Depending on who you speak with, Global Warming may or may not exist. But some facts cannot be in dispute, the polar ice on this planet is shrinking at an alarming rate. And the primary suspect is an increasing amount of greenhouse gases. Scientists all over the world are looking for ways to reverse this trend and limit or eliminate the continued production of these gases. This is a great long term solution but may come too late to stall or reverse the current thaw cycle that may endanger coastal cities worldwide. But what if there was a short term solution? What if there was a method to stop Global Warming now—a method to control and regulate the temperature of the planet with calculable precision?
To understand the proposal introduced here, it is important to understand the critics of Global Warming and the arguments they have put forward. Simply stated, the rising CO2 levels should have produced much higher temperatures on Earth then presently recorded. With this in mind, it is important to understand the changing nature of smog. Anybody that was around Los Angeles in the early 1970’s knows how different smog was then from today. It was not uncommon, on a very smoggy day, to lose sight of the house just across the street (honestly!). Today, we (Los Angeles) are producing more CO2 and other greenhouse gases then ever, but the days of completely loosing sight of your neighbors has disappeared. But while our air has become cleaner, for the developing countries around the world the air is being filled with visible pollutants. A one hundred year study conducted in Texas has documented the subtle trend of Global Dimming—the fact is that the energy received from our sun has continuously weakened for more than a century In some respects, rising CO2 levels has helped to balance the effect of the dimming sun. Of course, the CO2 is now over balancing this phenomenon.
Seeing as how it may be 50 years, or more, before we have overcome the problem of greenhouse gas production, and given the fact that if countries like China begin to clean their air without reducing greenhouse gases, we could see runaway Global Warming. On the other hand, we worry about the possible eruption of Yellowstone National Park’s Supervolcanoe or a limited nuclear war, either of which could lead us into a new Ice Age. Obviously we cannot control volcanic activity and setting off nuclear weapons with the intention of putting a little dirt and ash into the stratosphere is unacceptable regardless of the motivation. Still, the concept demonstrates a solution to Global Warming—Dimming the Sun.
This point was made clear in the days that followed 911. The absence of contrails from air traffic over the United States increased the brightness of the Sun. My first thought on this was to place Mylar® foil (glitter) in orbit near the equator. This could be accomplished by a series of equatorial launched sounding rockets which could deploy the glitter by means of explosive (highly compressed gas) payloads to achieve the desired disbursement pattern. The amount and altitude would determine how much light would be reflected and the period of this effect. The drawback to this idea is the fact that “feather weight” items in space will fall to Earth completely intact. We do not need to replace one problem with another. So for this idea to work environmentally, the material must be; edible, non-toxic and water soluble, or a fundamental element. The space equivalent of smoke or clouds may be carbon dust. In exactly the same way contrails in the stratosphere dim the Sun, so too would carbon dust at higher elevations accomplish the same task. In Low Earth Orbit the only challenge would be to disperse the carbon in such a means to produce very small particles and prevent clustering. There are a couple of advantages to this approach; a cloud in space over the equator would provide controlled solar dimming where the sun is normally the brightest, I believe it was Bill Haynes that first discussed with me the idea of bringing down space debris that passed through an orbital cloud of a particular mass and density—I just cannot remember what material he had in mind. Still, any material capable of doing one task would accomplish the other. The negative side of this plan is the amount of material that may be required. This is, however, a calculable amount (just not by me). Another drawback is that we know that even very small particles can cause damage to spacecraft. A small fleck of paint was once discovered embedded within the windshield of the Space Shuttle. There are very few equatorial launches, fortunately, and for the few that may encounter this cloud, the structural nature of modern nosecones to overcome the dynamic pressures of the atmosphere should be more than enough to overcome the brief passage through this barrier.
Another way to accomplish a method we already know works, would be to increase the density and/or longevity of contrails currently produced. Just as planes in air shows will add a small amount of oil or other additive to their exhaust manifolds to produce very heavy smoke (in various colors), it may be possible to do the same for commercial jet traffic using an otherwise environmentally friendly additive. The advantage of this process is it can be used only at altitude and allow for clean takeoffs and landings. More importantly, and can be implemented within days or weeks.
This is not meant to be the be-all or end-all solution, but rather a jumping off point to discuss new ideas for short term compensation until the real problem of Global Warming can be addressed.
Tags: Uncategorized //
Poynting-Robertson drag and solar pressure sweep small particles out of orbit very quickly.
Also note that I’m not at all sure what you mean by “there are very few equatorial launches.” There are lots of equatorial launches, and alos, every orbit crosses the equator twice per orbit.
In response to Geoffrey A. Landis;
I suppose my data about launches is somewhat dated, still I think launches would be relatively unaffected. As for “every orbit crosses the equator twice per orbit” is absolutely true but at a higher orbit then the “edge of space” where the sounding rockets would place the cloud. I should have been clearer.
First, I do not accept the “Global Warming” hysteria. For example, your belief that the Arctic ice is shrinking, is correct … if you check it only at the end of the northern summer. I do not have a source handy, but the latest unbiased information is that after shrinking last summer, the ice returned to historically normal levels during the northern winter … information scrupulously ignored by all those who want to gain power and influence by fostering human caused global warming as their cause celebre and route to political power.
If you will check NASA and other sources, you will see that the Antarctic, far from warming up, is registering significantly lower temperatures all over. You may have noted that our northern plains states also suffered historically cold weather and extreme snow fall last winter, something you will also not read in the wayward press. Similarly, the north of China also experienced an historically severe winter, with many homes and factories suffering collapsed roofs caused by heavy snow loads. Now most of those buildings were not new but were, as most buildings in China not in the rapidly developing East, really quite old, yet had stood all those decades or perhaps centuries without suffering amaging snow falls of that intensity.
Another outright lie about GW is that hurricanes are intensifying and becoming more frequent. The Nat. Weather Service has published records going back to the beginning of such reports and shown that neither the frequency nor intensity have changed over all, but continue to adhere to an 11 year cycle of intensity and frequency change. What HAS changed is the amount of monetary damage suffered. But that is because so many more infrastructures have been built and the value of the structures has, of course, also gone up. Politicians like McCain have been forced to respond to the Global Warming “threat” because the damn media have sold so many people on it that they simply can’t win by trying to oppose it. The widely publicized UN Committee Report on Climate Change is, according to the media, predicting something like a 30 ft. rise in sea level over the next 50 years. They actually predicted a 17 INCH average rise … IF global warming actually increases average temperatures to the maximum level predicted.
So I believe that by accepting all this biased pseudo-science you are becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution. What we are faced with is a phenomenon Paul Joseph Goebbels would be proud of. And it is so safe for the Gorelicks, because they will probably be long dead before the contravening truth becomes undeniable. Here’s some good countervailing sources on the “Global Warming” issue: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (5.7MB PDF File)
On the orbital clean-up;
What I proposed was to place a container filled with a heavy-molecular weight gas in a RETROGRADE orbit to the “tube” of space that you want to sweep clean. It will sweep past everything in that orbit twice every revolution. Then the heavy molecular gas is to be slowly released. the gas will sweep the material in the selected “tube”, causing it to slow down and gradually descend. The beauty of it is that the gases, while dissipating somewhat, will also slow down and continue to interdict the debris they encounter as both descend gradually into the upper atmosphere and re-enter.