Good technical discussion, the key negative point omitted is that it would not be a local solution and would be good for somecountries or regions; not good for others. Such a solution would be acceptable only if global warming gets really bad and is unacceptable to all.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike MacCracken" <mmacc...@comcast.net> To: searchtai...@hotmail.com, "Geoengineering" <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:35:56 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 10min of maybe I don’t recall where but I think such approaches have been analyzed previously. As I recall, the problem is displacement by the solar wind and the particles will get pretty quickly pushed out of intended orbit, slowed, and burned up in the atmosphere—indeed, with so many particles, might that not happen from collisions? While the particles could be replaced on a regular/ongoing basis, you would also end up with a thickish cloud in orbits from the top of the atmosphere on up to whatever the injection altitude was (and perhaps a bit higher), that would, I would think, be abrasive to satellites that are up there. And then there are questions of what it would do to affect communications, visibility for astronomers, and so on, but the key issue is that they would not stay in the altitude band they were injected into. I should note also that it is 1% of solar that needs to be reflected/scattered away from Earth (plus any effect there would be of these particles absorbing, warming, and radiating back IR). Mike MacCracken On 11/29/12 9:37 PM, "home geoengineering inventor" < searchtai...@hotmail.com > wrote: Here are some of the specs of the Nickel coated graphite (NCG) I propose to use. Through a microscope this 100 micron powder appears to be hollow, hence the graphite core. Meaning it has a relatively large size vs. mass ratio. If you wanted to completely cover 1 square meter you would only need half a gram (TOTAL BLACK OUT!) Now when I say this material is invisible to the naked eye, I mean it is almost impossible to see a spec of anything this size. Take a human hair (60 micron) if you pull out one strand you can see its length but the end or cross section is pretty hard to see (unless you are trying real hard.) If I wanted to make a solid band of this product around the equator 10 km wide (COMPLETE BLACK OUT) I would need 5000 tons of this powder. Costing roughly 300 million CAN$ shipping and handling not included. That is equivalent to 1 day of war! (what US is spending to fight in Iraq as stated in the Washington post is 280 million a day) One may say that 10 km around the equator won't amount to shit, but with the proper delivery system this 10 km disperses into a not so solid band of 100 km around the Earth. Depending on altitude this coverage can be magnified many times. That means each and every particle is in direct contact with the suns rays for 12 hours a day and each and every day and every particle absorbs, reflects, deflects a small fraction of the suns solar rays. It would be like throwing a handful of flour in the air, or looking out of your screen window or door. You can still see out, light still penetrates through, plants can still grow, but things aren't quite so HOT!!! To achieve the desired results of blocking 1% of the incoming solar radiation in actuality I think this may be over kill. Meaning the cost is less than 300 million! 1 day of war to potentially slow and stop climate change. In the space industry really 300 million in my mind is a piss in the wind... I have read that payloads of up to 25 tons can go up at a time. That means I would need only 200 deliveries to accomplish the task. This product is readily available and surprising enough you most likely have almost direct contact to it every day. It is found in cell phones, tablets, monitors of sorts, computers, laptops, basically anything that has "touch screen" abilities. Further testing needs to be done. Testing to see how it reacts in vacuum, how it reacts with the worlds magnetic force field, abrasive tests done in wind tunnel are a few. I think putting anything solid up in space to achieve the same results is foolish due to potential collisions (a shuttle or satellite can safely fly or pass through an ultra fine powder.) And if further testing proves this to be too abrasive, the material is also available in half the size.. a bit more costly, but less abrasive. I think trying to shoot a meteor in hopes that it will give off a cloud of dust/powder is potentially catastrophic. Without knowing the composition of the meteor and how it will explode could result in a cloud too big with no way to control or reverse the process. Or on the other hand send a large chunk to hurdle towards Earth with the potential of destroying an existing satellite, the ISS, (producing more potential for space junk) or at its worse case scenario to actually hit Earth causing a total wipe out of everything. (With my idea we control how much goes up and if need be how much comes back.) I believe anything we do within our atmosphere is potentially causing weather patterns to fluctuate bringing on the perfect storm scenarios that we have been witnessing. If we try to cool one area it means another becomes heated and with the circulation of air, wind and water all a mess, we see things happening that may have not happened in the past. That's why I say "anything we do within the oven door is useless." even if we can reflect the suns solar rays within atmosphere; its too late. They have already done their damage by heating the Earth as a whole (even in the upper atmosphere.) Remember with my idea cooling at the equator (far far away from our atmosphere) where the sun heats Earth the most will still cool Earth as a whole.. Hence the chicken analogy. If that 1% of the suns rays never get the chance to penetrate into the atmosphere we would never know the difference, and it wouldn't have the negative effects on convection because it isn't technically in our "oven". Also if we wanted, my idea doesn't have to be over just the equator, we always have the option of making a cloud over any area in need of cooling, ex. polar ice caps!!! One of the strongest advantages to my idea is it doesn't have to happen over night. We can control and monitor the effects over time as we witness the positive effects. If someone, anyone can see a small maybe in my idea. I would love to get some guidance as far as testing is concerned. And how would one get funded for testing??? Trying to make a difference, Dennis Stelmack :) -- 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. -- 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.
