Space Bubbles to Deflect Solar Radiation:
A raft of thin-film silicon bubbles deployed from Earth into outer space and stretching to the size of Brazil could potentially block the Sun's solar radiation from further warming Earth, possibly helping to not only stave off climate change, but potentially reverse it.
[...] The MIT group believes that if the raft of bubbles can deflect 1.8 percent of incident solar radiation before it hits Earth, they can fully reverse today's global warming. Even if they can't establish a 1.8 percent shading, they trust a smaller percentage provides enough benefit to help mitigate global warming.
To make it happen, the group proposes deploying small, inflatable bubbles into outer space that they could then manufacture into a space raft the size of Brazil and suspend near the L1 Lagrangian Point, the location between the Earth and Sun where the gravitational influence of both bodies cancel out. The team does suggest having some sort of system to ensure the raft stays in place and that may provide the ability to move the bubbles closer to the Sun for optimal impact.
Very slick marketing web page for the idea.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:48AM (3 children)
One problem I see with this: By shading the light, they also shade it from the plants using it for photosynthesis.
And for solar panels, BTW. I wonder if they would be drowned in law suits for damage by solar farm owners …
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @11:51AM (1 child)
Get the world government in place, and make it immune to lawsuits.
Plants can tolerate more or less sunlight. Adjustments can be made for some crops, like planting them earlier or using less shade fabrics.
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:05PM
Get the world government in place, kill all humans.
No problem any more, as there's noone to complain. It's a better argument than yours.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:19PM
They're only talking about knocking the solar output down by 2%.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by inertnet on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:09PM (1 child)
This raises the question if other civilizations out there have already created such a shield, and of course if we might be able to recognize this in current exoplanet data.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:06PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:20PM
Unlike other methods I've seen for reducing sunlight to the Earth's surface, this one is completely outside the atmosphere. Assuming that there is some control over this "shade", it could be controlled, or even dispersed completely should the need arise.
All the other proposals I've seen were related to "atmospheric pollution" with the possibility of unexpected side effects--and great difficulty of reversing/removal should that be desired.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 20 2022, @12:44PM
I've suggested using a mirror at the L1. That's Okay, they can have my idea, free of charge. It's up to them to figure out how to keep that giant solar sail in position!
But, I've got a better idea now. Why don't we just install a rheostat on the sun, and turn the whole sun down about 2 or 3 percent?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 20 2022, @01:42PM (4 children)
A solar shield the size of ... Brazil?!? For just 1 sq km of coverage, we're talking about how much mass? 1 metric ton? The article didn't say. Brazil is roughly 8.5 million sq km. That's an awful lot of mass to move to the L1 point, and our current launch tech can't scale up enough to do it. The article mentions using a rail gun to put material into space.
So, maybe a better way to get stuff into space is a space elevator? And if we could do that, why not make the elevators do double duty, as gigantic heat vanes?
Figures that Popular Mechanics would go for the Big Dumb Object.
Neither idea does anything to reverse Ocean Acidification.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:26PM (1 child)
If it's extremely thin, it could have lower mass than you would expect. There has been similar discussion about building giant bubble telescopes [nextbigfuture.com]. Though I wonder how well it will handle the micrometeorites.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:43PM
That bubble telescope would be an attractive option for terahertz and longer wavelengths. Hopefully they can do a proof of concept cubesat and create a couple meter telescope.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:49PM
That's easy, just dump a Brazil sized Mylanta into the ocean, no more acid problem. Logistics is for others to deal with.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:08PM
None of these "we can do [thing] in space" are anything apart from intellectual masturbation.
Get over it, there will be a million more.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by oumuamua on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:32PM (3 children)
In fact it fails at the very first question you ask when thinking of implementing this solution to cool the *whole* globe:
who will pay for it and in what proportions?
You will never get past that question.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:11PM (1 child)
Now apply the same level of insight to "humans will colonise on mars" and "humans will mine asteroids".
In either order: feel free to chose whichever of these never-gonna-happen things will happen first.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday July 21 2022, @04:42AM
For mining asteroids, the answer is simple: The company that does the mining and takes the profits. If the mining is not profitable, it will not happen, and the question who pays for it is moot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday July 21 2022, @02:24AM
Who will pay for it?
All of us, if they manage to kick the Earth into another ice age.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 20 2022, @03:54PM (4 children)
Given that we could. Which is a big given.
Would you want to and/or should you? Sure, maybe you could "fix" global warming. Or maybe you'll cool it off "too much" or "too little". I expect that a "not cooled enough" scenario would be less harmful than the other way around. A project affecting the entire planet, should be approved of by at least a majority of the people on the planet. That's a lot of cooperation for a "theoretically will be helpful" kind of thing. We can't even get along well enough to not shoot each other in the face.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday July 20 2022, @06:07PM (3 children)
I also question how dealing with side effects from a sun blocker this will be less costly, than say, stopping what's causing climate change to begin with.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 20 2022, @06:13PM (1 child)
Also, we all benefit by pumping less pollution into the atmosphere to begin with.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 20 2022, @09:14PM
Shut up and think of the shareholders!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 21 2022, @11:32AM
8 billion and counting people. You try stopping them.