Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How to control the temperature on Earth ?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia

The most effective solution seems  me, the control of the amount of the sun light reaching to the Earth.

She would suffice us, the possibility of the control over several percentages of light reaching to the surface of the earth, and we would be he will get up to control the temperature in certain range on our planet.

The idea is not new, and principle the working this is simple, we place the suitable quantity of the satellites witch mirrors  which they deflect the sun light  on the orbit..

 

To reduce the temperature , we place them in line  among earth and sun. That is why they reduce the quantity of energy reaching to the planet, additionally we can direct  the sun  light in the direction of satellites which can processed them on electric energy.

 

 

To raise temperature. We place them perpendicularly to earth – Sun line and  we  reflect the light in to Planet.

 

When the control of the temperature is not necessary. We place them perpendicularly to earth – Sun line and  we  reflect the the light in the direction of satellites which can processed them on electric energy.

This energy, would can by use on the orbit, or send on Earth.

 

The basic problem of the realization of this idea, is not lack of suitable technologies. Only cost of transportation on the orbit which as I checked recently he carried out „4106 $ the per of the Kg for LEO” for chemical rockets.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Anyway production of such satellites on the earth and sending their on the orbit he is illogical.

Cheaper and more logical will be send infrastructures on the orbit thanks to which  one could  produce them on the orbit from materials gain over from asteroids or moon.

One that is all moves to costs,  can obviously  lower the cost of transportation on the orbit  to near utilization of the radical conception of the nuclear drive. I read that the price of transportation was on the orbit according to theoretical calculations, 120 $ the per of the Kg or cheaper.

http://www.astronaut...es/probirth.htm

On the end, have we to answer the question if we can let not undertake workings,  aiming to the settlement of the temperature on our planet ?

 

I will add that in the past the average temperature on the earth was in the range  from + 27 to -9 the Celsius degrees.

http://www.geocraft....ml#anchor147264

http://www.geocraft....t_400k_yrs.html



#2
WithoutCoincidence

WithoutCoincidence

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • LocationSomewhere above Zero Latitude.

We could always just release a ton of sulfur dioxide. Where we get that stuff from, though, is another question entirely.


The universe has gone from unimaginable, featureless heat to complexity and it will return in time to unimaginable, featureless cold.

-Chris Impey, How It Ends


#3
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

 You would need a ton of satellites to reflect/absorb a suitable amount of energy coming from the sun, plus they would have to be facing the sun at all times while in orbit.

 

How about building 'White Cities' where the buildings reflect the suns light, this would raise the albedo of Earth, cooling Earth, but then there is the question of the overwhelming amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere that trap the sunlight in our atmosphere.

 

This would take a far while to dissipate to suitable levels, even when the entire world is using renewable resources as energy.


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#4
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

http://www.foresight...nanodot/?p=2922

 

Excerpt:

 

 

 

Here’s the basic idea for the machine: construct a small aerostat—a hydrogen balloon—at a guess an optimal size is somewhere between a millimeter and a centimeter in diameter. It has a very thin shell of diamond, maybe just a nanometer thick. It’s round, and it has inside it (and possibly extending outside, giving it the shape of the planet Saturn) an equatorial plane that is a mirror. If you squashed it flat, you would have a disc only a few nanometers thick. Although you could build such a balloon out of materials that we build balloons of now, it would not be economical for our purposes. Given that we can build these aerostats so that the total amount of material in one is actually very, very small, we can inflate them with hydrogen in such a way that they will float at an altitude of twenty miles or so—well into the stratosphere and above the weather and the jet streams.

 

Each aerostat contains a mirror, and also a control unit consisting of a radio receiver, computer, and GPS receiver. It has just barely enough power and fans or other actuators to tilt itself to a preferred orientation. That’s all it does—listens for commands on the radio, and tilts to an angle that is a function of its latitude and longitude. It’s not really a complicated machine.

 

...

 

That’s the weather machine. We have these aerostats which float twenty miles up. They have GPS and controllers and can turn themselves. That’s all there is to it. What could you do with a machine like this? The machine is essentially a programmable greenhouse gas. If you set the mirrors facing the sun, it reflects all the sunlight back. If you set them sideways, it allows the sunlight to come through, and similarly for the longwave radiation coming from the back side of the earth at night.


What difference does it make?


#5
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia

 DJKiran I do not care about man-made CO2 because in my opinion is insignificant to change earth temperature.

About CO2

http://www.esrl.noaa...md/ccgg/trends/ in next year probably reach 400ppm

In the past CO2 reach more than 1000ppm

Any way in the past before humans have any impact to earth, average temperature was natural change in the range  from + 27 to -9 the Celsius degrees.

 

 

 Ru1138 This method can only cool down earth, if we encounter another glacial era what you do ?


Edited by Rabit, 10 May 2013 - 08:51 AM.


#6
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

Still, you would need an ungodly amount of satellites/sunsails to deflecy/absorb that much light


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#7
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia
Still, you would need an ungodly amount of satellites/sunsails to deflecy/absorb that much light

I not say it is easy task :)

 

Any way, first we must establish orbital/Moon industry. It is probably only solution, to make necessary amount of satellites (to stop 1 % sun light we need 40,6  if we use satellites with circular shape and 200km diameter).


Edited by Rabit, 10 May 2013 - 01:56 PM.


#8
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

I am in university, studying Astrophysics, and have learned that cloud seeding is the most effective for controlling the temperature on Earth - its flexible, you can remove/add clouds at will. You can't do that with satellites


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#9
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
No, but you can make it turn around so that the light-blocking disc is perpendicular to the sun, to let most of the light past.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#10
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

Still doesnt make up for the fact that you need at least a million up there


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#11
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia
Still doesnt make up for the fact that you need at least a million up there

 

Not a million 200 -260 will be enough to have control.

But is you want block all light from sun you must use 4060 :)


Edited by Rabit, 10 May 2013 - 10:34 PM.


#12
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

Cloud seeding is the more viable option


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#13
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia
Cloud seeding is the more viable option

 

But you cannot warm planet if temperature will drop.

And satellites are cheaper in maintenance.

 

Any way sooner or later, we must build orbital infrastructure :)


Edited by Rabit, 11 May 2013 - 04:20 PM.


#14
DJKiran

DJKiran

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • LocationUK

anyway, why would you want to warm the planet? Its already been warming since the industrial revolution, we really need to cool it down - hence cloud seeding. Much more  cheaper than having to launch thousands of satellites up in the air


Innovation and Change are the most important things in life

The Future is worth waiting for..... - Kiran Appiah 2011


#15
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia
anyway, why would you want to warm the planet? Its already been warming since the industrial revolution, we really need to cool it down - hence cloud seeding. Much more  cheaper than having to launch thousands of satellites up in the air

Our planet if you check past 400k years have much more times temperature below 0 Celsius degrees. http://www.geocraft....t_400k_yrs.html

 

The data proves after reaching approximation 3 Celsius degrees, temperature will fall. (check graph)



#16
StanleyAlexander

StanleyAlexander

    Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon, USA, Earth, 2063

The graph looks like it does the opposite of what the paper says it does...

 

 

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases.

 

Posted Image Posted Image

 

Furthermore, the fact that historical CO2 levels and global temperature have fluctuated beyond what we see today has no bearing on the fact that we have drastically increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and are now beginning to see a global average temperature trend upwards as a result.

 

The key difference is this: the historical change operates on scales of hundreds of thousands of years.  The change we're observing presently is happening on a scale of decades.  It's absolutely unprecedented in Earth's history.


Humanity's destiny is infinity

#17
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

I can't take this guy seriously on climate change if he even has a test that in itself is provoking enough. I found it here. It's fine till about question 3 where it gets iffy. Then question 4 completely denies that CO2, regardless of whether it's man-made or natural, contributes to the greenhouse effect. What the hell?

 

Okay I have to clear this up as someone studying the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the second biggest gas, up to a quarter percentage wise, that contributes to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor varies from 30-70% roughly. So he's right that it is a big contributor BUT he's ignoring a huge point here and this is why he's the one doing the junk science. Water vapor is constantly changing, literally within hours at a time. That's why I emphasized varies because It's always moving between the land, sea, and atmosphere and when it condenses into clouds that involves a whole other feedback process that may even reflect heat away thanks to a negative feedback. So it moves through our atmosphere quickly and fluctuates like hell because...wait for it...it's part out our weather systems! COon the other hand is not part of said systems and takes it's place due to those short-lived periods. It takes much longer to circulate between the atmosphere and land. Therefore in the end COleaves a nice impact on the greenhouse effect since it virtually sits in the atmosphere unlike water vapor. 

 

As a scientist he's pretty hell bent on biasing his point on this and also on energy. "Harnessing the power of coal is looking more beautiful every day!" Oh dear..this gives quite a lot away to why he's doing what he did with the previous pages. 

 

Don't get me wrong he's actually pretty informative on his geological work. I read through some of his pages and he's of course knowledgeable in his field but he's trying to justify his point on climate change based on very minute arguments. He only links a handful of journals to make a paltry point compared to the well over 13k journals that accept human-influenced climate change and run over old arguments put forward in those. 

 

As for the topic itself at hand, using satellites probably won't do much unless you aren't talking about today's satellites. You'd need an ungodly amount of modern satellites for the job you propose but isn't feasible economically and probably would cause a cascade of crashes thanks to space junk. For one thing you can't ignore clouds. Blocking sunlight may inadvertently cause more cooling than needed or forcing heating might not provide anything thanks to reflection of clouds. I'd put my money on a method like advanced cloud seeding or something similar to change temperatures if we wanted (in a scenario without climate change of course) or something like Ru1138 shared in another thread. But again we have to be careful with this. The Earth's atmosphere has an awesome balance between heating and cooling and is extremely delicate. For us to control the climate we have to control just about all aspects otherwise we can seriously fuck something up by throwing off the balance...like what we're doing right now basically. 


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#18
Rabit

Rabit

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationPoland - Silesia

I add to this discussion something about C02 and influence to plants

 

And second video:

 

And last video:

If you want conclusions move to 38:00

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Oyl97foy8&feature=player_detailpage


Edited by Rabit, 12 May 2013 - 09:47 AM.


#19
CLB

CLB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts
@ Cody930 I bow to your superior knowledge on this topic.

If something I say sounds like trolling/being stupid/offensive, please forgive me. I'm bad with people.


#20
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

Are those people serious? Increase COin the name of richer plants? Nevermind the consequences on dramatic climate shifts? This is like what certain members of congress say:

 

 

 

Of course more CO2 helps plants grow nicely. But this is detracting from major points. It only helps in small isolated areas. The effects of larger amounts of CO2 in such a short period of time in the atmosphere disrupts entire climates thus puts stress on plants due to migrations, shifts, desertification, etc. Now is that healthy? 

 

The data on temperatures on their site also shows the opposite of what they're saying through a dramatic increase in temperature anomalies within a short period of time, namely the 20th century. Similar to this.


Edited by Cody930, 12 May 2013 - 11:50 PM.

"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users