5 ms·

I still like Gregory Benford's space umbrella. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade The guy is not a dilett

I still like Gregory Benford's space umbrella. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade The guy is not a dilettante, he's professor of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. It would give us basically unlimited control over solar input (depending on how big you make it). It would be a massive project that would require global cooperation, which is again good - especially in the current geo-political... um... "climate". Also, massive undertakings such as this have a way of galvanizing creativity and progress across the whole society. Or maybe it's my personal bias towards giant, Pacific Rim style, howling-metal projects. Big problem, big solution. Don't waste your time putting around in the mud.

korethr 12y ago
It would be really cool if such a device could also be used for harvesting solar power. Getting the power back down to earth would be tricky, though.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Getting that much power down to the surface might cause global warming...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    It's not more power than that received by the shade, which is reaching the Earth already. Sure, albedo, blah blah blah. But there are quite a few interesting things we could do with a lot of power right there, in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld#Forward.27s_Light-Sail_Propulsion_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld#Forward.27s_Light-Sa...
johnloeber 12y ago
The issue with large-effect, untested ideas like this one is that while it might seem like an appropriate solution for this specific problem, it might carry enormous side-effects that we aren't really aware of yet (and that may be difficult to reverse).
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  But climate models will tell us exactly what will happen, so there's no risk of anything going rong! :-P I'm being snarky, and I both believe AGW is real and we should be taking strong specific action to alleviate it (building nuclear plants as the only proven-viable replacement for base-load coal, investing in solar and storage, shifting taxes from income to carbon emissions and putting on carbon-equivalent tariffs to export domestic policy world-wide), but it bugs me a little how people (not necessarily you personally) can on the one hand say, "The science is settled! The models are telling us in detail how the Earth's climate system is going to be affected by the additional 0.5% effective insolation due to GHGs!" and then turn around and say "We mustn't even think about geo-engineering because we can't possibly predict what effects it will have!" Anthropogenic GHGs are nothing but uncontrolled geo-engineering, and either we can predict their effects accurately or not (spoiler: we can't). If we can, then we can predict the effects of other forms of geo-engineering comparably accurately. This is a bit of a hobby-horse for me because I think the public puts far too much credence in the detailed predictions of climate models, and it's going to go badly for us when those detailed predictions turn out to be not so good.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Anthropogenic GHGs are nothing but uncontrolled geo-engineering, and either we can predict their effects accurately or not (spoiler: we can't). If we can, then we can predict the effects of other forms of geo-engineering comparably accurately. Without addressing the first sentence or its "spoiler" (preserved only for context), the second doesn't follow: our ability (or inability) to predict the effects of GHG emissions in the ranges relevant to evaluating the effect of actual and reasonably-possible human actions with regard to them do not really have much bearing on, say, our ability (or inability) to project the impact of changes to (for example) solar energy input that are outside of past experience.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Benford also writes things like this: http://www.gregorybenford.com/uncategorized/afoot-at-loncon/ http://www.gregorybenford.com/uncategorized/afoot-at-loncon/
MichaelApproved 12y ago
Wouldn't a solar flair or ejection destroy that umbrella?
bhayden 12y ago
I'm confused as to why he says it would require global effort but only cost $20 billion? That's barely a drop in the budget for the US.
- erickhill 12y ago
  More likely he meant global buy-in. A coalition of the willing, for lack of a better term, although I wouldn't brand it that way.
- barney54 12y ago
  $20 billion is s drop in the bucket. The developed countries have pledged $100 billion by 2020 for climate mitigation. Why not spend it on this?

korethr 12y ago

It would be really cool if such a device could also be used for harvesting solar power. Getting the power back down to earth would be tricky, though.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Getting that much power down to the surface might cause global warming...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  It's not more power than that received by the shade, which is reaching the Earth already. Sure, albedo, blah blah blah. But there are quite a few interesting things we could do with a lot of power right there, in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld#Forward.27s_Light-Sail_Propulsion_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocheworld#Forward.27s_Light-Sa...

johnloeber 12y ago

The issue with large-effect, untested ideas like this one is that while it might seem like an appropriate solution for this specific problem, it might carry enormous side-effects that we aren't really aware of yet (and that may be difficult to reverse).

tjradcliffe 12y ago
But climate models will tell us exactly what will happen, so there's no risk of anything going rong! :-P I'm being snarky, and I both believe AGW is real and we should be taking strong specific action to alleviate it (building nuclear plants as the only proven-viable replacement for base-load coal, investing in solar and storage, shifting taxes from income to carbon emissions and putting on carbon-equivalent tariffs to export domestic policy world-wide), but it bugs me a little how people (not necessarily you personally) can on the one hand say, "The science is settled! The models are telling us in detail how the Earth's climate system is going to be affected by the additional 0.5% effective insolation due to GHGs!" and then turn around and say "We mustn't even think about geo-engineering because we can't possibly predict what effects it will have!" Anthropogenic GHGs are nothing but uncontrolled geo-engineering, and either we can predict their effects accurately or not (spoiler: we can't). If we can, then we can predict the effects of other forms of geo-engineering comparably accurately. This is a bit of a hobby-horse for me because I think the public puts far too much credence in the detailed predictions of climate models, and it's going to go badly for us when those detailed predictions turn out to be not so good.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Anthropogenic GHGs are nothing but uncontrolled geo-engineering, and either we can predict their effects accurately or not (spoiler: we can't). If we can, then we can predict the effects of other forms of geo-engineering comparably accurately. Without addressing the first sentence or its "spoiler" (preserved only for context), the second doesn't follow: our ability (or inability) to predict the effects of GHG emissions in the ranges relevant to evaluating the effect of actual and reasonably-possible human actions with regard to them do not really have much bearing on, say, our ability (or inability) to project the impact of changes to (for example) solar energy input that are outside of past experience.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

Benford also writes things like this: http://www.gregorybenford.com/uncategorized/afoot-at-loncon/ http://www.gregorybenford.com/uncategorized/afoot-at-loncon/

MichaelApproved 12y ago

Wouldn't a solar flair or ejection destroy that umbrella?

bhayden 12y ago

I'm confused as to why he says it would require global effort but only cost $20 billion? That's barely a drop in the budget for the US.

erickhill 12y ago
More likely he meant global buy-in. A coalition of the willing, for lack of a better term, although I wouldn't brand it that way.
barney54 12y ago
$20 billion is s drop in the bucket. The developed countries have pledged $100 billion by 2020 for climate mitigation. Why not spend it on this?