Nothing new under the sun? There was a 1960 Soviet proposal for a Saturn-like ring around Earth to melt the polar ice cap. See Fixing the Sky, pp. 199-200:
In Man Versus Climate (1960), Soviet authors Nikolai Petrovich Rusin and Liya Abramovna Flit surveyed a large number of schemes for climatic tinkering. Invoking a Jules Verne–style fantasy, the book’s cover is illustrated by the Earth surrounded by a Saturn-like ring of dust particles intended to illuminate the Arctic Circle, increase solar energy absorption, and ultimately melt the polar ice caps. Chapters in the book are dedicated to mega-engineering projects such as damming the Congo River to electrify Africa and irrigate the Sahara, diverting the Gulf Stream with a causeway off Newfoundland or harnessing it with turbines installed between Florida and Cuba, and, of course, Petr Mikhailovich Borisov’s proposal to dam the Bering Strait to divert Atlantic waters into the Pacific and melt the Arctic sea ice. The authors’ ultimate goal was to convince the reader “that man can really be the master of this planet and that the future is in his hands.”27 In a much more politically oriented book, Methods of Climate Control (1964), Rusin and Flit admitted that “we are merely on the threshold of the conquest of nature,” attributing the nascent ability to control nature to the emergence of the new Soviet man: “Before the Revolution, under the autocracy, nine-tenths of the territory of Russia had not been studied at all. The Soviet man, taking ownership of the greatest natural wealth, learned not only how to use it, but how to subordinate nature to his will. And now we are not surprised when we learn that a new sea has been developed or the desert has blossomed.”28 Referring to the macro-engineering projects discussed in their earlier book, Rusin and Flit argued that deeper scientific insight into the laws of nature would result in ever more “grandiose” plans for developing immense energy reserves, controlling the flow of rivers, and subjugating permafrost, to name but a few of the advances that they expected. Science was not just about observing and understanding nature; it was about exploiting and controlling it as well. They cited the program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on this: “The progress of science and technology under the conditions of the Socialist system of economy is making it possible to most effectively utilize the wealth and forces of nature for the interests of the people, make available new forms of energy and create new materials, develop methods for the modification of climatic conditions and master space” (3). On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jgb3vA_Sfy4J. > 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. > -- James Fleming STS Program Colby College 5881 Mayflower Hill Waterville, ME 04901 Ph: 207-859-5881 Fax: 207-859-5846 Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming <http://web.colby.edu/jfleming> -- 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.
