In article , Noah Little writes:
Tim K. wrote:
wrote in message
m...
I think you are suffering from a thingie called cognitive
dissonance. Hurricanes are a fact of living anywhere close
to a coast. It is like living in a snow belt. There is
nothing you can do about preventing 2-foot dumps onto
your driveway. There is a lot you can do to plan for the
days you will be house-bound w.r.t. food, water, and
removing enough snow _after_ the storm stops so you can
get out and go to work.


Look up the definition of c a t a s t r o p h e and get back to me.

Trust me on this -- I do not have a dog in this fight -- a hurricane is
not a catastrophe. A hurricane hitting a populated area is a catastrophe.
--
Not even this. A hurricane hitting a populated area where the
population experienced hurricanes before but still failed to prepare
adequately, that's a catastrophe.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
oups.com...

James Toupin wrote:
(snipped)

While I am not a professional scientist, I do have a "scientific mind",
as
you put it. I have not forgotten volcanic ash or meteoric ash and dust as
an
agent in cooling the atmosphere. However, volcanic ash or dust ejected by
the impact of a meteorite is not at all similar to "aluminums sequins".
Both
volcanic ash and impact debris does not so much reflect solar radiation
away
from the earth as simply blocking the radiation from striking the
surface,
particularly in the visible and infrared wavelengths. And, oddly enough,
while it cools the earth by blocking sunlight from reaching the earth's
surface, it also acts as a thermal blanket trapping whatever heat is
generated by the planet and it's life processes thus keeping the
temperature
from droping as dramatically as it would otherwise.

Sorry to say, but you lack a scientific mind when you do not realize
that an analogy of factual data disprove your argument. You admit that
volcanic dust cools Earth. You admit that meteoric ash cools Earth. But
then your unscientific mind refuses to believe that Aluminum Aluminium
Sequin would magnify by powers of 10 the cooling of Volcanic/Meteoric
ash would cool. You admit volcanic ash cools Earth, so why do you
refuse to accept that a Aluminium Sequin particle would cool Earth by
perhaps 10^9 greater than a volcanic ash particle. Unless you are
arguing just to be arguing.

I am sure that aluminium sequins would indeed have an effect on the
atmosphere at the temperature of the Earth's surface. What I don't accept is
your argument that it would only reflect incoming solar radiation away from
Earth and not also trap heat in like a thermal blanket. It's not that I
don't accept it, rather that humanity messing with the environment has not
ever turned out well before. We need to keep that in mind before we do
anything to interfere with the natural processes.




Actually, there is not even a need to invoke the examples of volcanic and
meteoric activity, as this is a fairly well known principle to
meteorologists and a mater of common sense that , I imagine, even grade
school children have perceived. An overcast day is cooler than a clear
one,
while a clear night is cooler than an overcast one. This is because,
during
the night the earth radiates heat energy, in the form of infrared
radiation,
back into space reducing the temperature. The cloud cover stops the heat
from being radiated away and traps the heat in the atmosphere.


In the region of the Equator where the Gulf Sea lies there are a
density number of incoming photons from the Sun and likewise for this
density number of a given cross section of space there is a number of
photons outgoing from the Earth which is very very small compared to
incoming Sun photons. Aluminium Sequin will reflect a very small, very
tiny number of outgoing photons from the Earth surface back to the
Earth surface. But the number of reflected incoming Sun photons is so
huge that to speak of Aluminium Sequin as a blanket to warm Earth is so
ridiculous and that is why I called you lacking of a science mind.

The amount of solar radiation reflected would be dependent upon: the amount
of aluminium used, and the angle at which it is inclined relative to the
incoming solar radiation and the surface of the Earth. If it were simply
allowed to orbit randomly, the aluminium sequins, which I presume you would
have polished to a high reflectivity in order to get the magnitude of order
cooling that you suggest, would tumble in space and not consistently reflect
radiation away from the Earth at all. By extension, if the aluminium sequins
are simply allowed to tumble, why would the reflectivity not be equal when
it was facing the surface of the Earth as when it was facing outward?




Think about what is the proportion of reflected Sun rays by Earth
compared to the number of incoming Sun rays.

The reflection of the "Sun rays" - very scientific - is not the issue.
The
issue is how much solar radiation, particularly in the infrared
wavelength
is absorbed by earth's ocean and how much heat, generated by that
radiation
striking the earth, is allowed to escape back into space. It is a
precarious
balancing act and one that has already been affected by the release of
carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere through industrial processes. This
carbon-dioxide produces the very "thermal blanket" effect that I have
already cited above, which traps the heat in earth's atmosphere that
would
normally be radiated out into space.


What makes you think that Aluminum/Aluminium Sequin does not reflect or
absorb infrared wavelength and thus preventing those photons from
heating up the oceans. What makes you think that since volcanic ash and
meteoric ash can absorb the infrared that the Aluminium does or does
not absorb the infrared. And what makes you think that Aluminum does or
does not reflect infrared wavelengths. So what is your scientific
source for your denial of aluminum as absorbing or reflecting?

I don't deny it. The basis for my arguing against it is because I agree that
it would indeed reflect and absorb solar radiation. The problem is knowing
exactly how that would work in practice. Aluminium sequins allowed to simply
tumble would, in essence, scatter the incoming sunlight; reflecting a
portion away from the Earth and reflecting a portion towards the Earth.
Knowing precisely what these proportions would be is of utmost importance in
predicting the effects upon the Earth and it's climate. Also, assuming that
these aluminium sequins would be in a geosynchronous orbit to have the
desired effect on a particular region, what portion of the heat that was
produced during the day would be reflected back towards earth when the
region passed into night time? What if cloud cover develops in the same area
during the day and intensifies the cooling effect? Or at night and
intensifies the thermal blanket effect? There are simply far to many
variables for a system such as this to work effectively and as intended.



As for aligning the sequin, I do not need to do that. Aluminum sequin
is the lowest tech for a Earth Air Conditioner and will be the first
such engineering. But after it is in orbit, there is no doubt in my
mind that future engineers will make it higher tech with the ability to
perhaps align the particles.

Perhaps the lowest tech solution would be to simply release dust into the
upper atmosphere, or low earth orbit, rather than using reflective
aluminum
sequins at all. This would not even require the refining process needed
to
produce aluminum, simply dig up a mound of dirt somewhere. Of course
there
is still the nasty business of unintended consequences: how would the
rest
of the climate be effected by the change you purpose? The Gulf Stream and
the Global Conveyer are integral to balancing the heat exchange between
the
middle and lower latitudes.


No need for dust when Aluminum by a factor of 10^9 does a better job of
cooling Earth.

And what effects of this extreme cooling of one part of the ocean produce
globally? That is a bit of a worry, wouldn't you agree?


There maybe a plant material that may do as well of a job as aluminium
sequin. The chaff of agricultural harvesting such as corn stalk chaff
or cotton chaff may provide a better material. Perhaps some leaves such
as the raking of Fall leaves chaff would be about 1/2 the weight per
volume of aluminium sequin.

Improvements to Earth Air Conditioner will go on as long as humanity
exists, but what I am interested is getting the first one built, made
of aluminum sequin.


As I said earlier Order is happiness and the more order we have means
the more controlling of Hurricanes and also controlling Earth Air
Conditioner. Some future day we could perhaps control weather for most
of the continental land masses.

Order is not always happiness. If you need proof of that simply ask
anyone
who suffered at the hands of Nazism or Communism, both big believers in
order.


I am afraid it is. And a sign of a nonscientific mind such as James is
to constantly argue against whatever the other person says, and the
inability for that mind to ever be "open minded".

I am open minded. I am open to many ideas and possibilities. I am also open
to the idea of unintended consequences. I feel that the unintended
consequences of this plan outweigh any advantage that you may perceive.

James

As for Nazism and
Communism and tyrants and relition-run-states are systems of dogma,
just as religion is dogma. At least in the Democratic process as a
system there is room in the process to remove falsity and corruption.
In dogmatic political systems such as Nazism, Communism,
Religion-states, and dictator states there is little to no room to
remove corruption or falsehoods and whenever you have corruption and
falsehoods you have disorder. Democracy begs and pleads for order to
run the country. Democracy hates an environment of corruption, an
environment of disorder, an environment where the rule-of-law is not
attended to.

The concept of happiness and being happy are one and same as the
concept of order, whether the order is in controlling hurricanes so
they do not destroy your life or whether it is the happiness that your
government enforces rule of law.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

James Toupin wrote:


I am sure that aluminium sequins would indeed have an effect on the
atmosphere at the temperature of the Earth's surface. What I don't accept is
your argument that it would only reflect incoming solar radiation away from
Earth and not also trap heat in like a thermal blanket. It's not that I
don't accept it, rather that humanity messing with the environment has not
ever turned out well before. We need to keep that in mind before we do
anything to interfere with the natural processes.


My argument never said all radiation is reflected into outer space, so
please do not put words into my mouth.

You need a lesson in physics and I need practice in lecturing about
physics.
Most of the Sun radiation, EM radiation that strikes Earth surface is
in the visible wavelength, but I do not have a percentage of that and
am guessing about 70% that strikes Earth surface is Visible Light which
makes sense in that photosynthesis is based on visible range of light.
The Infrared range of Sunlight seldom strikes the surface of Earth and
is absorbed by the atmosphere of Earth. So the comment by James that
ocean waters are heated up due to infrared radiation and the bulk of
the cause of hurricanes is not true. Apparently the main contributor of
the heating up of ocean waters is Visible Light.

Also, Infrared region of EM spectrum reflects easily by mirrors and by
aluminum sequin. The infrared telescopes in use are positioned on high
level mountains that are dry mountains. It is given that aluminium
reflects the Visible range of Sunlight.

So by putting aluminium or aluminum sequin into orbit will easily
reflect alot of Visible and Infrared radiation coming from the Sun.

Now there is a small contribution of infrared radiation due to Earth
itself of its radioactivity and the fact it is a body above zero kelvin
temperature. All bodies above zero kelvin emit infrared radiation. And
the sequin will reflect some of this outgoing infrared back to the
surface.




The amount of solar radiation reflected would be dependent upon: the amount
of aluminium used, and the angle at which it is inclined relative to the
incoming solar radiation and the surface of the Earth. If it were simply
allowed to orbit randomly, the aluminium sequins, which I presume you would
have polished to a high reflectivity in order to get the magnitude of order
cooling that you suggest, would tumble in space and not consistently reflect
radiation away from the Earth at all. By extension, if the aluminium sequins
are simply allowed to tumble, why would the reflectivity not be equal when
it was facing the surface of the Earth as when it was facing outward?


I do not know why you are hung up on the fact of tumbling. The basic
math of this reflectivity is that a huge percent of incoming Sun rays
are reflected into space and a small amount of infrared that the Earth
itself as a body emits is reflected back to Earth. So if 99% of the
rays that are reflected are reflected into outer space, why be hung up
on a mere 1% that is re-reflected back down to the Earth surface. And
James is illogically hung up on rays that are reflected towards the
surface of Earth, for which they would have struck Earth anyway if the
aluminum was not there in the first place, so they do not count.


What counts is that every reflected ray into outer space by the
Aluminum will keep the Earth that much cooler. And there will be alot
of these reflected rays and only a meagre rare few rays that become
trapped by the aluminum.




I am open minded. I am open to many ideas and possibilities. I am also open
to the idea of unintended consequences. I feel that the unintended
consequences of this plan outweigh any advantage that you may perceive.

James


I do not call that open minded. I call it "worry wart". There are those
that do things to improve the world and there are worry warts that carp
and banter negatives and depress those that try to improve the world.
Worry warts should not have a forum to spread their depressing views.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Tim,

Mati and Jumbah are correct. The good thing
about tropical storms is (1) they don't always become
hurricanes; (2) they are terrific rain makers.

In Texas, water is life. In South Texas we were blessed
with full reservoirs this summer because of last year's
storms which dumped millions of tonnes into the state's
drainage system. South Texas and Northern Mexico
would be deserts without the steady delivery of rains
by tropical storms. But Louisiana and the East Gulf do
not need this extra water.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wrote in message
oups.com...
Tim,

Mati and Jumbah are correct. The good thing
about tropical storms is (1) they don't always become
hurricanes; (2) they are terrific rain makers.

In Texas, water is life. In South Texas we were blessed
with full reservoirs this summer because of last year's
storms which dumped millions of tonnes into the state's
drainage system. South Texas and Northern Mexico
would be deserts without the steady delivery of rains
by tropical storms. But Louisiana and the East Gulf do
not need this extra water.

I believe any place on Earth would be a desert if it doesn't rain there.

In article lN8Te.168784$E95.90875@fed1read01, "Richard Henry" writes:

wrote in message
roups.com...
Tim,

Mati and Jumbah are correct. The good thing
about tropical storms is (1) they don't always become
hurricanes; (2) they are terrific rain makers.

In Texas, water is life. In South Texas we were blessed
with full reservoirs this summer because of last year's
storms which dumped millions of tonnes into the state's
drainage system. South Texas and Northern Mexico
would be deserts without the steady delivery of rains
by tropical storms. But Louisiana and the East Gulf do
not need this extra water.

I believe any place on Earth would be a desert if it doesn't rain there.

Well, there are some exceptions. River valleys may be kept from being
deserts by rains elsewhere.

Anyway, other than those exceptions, not every place is getting the
majority of its rains delivered in the form of tropical storms.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
ups.com...

James Toupin wrote:


I am sure that aluminium sequins would indeed have an effect on the
atmosphere at the temperature of the Earth's surface. What I don't accept
is
your argument that it would only reflect incoming solar radiation away
from
Earth and not also trap heat in like a thermal blanket. It's not that I
don't accept it, rather that humanity messing with the environment has
not
ever turned out well before. We need to keep that in mind before we do
anything to interfere with the natural processes.


My argument never said all radiation is reflected into outer space, so
please do not put words into my mouth.

You need a lesson in physics and I need practice in lecturing about
physics.
Most of the Sun radiation, EM radiation that strikes Earth surface is
in the visible wavelength, but I do not have a percentage of that and
am guessing about 70% that strikes Earth surface is Visible Light which
makes sense in that photosynthesis is based on visible range of light.
The Infrared range of Sunlight seldom strikes the surface of Earth and
is absorbed by the atmosphere of Earth. So the comment by James that
ocean waters are heated up due to infrared radiation and the bulk of
the cause of hurricanes is not true. Apparently the main contributor of
the heating up of ocean waters is Visible Light.

You certainly do need practice, but not in lecturing about physics but
understanding it. Appearently you don't recall elementary school science
class. Let us review, shall we?

From HowStuffWorks.com: http://home.howstuffworks.com/thermos1.htm

a.. Radiation - Another side effect of atomic motion is vibration, and
vibration leads to the unexpected phenomenon of infrared radiation.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Infrared radiation is absorbed
and emitted by the rotations and vibrations of chemically bonded atoms or
groups of atoms and thus by many kinds of materials." Infrared radiation is
a form of light.

Our eyes are unable to see infrared, but our skin can feel it. About half of
all of the sun's energy that reaches us comes as invisible infrared
radiation, with the rest of it visible to us as light. Infrared, like
visible light, is reflected by mirrors and absorbed better by black objects.
When infrared is absorbed, it results in atomic motion, and therefore, in a
rise in temperature. Some common examples of infrared are the heat you feel
radiating from an electric heater or a red-hot piece of metal, the heat you
feel radiating from the bricks in a fireplace even if the fire has gone out
and the heat you feel radiating from a concrete wall after the sun has gone
down.


Also, Infrared region of EM spectrum reflects easily by mirrors and by
aluminum sequin. The infrared telescopes in use are positioned on high
level mountains that are dry mountains. It is given that aluminium
reflects the Visible range of Sunlight.

So by putting aluminium or aluminum sequin into orbit will easily
reflect alot of Visible and Infrared radiation coming from the Sun.

Now there is a small contribution of infrared radiation due to Earth
itself of its radioactivity and the fact it is a body above zero kelvin
temperature. All bodies above zero kelvin emit infrared radiation. And
the sequin will reflect some of this outgoing infrared back to the
surface.




The amount of solar radiation reflected would be dependent upon: the
amount
of aluminium used, and the angle at which it is inclined relative to the
incoming solar radiation and the surface of the Earth. If it were simply
allowed to orbit randomly, the aluminium sequins, which I presume you
would
have polished to a high reflectivity in order to get the magnitude of
order
cooling that you suggest, would tumble in space and not consistently
reflect
radiation away from the Earth at all. By extension, if the aluminium
sequins
are simply allowed to tumble, why would the reflectivity not be equal
when
it was facing the surface of the Earth as when it was facing outward?


I do not know why you are hung up on the fact of tumbling. The basic
math of this reflectivity is that a huge percent of incoming Sun rays
are reflected into space and a small amount of infrared that the Earth
itself as a body emits is reflected back to Earth. So if 99% of the
rays that are reflected are reflected into outer space, why be hung up
on a mere 1% that is re-reflected back down to the Earth surface. And
James is illogically hung up on rays that are reflected towards the
surface of Earth, for which they would have struck Earth anyway if the
aluminum was not there in the first place, so they do not count.


What counts is that every reflected ray into outer space by the
Aluminum will keep the Earth that much cooler. And there will be alot
of these reflected rays and only a meagre rare few rays that become
trapped by the aluminum.




I am open minded. I am open to many ideas and possibilities. I am also
open
to the idea of unintended consequences. I feel that the unintended
consequences of this plan outweigh any advantage that you may perceive.

James


I do not call that open minded. I call it "worry wart". There are those
that do things to improve the world and there are worry warts that carp
and banter negatives and depress those that try to improve the world.
Worry warts should not have a forum to spread their depressing views.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:

And unless we do conquer hurricanes by building a Earth Air
Conditioner of Aluminum Sequin placed into orbit to reflect
Sun rays,

Apologies if anyone else has mentioned it further down in
the thread, but wouldn't Aluminum sequin be swept away in
no time by solar winds?

Even if not, all the space it occupied (and most likely
all space in the vicinity of the Earth) would be unusable
to satellites and spacecraft, and the whole sky would be
a featureless haze to radio astronomers!

A much more effective idea, suggested by Arthur C Clarke
I think, would be a diverging Fresnel lens a couple of
thousand miles in diameter and floating between Earth
and Sun at one of the Lagrange points, L1. See:

http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

Before anyone points out the technical hurdles to overcome
in grinding a glass slab of that size, let me add that a
Fresnel lens is flat and deviates light (or IR and UV?)
by means of a fine grating, usually circular. It can be
wafer thin and made from plastic, presumably by a small
army of miniature bots working round the edge each like
a spider spinning its web.


Cheers

John R Ramsden

wrote:
wrote:

And unless we do conquer hurricanes by building a Earth Air
Conditioner of Aluminum Sequin placed into orbit to reflect
Sun rays,

Apologies if anyone else has mentioned it further down in
the thread, but wouldn't Aluminum sequin be swept away in
no time by solar winds?


I am not sure of this myself, for I have nothing that I can point to in
the debris literature to prove it will not blow away. The debris
literature talks mostly about large pieces of rubble and not about tiny
things like aluminum sequin. This is important also for whether the
sequin spreads out or bunches up together.

Perhaps the meteoric dust that cools Earth recently reported by NATURE
magazine can simulate the behaviour of aluminium sequin and thus
provide a assuring answer that the winds would not blow it away or that
it is not bunched up. But then again also is where to place the sequin
in orbit and the distance can prevent the solar wind factor and prevent
the bunching up factor. So it is not as if the constraints are
prohibitive everywhere in orbit but rather we find the optimal orbit
for which aluminium works the best.

There is perhaps one particle already in orbit that can be the model
for aluminum sequin and that is the microorganisms in the upper
atmosphere. Of course the aluminium sequin is going to be a larger
surface area than is the microorganisms. And those microbes are not
affected by solar winds. Perhaps the final answer is some microbe that
loves living up there and reproduces itself, however, I wrote
extensively in past years that a microbe as Earth Air Conditioner could
be dangerous as a microbe could choke off Earth if it multiplies too
much in the atmosphere and we find ourselves in the situation of going
up there to "clean out the place by some microbe killer". But if a
microbe can flourish there, I am rather afraid or resigned to the fact
that it will establish itself without the help or intervention of
humans and we will face this prospect some future date no matter
whether we seed the upper atmosphere with microbes or not.



Even if not, all the space it occupied (and most likely
all space in the vicinity of the Earth) would be unusable
to satellites and spacecraft, and the whole sky would be
a featureless haze to radio astronomers!


My rough, very rough calculations is that 3 cargo hauled space launches
with the cargo full of Aluminium Sequin to the Space Station would
provide a full one year Earth Air-Conditioner that would last for 2
years and prevent all hurricanes from forming over the Gulf waters. And
would cool Earth on average 1 degree Celcius per year because the
reflectivity of Aluminium Sequin is 10^9 greater than the reflection
and absorption of either volcanic ash or meteoric dust.


A much more effective idea, suggested by Arthur C Clarke
I think, would be a diverging Fresnel lens a couple of
thousand miles in diameter and floating between Earth
and Sun at one of the Lagrange points, L1. See:


Actually, Clarke's is more of a pipe dream than an effective and
pragmatic idea. The energy to build it, to haul it, to keep it in place
is such a huge energy that it would cost more in energy than Aluminium
Sequin for the next thousands of years.

Some scientists have even worked the calculations showing that these
Lagrange points are very unstable and very energy consuming to keep
whatever is built there. The Lagrange points, in my opinion, have
become science myths and scientists should debunk them more, so that
people like John should never get caught up in these myths. For I
remember some poster many years back said that a structure built on a
Lagrange point would disintegrate in about a few months upon
completion.

http://www.physics.montana.edu/facul.../lagrange.html

Before anyone points out the technical hurdles to overcome
in grinding a glass slab of that size, let me add that a
Fresnel lens is flat and deviates light (or IR and UV?)
by means of a fine grating, usually circular. It can be
wafer thin and made from plastic, presumably by a small
army of miniature bots working round the edge each like
a spider spinning its web.


Cheers

John R Ramsden

I am convinced that in such a major project as Earth-Air-Conditioner
that the first one is closer to home-- the planet itself. And the first
one maybe crude compared to the future ones. But it is a progressive
stepwise technology for Earth-Air-Conditioner. The important thing is
to get the first one in place and then future improvements will accrue
thereof.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote in message
oups.com...
Tim,

Mati and Jumbah are correct. The good thing
about tropical storms is (1) they don't always become
hurricanes; (2) they are terrific rain makers.

I was under the impression they were discussing Katrina - I may be missing a
post or two.