How to fix global warming ?

Wednesday, 28 December, Year 8 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

The title doesn't discuss the currently hallucinated nonsense, obviously. But in principle, as an engineering problem, were global warming actually occurring at some point in the futurei, how could it be fixed ?

As fortune has it, we actually have the technology to offer a complete solution for this problem! Observe :

I. Trigonometry. The total output of the Sun is currently 3.846 * 1026 Watts. The Earth's radius is 6.535 * 106 to 6.384 * 106 meters, because it's slightly bent from use. The distance from planet to star is, roundly 1.5 * 1011 meters (a value basically known to the Ancient Greeks, by the way).

Thanks to Thales of Miletus (who showed an early and apparently prescient preoccupation for the Sun and shadow) and some of his friends, we can calculate (with some approximation) that the angular projection of something like the Earth seen from the Sun would be dmin / πrii at the narrow and dmax / πriii perpendicular on it at the thick. Altogether, the Earth would cover a fraction of 1.937551034 * 10-10 of the total radiative sphere of the Sun at the distance where it hangs out, resulting in an expected share of the total solar radiative power W of 3.846 * 1026 * 1.937551034 * 10-10 = 7.451821276764 1016. This compares favourably with the total energetic consumption of humans on Earthiv (at 1.19208 * 108 Wattsv) in the sense of being a two hundred million times higher.

Should however the orbit of the Earth be one single kilometer further out, the above calculations would change, the figure 1.5 * 1011 being instead replaced with 150`000`000`001vi, which would result in projections of 0.00001386770071 and 0.00001397168194 respectively, and 1.937551036 * 10-10 instead of 1.937551034 * 10-10 altogether, which would result in a drop of solar energy incident from 7.451821276764 * 1016 to 7.451821284456 * 1016, for a net loss of 7.692 * 7 Watts. Which again compares favourably with the total energetic consumption of humans on Earthvii at 1.19208 * 108 Watts : it is more than half!

To put this result in simple terms :

Every kilometer added to the radius of Earth's orbit reduces Earth's share in the Sun's radiative output by an energy equivalent to 64.5% of all energy used by humans.

II. Physics. The total mechanical energy for a planet with a mass going on an elliptical orbit around a star of a larger mass will be

W = -G (M * m) / (2 * rviii).

Doing the mathix we find that Earth's mechanical energy in current orbit is 2.6425275864000003 * 1032 whereas its energy in a one kilometer higher orbit would be 2.6425275687831497 * 1032. The difference, known among the Bilderberg group and other conspiratorial circles as 1.76168506 * 1024, is a good proxy for the sort of effort that'd be necessary to realise that kilometer orbit change.

Supposing for the sake of argument that we had available one thousand yearsx, the instantaneous power to deliver that total energy would then be 1.76168506 * 1024 / 1000 (years in a millenium) / 365 (days in a year) / 24 (hours in a day) / 3600 (seconds in an hour) = 5.5862666793505 * 1013 Watts.

This compares disfavourably with the total energetic consumption of humans on Earthxi at 1.19208 * 108 Watts, in the sense that the thousand-year budget for Operation Orbit Hopping would be 48`935 trillion dollars per year (about three thousand times the current fantasyxii US GDP) if we use electricity prices as a measuring stick.

From which it follows that saving the Earth from its ultimate fate of a runaway greenhouse effect requires first increasing industrial output at least a hundred thousand times above the present levels - if not two hundred thousand times for good measure. Then a base upon which a solution to the problem could in fact and productively be applied would be available -- and once it is available solutions aboundxiii.

The good news is that there's at least a hundred million years left until this whole global warming thing has to be taken seriously. Judging by the rate of industrial power growth over the past three centuries, it is not much of a jump to expect that by the end of this first million years the problem will be well in hand, leaving a further ninety-nine million years to be productively spent in urination contests on the graves of some anodyne XXIst centuryxiv idiots who thought themselves a lot more momentously important than their faulty britches warrant.xv

III. Contributors to saving Earth : Thales, Newton, Rockefeller si, cu voia dumneavoastra, ultimul pe lista...

  1. Global warming of the actual sort is very likely to occur sometime during the next billion years. It won't be man-made then, either, but Sun made as well.

    The Sun has been growing larger and hotter for the past three or four billion years, exactly as any star of its kind, type and age is wont to do (look up main star series, it'll be an interesting read as to the virtues of stereotypes in practice).

    Usually this growth is smooth over time, but occasionally it jumps, with the jumps getting names such as "Permian-Triassic extinction event" or "Great Dying", consisting of over 95% of marine species becoming extinct over a very short period - perhaps as short as a few millenia.

    The problem with the star getting hotter is that all planets that support life must have water in liquid form on the surface and an atmosphere, whereas that liquid water within an atmosphere is prone to a positive feedback loop whereby as the temperature increases the vapor content of the atmosphere increases which in turn increases radiation capture which in turn increases temperature which in turn. Consequently there exists an inflection point whereby a slight increase in radiative output of the star results in a specified planet going from a phase where it has oceans to a phase where the oceans have been vaporized leaving Utah in their place and the water is slowly being photodissociated in the atmosphere so the hydrogen can be blown away into space.

    In short, the conditions prerequisite for life are really a lot less likely than you thought. []

  2. = 6.535 * 106 / 3.141592654 * 1.5 * 1011 = 0.000013867700706. []
  3. = 6.535 * 106 / 3.141592654 * 1.5 * 1011 = 0.000013971681936. []
  4. Out of which any "anthropogenic global warming" must necessarily be powered. []
  5. Converted from IEA key energy statistics figure for "Final energy consumption" given in yearly TWh through the process of dividing by 24 (hours in a day) and then 365 (days in a year). []
  6. Prior to Bitcoin, such numbers were inconceivable -- but by now constant daily practice has us well used. This observation is relevant to an ancient question : what is Bitcoin disrupting ? Everything. Stupidity. These are the same thing. []
  7. Out of which any "anthropogenic global warming" must necessarily be powered. []
  8. Let's pretend the above used 1.5mn Km value is also the semi-major axis of the elliptical orbit, because why not, seriously. []
  9. Sun mass aka M taken 1.989 * 1030 ; Earth mass aka m taken 5.972 * 1024 ; and G = 6.674 * 10-11. []
  10. The narrowest of time windows at the scale here considered, see also footnote one above. []
  11. Out of which any "anthropogenic global warming" must necessarily be powered. []
  12. Bear in mind these'd be turkey dollars not bezzle dollars. Real dollars that counterparty actual value, not the fictitious sort of USG printolade that pays for imaginary airplanes that don't fly or littoral "combat" ships that can't move. []
  13. Accelerating rocks in the right direction, pointing ion beam engines in the right direction... on it goes, really. []
  14. 0.0021st millionth year []
  15. There will never be a universal convention to reduce industrialization, because the republic will never participate in such insanity. []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

6 Responses

  1. and the moon?

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Thursday, 29 December 2016

    The moon'll come along if it knows what's good for it.

  3. I liked this article, have one gripe with it, I don't know how to articulate it well, but here goes. It relates to the "out of which any "anthropogenic global warming" must necessarily be powered" note.

    I know there's lots of hype (charitable word) regarding the "oceans/$something will heat up a bit and will then release a disproportional amount of CO2/methane/$something which will disproportionately affect climate omg", but is it not possible - in principle to consider a mechanism which works through some kind of disproportionate lever? For example - and yes it's possibly a stupid theory, but it illustrates the point - the Chicxulub asteroid is said to have possibly displaced a large volume of sulphur (from gypsum) into the atmosphere (=> [+/- firestorm] => global winter). Yes, very speculative.

    But is it true that human activity may not necessarily have to be equal (in terms of wattage) to the orbital displacement scenario? Again, I'm no apologist, and it's a not-easily-defendable niche point, but possibly an interesting one (I'm not well equipped to properly argue for it, though.)

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 15 May 2017

    There's certainly non-linear reactions involved ; nevertheless there's no anthropomorphic principle at work in the world -- the energy that is needed to lift a rock is the same whether Mahomed lifts it, "our democracy" lifts it, or Space Aliens From Outer Space lift it. I understand there's a whole generation of illiterate louts loitering around like Homer Simpson's spermatozoa, trying to fashion themselves some sort of "understanding" out of their mother's inept blather as to how special they are. Nevertheless, people aren't special, neither individually nor in aggregate. Not in this sense, at any rate.

  1. [...] and hold all that deliberately constructed stupidity quiet for a moment and think : life on Earth is improbable, most of the things that are "obviously" and "of course" and normal and natural are actually very [...]

  2. [...] Except they live everywhere, from Hawaii and the West Coast to Flyover America to East Coast. None of the examples fare any better ; of the 662 individual microinverters we sampledvii not one actually rose over 1% efficiency. In fact, people regularily pay to the tune of $5`000 in cash for installing an item that will produce less than one cent of revenue per day on average during the next five years! At which rate the investment will amortize itself sometime after the supposed problem all this wastage resolves has long solved itself! [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.