit won't get changed but having less fossil fuel burners would be a net gain. Edited April 7, 2017 by Ken Fabian

[Sriman Dutta]

I though reducing the emission of green house gases is a better option than to move the earth away from it's orbit to reduce global warming. Do you know what will be the consequences of your idea? First, all vehicles working together would produce enough gases, causing more warming of the earth. Second, it can bring a great catastrophe.

[Function]

Second, it can bring a great catastrophe.

 

I never liked the ice age ideas. Summer

[selenahavy]

Firstly, we need to make friend with the Earth, then take it for granted and do the best for our best friend, such as protect him and don't destroy him.

[KipIngram]

Point all wheel driven vehicles in the direction of the Sun.

 

Then at a designated moment everyone accelerate as hard as the vehicle will, then roll to a stop. Repeat.

 

The Earth will be moved "out" of its orbit from the Sun... all actions having an equal and opposite reaction an' all... of course, more distance = less heat.

 

Possibly it may be more efficient to point the vehicles in the opposite direction to the Earths orbit to speed earths orbit to counter

centripetal effect of the Suns gravity allowing Earth to move away from it... If you are good with arithmetic you may like to crunch the numbers vis a vis

vehicles pointed at the sun versus vehicles pointed in the opposite direction of the Earths orbit.

 

Not so much - the momentum delivered by accelerating the vehicles will be returned as the vehicles roll to a halt. What you're talking about is a reactionless drive, and they don't work. You have to actually eject something from Earth to have a permanent effect on its momentum. And as noted above the magnitude of what you describe would be miniscule.

[John Cuthber]

Well, if you pointed all the vehicles towards the sun (this is possible, BTW Velocity boy, vehicles are mobile. you can park them all on or near a particular line of longitude- that would be close enough.) and switched the headlights on you would change the Earth's orbit.

Not much, but it's better than the mathematically zero change you would get from speeding up + slowing down.
(Calculation the magnitude of the effect is left as an exercise for the interested reader)

[Mordred]

Well, if you pointed all the vehicles towards the sun (this is possible, BTW Velocity boy, vehicles are mobile. you can park them all on or near a particular line of longitude- that would be close enough.) and switched the headlights on you would change the Earth's orbit.

Not much, but it's better than the mathematically zero change you would get from speeding up + slowing down.

(Calculation the magnitude of the effect is left as an exercise for the interested reader)

hrrmm tempting, tempting lol

[KipIngram]

Well, if you pointed all the vehicles towards the sun (this is possible, BTW Velocity boy, vehicles are mobile. you can park them all on or near a particular line of longitude- that would be close enough.) and switched the headlights on you would change the Earth's orbit.

Not much, but it's better than the mathematically zero change you would get from speeding up + slowing down.

(Calculation the magnitude of the effect is left as an exercise for the interested reader)

 

Nice one.