4 ms·
Space is cold and big. We can theoretically sink near infinite heat there (generally in the form of radiation of wavelengths not readily absorbed by anything in
by manwe150 5y ago
Space is cold and big. We can theoretically sink near infinite heat there (generally in the form of radiation of wavelengths not readily absorbed by anything in the atmosphere).
- jbay808 5y agoYes, but only in proportion to the fourth power of the Earth's surface temperature, which we would want to limit. (The argument is predicated on not becoming multiplanetary).
- yetihehe 5y agoFourth power of temperature of heat spreader. It can be isolated from earth's atmosphere and still export heat. Of course, it's not enough if we want to limit ourselves to "IR wavelengths to which atmosphere is transparent".
- jbay808 5y agoThat's a good point, although in the context of exponential growth, it's a small difference that just buys a few more centuries. The heat spreader would either have to grow exponentially in area radiating into space, or grow exponentially in temperature; at some point it will hit geographic or material limits, or else eventually end up bathing the Earth in gamma rays.
- manwe150 5y agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8 “When the materials point at the sky, the infrared rays can pass straight through the atmosphere and into space. That effectively links the materials to an inexhaustible heat sink, into which they can keep dumping heat without it coming back.” I agree with jbay808 on the impracticality, but note that in context, I am responding to the question of whether it would be harder to remove the heat than to generate it. Both obviously quickly become impracticable if we expect exponential increases.