...is the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Here's their webpage: www.mjt.org. A visit costs a few dollars, takes maybe 2 hours, and is fascinating. You may also be served cookies and tea. Don't miss it.
Solaren's plan reminds me of a certain kind of elementary school puzzle -- how many mistakes can you spot in this picture? maybe there was a dog on the roof, a kid dressed for rain on a sunny day, a cabinet appointee paying his income taxes, that kind of thing.
o what is the effect of heating the upper atmosphere and preventing these storms in general? how much research has been done on this? how would such a research program be designed? by whom? and by whom conducted?
o what role do these storms play in global climate? what is the 20 or 100 year impact of such intervention in the redistribution of energy around the planet?
o do you suppress all storms, or just the ones for countries that can pay the fee?
o suppose Cuba wants the storm suppressed, but Jamaica needs the rain from a near-miss -- will the outcome be determined by the highest bidder?
o should one be able to patent a direct application of basic physics? could i, for example, patent a device and process for incinerating ants with a hand-held optical device that concentrates solar energy into an area on the earth whose radius is much smaller than the collecting area?
o when a targeting error fails to dissipate a storm but instead causes it to veer into Haiti, can the company be sued? does a company have the assests to cover devastation on a national scale?
o suppose instead of Haiti the storm hits Columbia or Texas -- is the liability any different?
o suppose a rival company sets up shop. would there be dueling energy beams trying to steer/dissipate a storm?
o how about creating storms, say by heating the surface of the ocean instead of the upper atmosphere?
Now it's your turn.
The control -- or at least the deliberate influence -- of aspects of the global climate will probably have to be faced eventually, regardless of what happens to Solaren's absurdly dangerous enterprise. NASA's James Hansen et al. estimate a maximum CO2 level of 350 parts per million, for a climate like our present one. currently it stands at 385. how will we recover 350? the method chosen will likely have an impact on land use around the planet. more to the point, what about this 350? the middle latitude countries may lobby for an even lower number; the southern hemisphere may want a different value than the northern; Greenland, Iceland, Scandanavia, Canada, and Russia might think 400 ppm is just fine. a target value must be agreed, if global warming is to be mitigated: how will that discussion take place? who will moderate? how will a final decision be reached? what would happen if one coalition begins CO2 reduction that is unacceptable to another group?
Slashdot Mirror
...is the Museum of Jurassic Technology. Here's their webpage: www.mjt.org. A visit costs a few dollars, takes maybe 2 hours, and is fascinating. You may also be served cookies and tea. Don't miss it.
Solaren's plan reminds me of a certain kind of elementary school puzzle -- how many mistakes can you spot in this picture? maybe there was a dog on the roof, a kid dressed for rain on a sunny day, a cabinet appointee paying his income taxes, that kind of thing.
o what is the effect of heating the upper atmosphere and preventing these storms in general? how much research has been done on this? how would such a research program be designed? by whom? and by whom conducted?
o what role do these storms play in global climate? what is the 20 or 100 year impact of such intervention in the redistribution of energy around the planet?
o do you suppress all storms, or just the ones for countries that can pay the fee?
o suppose Cuba wants the storm suppressed, but Jamaica needs the rain from a near-miss -- will the outcome be determined by the highest bidder?
o should one be able to patent a direct application of basic physics? could i, for example, patent a device and process for incinerating ants with a hand-held optical device that concentrates solar energy into an area on the earth whose radius is much smaller than the collecting area?
o when a targeting error fails to dissipate a storm but instead causes it to veer into Haiti, can the company be sued? does a company have the assests to cover devastation on a national scale?
o suppose instead of Haiti the storm hits Columbia or Texas -- is the liability any different?
o suppose a rival company sets up shop. would there be dueling energy beams trying to steer/dissipate a storm?
o how about creating storms, say by heating the surface of the ocean instead of the upper atmosphere?
Now it's your turn.
The control -- or at least the deliberate influence -- of aspects of the global climate will probably have to be faced eventually, regardless of what happens to Solaren's absurdly dangerous enterprise. NASA's James Hansen et al. estimate a maximum CO2 level of 350 parts per million, for a climate like our present one. currently it stands at 385. how will we recover 350? the method chosen will likely have an impact on land use around the planet. more to the point, what about this 350? the middle latitude countries may lobby for an even lower number; the southern hemisphere may want a different value than the northern; Greenland, Iceland, Scandanavia, Canada, and Russia might think 400 ppm is just fine. a target value must be agreed, if global warming is to be mitigated: how will that discussion take place? who will moderate? how will a final decision be reached? what would happen if one coalition begins CO2 reduction that is unacceptable to another group?