I highly recommend "Mindrover." In this game, you build and program a little robot that goes through obstacle courses, fights other robots, etc. It's got an intuitive graphical programming language (though you can edit the files directly for a more advanced, hands-on approach). You get to program the robot's default behavior, define how it responds to threats, program "hunting" strategies, etc.
The main website appears to be down, but here's the community site with a demo for free download. If someone had given me this game when I was a kid, I'd definitely be a better programmer today.
Check out the comments. Some of the visitors are flaming him pretty hard, but he's just a kid with amazing skills and (understandably) very little historical knowledge. Luckily, Christian politely points out that his attack serves to "... alert many people who think they made their PC secure by installing TrueCrypt and still keep working with an admin account where they should not. You prove that a security policy is indispensable, because admin privileges will give malicious software the ability to tamper with the installed security software."
The mathematical means for calculating their "L shaped graph" demonstrating a massive upsurge in global temperature was also shown to be fraudulent, and has been contradicted by almost every other study done on the subject...
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
Also, I've changed this statement: "I'm sorry that I can't provide more personal details" to this: "I'm sorry that I can't provide more details with which to judge this claim"
Somehow, I didn't realize how UTTERLY STUPID my original version sounded while sober. I think I've hit the Ballmer peak.
Sigh... I'm still wired, increasingly drunk, and just noticed that this statement: "Sadly, I mean that the initial jaw-drop is unusual..." should be changed to "Sadly, I mean that the initial jaw-drop isn't unusual..."
ACK! Please read "Joanne Nova who claim that "CO2 is already absorbing all it can!"" as:
Joanne Nova who claim that "CO2 is already absorbing almost all it can!"
I'm very sorry for misrepresenting her views. I forgot to include the word "almost" and that will DEFINITELY be corrected in the final version. I really need to go to sleep so I can fix the problems with my own research, though... sorry again.
My apologies, but this is the last comment I can write. I'm struggling under the weight of academic deadlines, and I don't want to fail out of school because of my Slashdot addiction...
Meehl does not actually show that CO2 causes warming, he relies on the research of others to do so. In fact, while this may be a slight exaggeration, about all Meehl did here was to integrate the work of a number of other authors.
At least you're aware of the exaggeration, if not the magnitude or (more importantly) the fact that this criticism could be applied to any research that expands on previous results... which includes nearly every paper in the history of science.
This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it's far more controversial than you're implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover.
"This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it's far more controversial than you're implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover."
Estimated by whom? I have already shown you at least one peer-reviewed paper (although you objected to the journal's lack of reputation for "hard science") in which the estimation was far over what you state here. (Which, I admit, appears to be validly refuted for a specific period of time.) But if you are going to make an argument, as you seem to be doing here, then refute my source with one of your own, otherwise you are wasting my time.
That estimate was by T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale in the article I originally linked... that's the link which was originally followed by "[iop.org]" before you quoted it. Also, the paper you previously found contains similar criticisms of Svensmark 1998 on its second page.
But there are a lot of complex interactions going on here, including the fact that reflection by CO2 tends to be logarithmic... requiring a doubling of CO2 concentration to equal an incremental increase in reflection.... Books could be written about it and probably will be.
Yes, of course. The fact that CO2 absorption depends logarithmically on concentration has been known since 1900 when Angstrom and Koch first measured it in a tube filled with CO2. The absorption dropped by less than 1% when Koch lowered the pressure by 33%, which convinced an entire generation of climatologists that CO2 wasn't dangerous because it was already "saturated." In other words, they believed that adding more CO2 wouldn't warm the planet. ( Ångström, Knut (1900). "Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre." Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208] )
But this research is 109 years old. Books have already been written about it. As early as 1931, Hulburt used the brand-new theory of quantum mechanics to study absorption in more detail. He concluded that doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by 4C. This is still the conventional method of expressing "climate sensitivity" with respect to CO2. (Although it's important to note that this convention ignoresfeedback effects which very likely sum up to produce a net positive feedback effect.) His predict
Another oops moment! I forgot to include this statement: "Every serious climatologist that I've met at the conferences agrees with the mountain of evidence that show sunspots aren't strongly correlated with climate." I'm sorry for missing it, I'd just run a search for khayman80 without realizing that my first message was anonymous.
Also, please read "The Wegman report wasn't peer-reviewed, but it did" as "The Wegman report did...". I'm trying to limit my response to the most constructive statements relative to the scientific debate, and that clause (though true) will be edited out of the final version because I'd rather focus on the science involved in the MM papers which were peer-reviewed.
Therefore, the statement in AR4 that "It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." is likely an exaggeration, not supported by the actual research.
Months ago, I was careful to say that hurricane intensity can't be linked to climate change, and that a quick look at the IPCC guidance note on uncertainty indicates that this statement is essentially the weakest statement they could make without being utterly silent. (See table 4.) In fact, I later corrected another poster who was under the impression that a clear correlation between hurricanes and climate change was in the data.
If the IPCC report had used any other qualifier from table 4, you might have a more convincing point. Furthermore, another paper in Science says "Results show that the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in SST [sea surface temperature]." Dr. Landsea is a legitimate scientist, but he's not the only one studying hurricanes, and I fail to see how his claims automatically rule out those of other scientists-- especially when they're making such an weak claim given the observed trends.
And, yes, those "natural forcings" include variations in solar output, which can be measured by satellites at L1 so there's no need to search for weak correlations in sunspot data.
Please be specific. "Solar output" can mean many things.
I was quoting Meehl 2004 in that sentence, which itself quotes Meehl 2003 to show that variations in solar luminosity affect the climate. Of course, Meehl 2004 shows that this effect isn't responsible for the warming in the latter half od the century, which is shown to be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Previously, you cited luminosity data when I had clearly stated that the correlation was with period length, not luminosity.
That's because, as you now seem to agree, other correlations have been disproven by later research. I was just trying to steer you back towards the only correlation that's well-established in the peer-reviewed literature.
But the main problem with this sort of approach is that some kind of mechanism other than variations in luminosity would be needed to support your thesis. For example, in this post you claim "The sunspot activity tends to blow away the solar winds, allowing more radiation to get through to Earth's surface."
This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it's far more controversial than you're implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there's no long term trend in Svensmark's data, which would be necessary to explain the long-term warming trend that's been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of
I do have to say, though, that it's a tad alarmist to wonder about death and destruction as a result of the ISS de-orbit maneuver. Celestial mechanics has come a long way since Skylab- I'd be surprised if we couldn't sink the sucker in the Pacific. (Not to say that I want that to happen- I agree that it seems criminally wasteful to ditch the ISS if there's a decent chance we can do some real science with it.)
Sigh... no, Jamie's estimate was for intercepting the Moon. I guess I'm still thinking about the original question that prompted this discussion rather than your L5 proposal. Sorry for the confusion, your 3-4 year estimate may very well be accurate.
An ion drive is currently being used with the Dawn Mission, where the delta-v requirements are certainly as comparable to going from LEO to L-5.
Yes, ion drives are amazing technology suitable for relatively light robotic probes. But isn't the correct measure to use here the required thrust, rather than the delta-V? The delta-V requirements ignore the fact that the ISS is much heavier than Dawn, no?
Using that as a rule of thumb, I would expect at a maximum of a similar duration of time to get the ISS to L5... about 3-4 years if you use this comparison. I would expect it to happen much faster, and certainly not take decades.
Jamie did the calculation last year and arrived at a transit time of ~9 years. I think the station would probably spend months in the radiation belts, and I wonder how much of their electronics have been hardened enough to even keep automated systems running. (Again, I'm not an aerospace engineer, I don't even know if Jamie's calculations are correct, let alone how much of that number would be spent in the belts.)
An ESA resupply module docket to the ISS and provided a delta-v that accelerated to an additional 2.65 m/s.... Surprisingly, this is nearly half of the delta-v that is necessary to get to L-5.
According to this website, the delta-V to go from LEO to L5 is 3.9 km/s. Maybe they're off by a factor of a thousand?
This is something that certainly could happen if there was an objective to make it happen, and even just moving the ISS to L-5 as a place to "park" the structure as a historical monument to future generations rather than having it crash into the Earth causing potential damage or even death may make the effort worthwhile.
An interesting idea, but I wonder what kind of shape it would be in after slowly passing through the debris field that lies at a higher altitude than the ISS is currently at. Remember that the recent Hubble service mission was especially dangerous because 300km above the Earth's surface is a very "dirty" orbit filled with projectiles moving at multiple kilometers per second.
Also, an ion drive would be very slow... probably taking years to climb out of LEO if not decades given the power constraints and requirement not to use too much thrust that the solar panels snap off. This means that the station would spend a lot of time inside the Van Allen radiation belts. The station would almost certainly have to be evacuated during this time period, and the radiation would cause all sorts of problems that could only be fixed by subjecting humans to their radiation for far longer than the Apollo astronauts had to endure.
All good points. I don't really know how different LEO is from L5. This is outside my field, so I was just guessing about the thermal requirements. The "night" that the ISS experiences in LEO has a planet at 286K filling half the sky with its blackbody radiation (although if I recall correctly one effect of greenhouse gases is that Earth radiates at a slightly lower temperature.)
Slashdot Mirror
I highly recommend "Mindrover." In this game, you build and program a little robot that goes through obstacle courses, fights other robots, etc. It's got an intuitive graphical programming language (though you can edit the files directly for a more advanced, hands-on approach). You get to program the robot's default behavior, define how it responds to threats, program "hunting" strategies, etc.
The main website appears to be down, but here's the community site with a demo for free download. If someone had given me this game when I was a kid, I'd definitely be a better programmer today.
You're absolutely right. Strangely, none of those links led to Peter Kleissner's web page.
Check out the comments. Some of the visitors are flaming him pretty hard, but he's just a kid with amazing skills and (understandably) very little historical knowledge. Luckily, Christian politely points out that his attack serves to "... alert many people who think they made their PC secure by installing TrueCrypt and still keep working with an admin account where they should not. You prove that a security policy is indispensable, because admin privileges will give malicious software the ability to tamper with the installed security software."
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.
I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.
I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.
Also, I've changed this statement: "I'm sorry that I can't provide more personal details" to this: "I'm sorry that I can't provide more details with which to judge this claim"
Somehow, I didn't realize how UTTERLY STUPID my original version sounded while sober. I think I've hit the Ballmer peak.
Sigh... I'm still wired, increasingly drunk, and just noticed that this statement: "Sadly, I mean that the initial jaw-drop is unusual..." should be changed to "Sadly, I mean that the initial jaw-drop isn't unusual..."
ACK! Please read "Joanne Nova who claim that "CO2 is already absorbing all it can!"" as:
Joanne Nova who claim that "CO2 is already absorbing almost all it can!"
I'm very sorry for misrepresenting her views. I forgot to include the word "almost" and that will DEFINITELY be corrected in the final version. I really need to go to sleep so I can fix the problems with my own research, though... sorry again.
My apologies, but this is the last comment I can write. I'm struggling under the weight of academic deadlines, and I don't want to fail out of school because of my Slashdot addiction...
At least you're aware of the exaggeration, if not the magnitude or (more importantly) the fact that this criticism could be applied to any research that expands on previous results... which includes nearly every paper in the history of science.
That estimate was by T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale in the article I originally linked... that's the link which was originally followed by "[iop.org]" before you quoted it. Also, the paper you previously found contains similar criticisms of Svensmark 1998 on its second page.
Yes, of course. The fact that CO2 absorption depends logarithmically on concentration has been known since 1900 when Angstrom and Koch first measured it in a tube filled with CO2. The absorption dropped by less than 1% when Koch lowered the pressure by 33%, which convinced an entire generation of climatologists that CO2 wasn't dangerous because it was already "saturated." In other words, they believed that adding more CO2 wouldn't warm the planet. ( Ångström, Knut (1900). "Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre." Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208] )
But this research is 109 years old. Books have already been written about it. As early as 1931, Hulburt used the brand-new theory of quantum mechanics to study absorption in more detail. He concluded that doubling CO2 would warm the Earth by 4C. This is still the conventional method of expressing "climate sensitivity" with respect to CO2. (Although it's important to note that this convention ignores feedback effects which very likely sum up to produce a net positive feedback effect.) His predict
Another oops moment! I forgot to include this statement: "Every serious climatologist that I've met at the conferences agrees with the mountain of evidence that show sunspots aren't strongly correlated with climate." I'm sorry for missing it, I'd just run a search for khayman80 without realizing that my first message was anonymous.
Thanks for the link. You're right, it is a good paper. I'm sorry that I missed it.
If I weren't so exhausted, I'd try to respond. Sorry. Your graph of relative size was the highlight of my otherwise very frustrating day!
Also, please read "The Wegman report wasn't peer-reviewed, but it did" as "The Wegman report did ...". I'm trying to limit my response to the most constructive statements relative to the scientific debate, and that clause (though true) will be edited out of the final version because I'd rather focus on the science involved in the MM papers which were peer-reviewed.
I had an oops moment: my statement "because the Earth is 3/4 water" should read "because the Earth's surface is 3/4 water."
Months ago, I was careful to say that hurricane intensity can't be linked to climate change, and that a quick look at the IPCC guidance note on uncertainty indicates that this statement is essentially the weakest statement they could make without being utterly silent. (See table 4.) In fact, I later corrected another poster who was under the impression that a clear correlation between hurricanes and climate change was in the data.
If the IPCC report had used any other qualifier from table 4, you might have a more convincing point. Furthermore, another paper in Science says "Results show that the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in SST [sea surface temperature]." Dr. Landsea is a legitimate scientist, but he's not the only one studying hurricanes, and I fail to see how his claims automatically rule out those of other scientists-- especially when they're making such an weak claim given the observed trends.
I was quoting Meehl 2004 in that sentence, which itself quotes Meehl 2003 to show that variations in solar luminosity affect the climate. Of course, Meehl 2004 shows that this effect isn't responsible for the warming in the latter half od the century, which is shown to be due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
That's because, as you now seem to agree, other correlations have been disproven by later research. I was just trying to steer you back towards the only correlation that's well-established in the peer-reviewed literature.
But the main problem with this sort of approach is that some kind of mechanism other than variations in luminosity would be needed to support your thesis. For example, in this post you claim "The sunspot activity tends to blow away the solar winds, allowing more radiation to get through to Earth's surface."
This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it's far more controversial than you're implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there's no long term trend in Svensmark's data, which would be necessary to explain the long-term warming trend that's been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of
I do have to say, though, that it's a tad alarmist to wonder about death and destruction as a result of the ISS de-orbit maneuver. Celestial mechanics has come a long way since Skylab- I'd be surprised if we couldn't sink the sucker in the Pacific. (Not to say that I want that to happen- I agree that it seems criminally wasteful to ditch the ISS if there's a decent chance we can do some real science with it.)
Sigh... no, Jamie's estimate was for intercepting the Moon. I guess I'm still thinking about the original question that prompted this discussion rather than your L5 proposal. Sorry for the confusion, your 3-4 year estimate may very well be accurate.
Yes, ion drives are amazing technology suitable for relatively light robotic probes. But isn't the correct measure to use here the required thrust, rather than the delta-V? The delta-V requirements ignore the fact that the ISS is much heavier than Dawn, no?
Jamie did the calculation last year and arrived at a transit time of ~9 years. I think the station would probably spend months in the radiation belts, and I wonder how much of their electronics have been hardened enough to even keep automated systems running. (Again, I'm not an aerospace engineer, I don't even know if Jamie's calculations are correct, let alone how much of that number would be spent in the belts.)
According to this website, the delta-V to go from LEO to L5 is 3.9 km/s. Maybe they're off by a factor of a thousand?
An interesting idea, but I wonder what kind of shape it would be in after slowly passing through the debris field that lies at a higher altitude than the ISS is currently at. Remember that the recent Hubble service mission was especially dangerous because 300km above the Earth's surface is a very "dirty" orbit filled with projectiles moving at multiple kilometers per second.
Also, an ion drive would be very slow... probably taking years to climb out of LEO if not decades given the power constraints and requirement not to use too much thrust that the solar panels snap off. This means that the station would spend a lot of time inside the Van Allen radiation belts. The station would almost certainly have to be evacuated during this time period, and the radiation would cause all sorts of problems that could only be fixed by subjecting humans to their radiation for far longer than the Apollo astronauts had to endure.
All good points. I don't really know how different LEO is from L5. This is outside my field, so I was just guessing about the thermal requirements. The "night" that the ISS experiences in LEO has a planet at 286K filling half the sky with its blackbody radiation (although if I recall correctly one effect of greenhouse gases is that Earth radiates at a slightly lower temperature.)