Smoke and Mirrors

[Harold Squared]

If it were the goal to regulate the temperature of a planetary surface, would screwing around with atmospheric composition be the best way to go about it?

 

I think not, and to my way of reasoning consider shading the planet(metaphorical "smoke") or the judicious application of mirrors to augment solar radiation directly to be more direct and efficacious.

 

Obviously this has implications for terraforming new planets and since we are unlikely to find worlds suitable for habitation "off the rack", we had better get used to tailoring, if you will pardon another metaphor.

[swansont]

If it were the goal to regulate the temperature of a planetary surface, would screwing around with atmospheric composition be the best way to go about it?

Posoning the well would not be a great way to start. How is reducing the material we are introducing into it "screwing" with the composition? That's like saying that ceasing to ingest the arsenic that's in my tea is "screwing" with my body chemistry, because I've already had some arsenic-laden tea.

[Harold Squared]

It is simply a matter of thermodynamic practicality. If I am hot, I find relief in the shade and consume cool beverages. When too cold, I move into the sunlight and consume warm beverages. In no case do I add arsenic to said beverages nor do I advocate doing so, but your tastes may differ. Be advised that consuming arsenic could cause your body temperature to match ambient conditions in short order.

 

Thank you for your most entertaining response.

[swansont]

It is simply a matter of thermodynamic practicality. If I am hot, I find relief in the shade and consume cool beverages. When too cold, I move into the sunlight and consume warm beverages. In no case do I add arsenic to said beverages nor do I advocate doing so, but your tastes may differ. Be advised that consuming arsenic could cause your body temperature to match ambient conditions in short order.

 

Thank you for your most entertaining response.

 

If you're too hot, you could take off your sweater first. The one you made and put on yourself, that uses the greenhouse effect. If it's just you that's affected, hey — if you want to keep it on and just drink a beverage and move into the shade, that's up to you.

[dimreepr]

It is simply a matter of thermodynamic practicality. If I am hot, I find relief in the shade and consume cool beverages. When too cold, I move into the sunlight and consume warm beverages.

 

 

The problems arise when, your fellow humans get hot but instead of shade, they choose a naturally hot room too cool artificially in which to consume an artificially hot beverage.

[Harold Squared]

It is simply a matter of scale. Imagine if you will a fleet of spacecraft furnished with solar sails and the means to control same, with room for other instruments as desired.

 

Let the quantity of such vessels be adequate to the task of maintaining station at the planetary/stellar libration point number one thereby shading the planet or moving closer to reflect radiation toward the planet from libration points four, five, or both according to preference.

 

Same principle as parasol but on a larger scale, AND potentially able to provide relief from climate extremes regardless of their origin, volcanic activity, asteroid strike, stellar fluctuations, etc.

[John Cuthber]

It is simply a matter of scale. Imagine if you will a fleet of spacecraft furnished with solar sails and the means to control same, with room for other instruments as desired.

 

Let the quantity of such vessels be adequate to the task of maintaining station at the planetary/stellar libration point number one thereby shading the planet or moving closer to reflect radiation toward the planet from libration points four, five, or both according to preference.

 

Same principle as parasol but on a larger scale, AND potentially able to provide relief from climate extremes regardless of their origin, volcanic activity, asteroid strike, stellar fluctuations, etc.

Imagine paying for the energy needed to launch that fleet.

Edited June 7, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Harold Squared]

 

 

The problems arise when, your fellow humans get hot but instead of shade, they choose a naturally hot room too cool artificially in which to consume an artificially hot beverage.

What problems would those be, colleague?

Imagine paying for the energy needed to launch that fleet.

That is another topic but a good one, so permit a brief digression, if you'd be kind enough.

 

It would obviously be preferable to construct such vessels from materials already located outside a significantly large gravity well. Also we are talking about large numbers of such vessels so economies of scale and mass production would enter the calculations. Obviously fertile ground for additional discussion, and hey, we are talking about renovation of PLANETS here, who expects to do it on the cheap?

 

A final note, consider the costs of NOT doing it.

[John Cuthber]

A final note, consider the costs of NOT doing it.

Renovating a planet would be expensive.

So perhaps it's better not to wreck it in the first place.

[dimreepr]

Renovating a planet would be expensive.

So perhaps it's better not to wreck it in the first place.

[StringJunky]

No, dimreepr. This is the America Harold wants to preserve for future generations.

 

http://mashable.com/2014/04/30/most-polluted-cities-us/

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by StringJunky

[Danijel Gorupec]

This topic is just moving into activism territory... and the OP question was clear: "IF IT WERE the goal..." not "IS IT the goal..."

 

IF IT WERE the goal to regulate the planet temperature, then I too would agree that mirrors are better solution than messing with the atmosphere. It is the other question if it will be technically feasible at the time needed.

 

That said, I don't think that we will ever have opportunity to decide anything important about our planet. I am afraid we will resort to doing what needs to be done because there will be no other choice. 7 billion people is just incapable to think in advance.

[swansont]

What problems would those be, colleague?

 

That is another topic but a good one, so permit a brief digression, if you'd be kind enough.

 

It would obviously be preferable to construct such vessels from materials already located outside a significantly large gravity well. Also we are talking about large numbers of such vessels so economies of scale and mass production would enter the calculations. Obviously fertile ground for additional discussion, and hey, we are talking about renovation of PLANETS here, who expects to do it on the cheap?

 

A final note, consider the costs of NOT doing it.

 

If you are agreeing on a plan of action, then you decide the best plan, including the cost. You haven't established the relative cost of solutions, much less that this is more cost-effective than terrestrial ones.

[Harold Squared]

Really, esteemed moderator? These jokers are trying to not only hijack my thread but put words in my mouth and that is the best you have?

 

I have established the utility of such an approach regardless of the cause of temperature extremes. Furthermore the method as well as the mobile devices themselves can be used on multiple planets in a given solar system and/or put to exploratory use. Finally there is only ONE planet where a "terrestrial" solution is even possible by definition and it is currently habitable and has exhibited no climatic anomalies of significance for nearly two decades, so there is no real urgency involved today.

 

If you would kindly exhibit some impartiality I would be happy to work up some example of a cost estimate.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Really, esteemed moderator? These jokers are trying to not only hijack my thread but put words in my mouth and that is the best you have?

 

I have established the utility of such an approach regardless of the cause of temperature extremes. Furthermore the method as well as the mobile devices themselves can be used on multiple planets in a given solar system and/or put to exploratory use. Finally there is only ONE planet where a "terrestrial" solution is even possible by definition and it is currently habitable and has exhibited no climatic anomalies of significance for nearly two decades, so there is no real urgency involved today.

 

If you would kindly exhibit some impartiality I would be happy to work up some example of a cost estimate.

 

I disagree with you and you are claiming things with no support. When I'm involved in a discussion outside of speculations I am not acting as a moderator. Impartiality doesn't enter into it. The fact remains that you have not done a cost analysis, or a scientific analysis. Just a hand-wavy assertion that this will work and will work best.

[Harold Squared]

Splendid. And the CO2 "sweater" hypothesis isn't composed of handwavium and not much else.

 

The method described will work for any planet we have access to, including Mars or Venus, as I mentioned at the outset, and is certainly more practical than importing or extracting large volumes of gases. Regarding Earth, the method could be applied to another Ice Age cycle as well as any hypothetical problematic warming trend, regardless of its origin. If we use asteroid material to build the fleet in space, the venture will pay for itself via recovery of precious metals, etc. So there's your cost analysis.

 

By comparison your hypothetical sweater is a one trick pony, and a lame one at that. One man's hand waving is another's thought experiment, so stick with me if you'd be so kind: you remove your hypothetical sweater, what then?

 

You will still get uncomfortably hot or cold at times and will need galoshes now and then. If you wind up in Galveston you may need a life jacket and a good deal more, in the event of another Hurricane of 1900. Yes! It is true, even at whatever arbitrary level of Carbon Dioxide Al Gore and the Faithful find soothing, we can expect adverse weather events to continue at the pre 1950 rate at a bare minimum. Likewise we can expect the current interglacial period to come to an end, so better keep Mr. Sweater handy, or find something better.

 

You're welcome.

[swansont]

When you're ready to argue something that's not a straw man, please be sure to let us know.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This is a Climate Science thread, and is severely lacking in supportive evidence compared to the assertions being thrown around. More rigor, please, all involved. No more guessy posts, let's support those claims!

 

As usual, talk about the topic, not about this modnote. Report it if you have issues with it.

[Harold Squared]

In principle, the method described in my little thought experiment has quite a bit of utility.

 

Individual units can be mass produced to a standardized design and need be no more than a solar sail with a rudimentary navigation system.

 

Obviously cost per unit is yet to be determined but it would be necessary to keep them low in mass and composed of commonly available materials such as aluminum and silicon. Made in large numbers they could be regarded as semi-expendable, since only practice can guide us regarding the durability of individual units.

 

A cloud of units could be detached temporarily for manufacturing or other purposes before being returned to service and other uses may very well present themselves, but in all probability they would be of greatest utility in the inner solar system.

 

As a courtesy to colleague Swanson, the cost of removing the metaphorical sweater was estimated at $150 billions annually for a decade according to a report in February 6th's "Financial Times".

 

This is estimated to be equivalent to the cost of ten Apollo moonshot programs in today's money.

 

If, for the sake of argument, my proposal were to cost a like amount, at the end of it all we would have something tangible to show for it.

Imagine paying for the energy needed to launch that fleet.

Imagine checkmate, colleague.

 

But functionally, as described such units could be used to create parabolic mirrors of arbitrary magnitude, unhampered by gravitational or atmospheric distortion, greatly simplifying the collection of sunlight, aka energy.

 

Therefore even without precious metals derived from asteroids, such units have the potential to pay for themselves.

 

Fancy that...

Edited June 8, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

If we use asteroid material to build the fleet in space, the venture will pay for itself via recovery of precious metals, etc. So there's your cost analysis.

That's my favorite cost analysis on this whole forum.

 

Take it another step. If we simply piled all the asteroids together into one planet we could design its climate from scratch, make it ideal in the first place. And of course we would already know where all the gold and stuff was, so it would pay for itself. Then we wouldn't have to tiptoe around trying not to foul the air of this one in damaging ways.

[Harold Squared]

That's my favorite cost analysis on this whole forum.

 

Take it another step. If we simply piled all the asteroids together into one planet we could design its climate from scratch, make it ideal in the first place. And of course we would already know where all the gold and stuff was, so it would pay for itself. Then we wouldn't have to tiptoe around trying not to foul the air of this one in damaging ways.

Sure, buddy, you are getting the idea. Terraforming is basically building a world to order from available materials. There are already companies gearing up to mine the asteroids, if you don't believe me, check it out yourself.

 

And do yourself a favor, read "Mining The Sky" by John S. Lewis. He paints a very hopeful picture, might shake you out of the AGW gloom and doom.

 

And speaking of golden asteroids, you might enjoy "Element 79" by Sir Fred Hoyle. Cracking good read by a serious scientist, though from what I understand he had trouble accepting the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

Hey, over on the Amateur Science section of the forum some guy posted a proposal to terraform Venus with spreadsheets and all but nobody called him a "hand waver" or anything mean, nasty, or remotely ugly at all.

 

What makes old Harold so special, I wonder?

[overtone]

 

 

And do yourself a favor, read "Mining The Sky" by John S. Lewis. He paints a very hopeful picture, might shake you out of the AGW gloom and doom.

The AGW doom and gloom comes from cost analyses that include things like costs, and analysis.

 

I'm a fan and hopeful supporter of asteroid mining. http://www.johnslewis.com

 

One of the less often recognized side effects of the current CO2 boost is its potential to derail such hopeful prospects for the future - asteroid mining will require considerable investment and focused technological expertise, which will most likely be generated by an available surplus of such resources on this planet. That means taht some time in the near future we haven't had to use them all up dealing with what's coming down the track from the CO2 boost. Cross your fingers.

[swansont]

u

This is estimated to be equivalent to the cost of ten Apollo moonshot programs in today's money.

If, for the sake of argument, my proposal were to cost a like amount, at the end of it all we would have something tangible to show for it.

.

What is supposedly going to happen to the infrastructure of our current efforts? Will the e.g. solar and wind generation machines just evaporate? Or will they continue to exist, thus leaving something tangible to show for our effort?

[Harold Squared]

Common ground at last, fantastic.

 

Anyway I was thinking and realized that shading the planet Earth is trickier than warming it up by the means described in my proposal.

 

If I am missing something I trust you will point it out, but reflecting sunlight onto the Earth from the L4 and L5 points of the Earth-Luna system is preferable to parking the mirrors at analogous points in the Earth-Sun system due to the inverse square law. These are also relatively stable. Wikipedia.

 

Putting a "parasol" array at the Earth-Sun position is more of a challenge with the destination both further away and less stable in nature, though successful missions to that destination have been made.(again, Wikipedia, easy and regularly updated)

 

Finally, depending on the volume of traffic in space, any large array might be perceived as a menace to navigation. This is a rather remote possibility, in my estimation, but I am looking for both pros and cons, critical thinking, you know...

[dimreepr]

Harold, it’s far too late to start backtracking now; especially with this word salad.