P. 1
2008-04-29, CK Submission to IEEE-CSET08

2008-04-29, CK Submission to IEEE-CSET08

|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by Colin Kline

More info:

Published by: Colin Kline on Dec 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






IEEE International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies
24 - 27 November, 2008

Submission by


Dip.EE, B.Sc., Life Member IEEE, Grad I.E. Aust., TTIC, Accred. uStation Trainer

CEO “Elektronikline”. ABSTRACT: (95 words) There are competing views about alleged catastrophic Climate Change. Some debaters are not being honest about verifiable scientific fact. The public, and politicians, are therefore confused about various claims. 100% certainty is not needed in our everyday domestic decisions, and not in our political decisions. Commonly used is the Precautionary Principle, of taking out insurance for outcomes NOT guaranteed, such as house fire, or car accidents. This planet could take out insurance against an event without 100% certainty, but which would be 100% catastrophic, namely, heat death of this planet. One engineered ‘insurance plan’ is outlined. Preferred Topic Area = §9.1 = “Global Warming and Climate Change”
CONTACT MOB LAND e1 e2 e3 POST STREET = = = = = = = = Colin KLINE; (04) 0886 7454 (preferred); (03) 5341 8071; elkline@vic.chariot.net.au (preferred); ozogg@netconnect.com.au; elkline@gmail.com; RMB – N677, Ballarat, Vic, Australia, 3352 (preferred); 116 Fisken Rd, Mt Helen, Vic, Australia, 3350.

Page: 1


2 December 2010

A Geo-Engineered Strategy of Protective Insurance Against Extreme Climate Change

On the topic of Climate Change, there are two polar classes of opposed views: • One faction (CCD = Climate Change Denialists) claims that there is no real climate threat to planet Earth at all - that all climate changes are cyclical - and that the latest scientific predictions of large variation are just part of that normality.1 • The opposite faction (CCA = Climate Change Alarmists) claims that reliable scientific data predict an impending climate catastrophe, heralded by many “tipping points,” that will usher in irreversible damage to all flora & fauna on this planet.2 Some may accuse the first faction of being influenced by “Business As Usual Profiteering Polluters”; but then some will accuse the second faction of being “Chicken-Little Green Panic Merchants”. And both these factions may accuse those clinging to a middle ground as having an inappropriate view. There have been conducted various analyses of the economic, environmental, and political costs of both these polar views, and positions in between. Is there a third way ? If one were to use a risk based analysis (like house or car insurance policy), this planet could “take out insurance” against a possible dire event, that of irreversible death of the majority of flora and fauna in our environment, including mankind. This proposed “insurance” follows the “Precautionary Principle,” of not allowing lack of certainty to avoid taking action against harm. A so-called “Solar Parasol” would thus offer a “breathing space” for direct actions. It is a ‘Manhattan Bomb’ or ‘Panama Canal’ or (nearly) ‘Space Program’ sized project, but within reach of current technologies. One could describe Plan-A as “business as usual”, Plan-B as “a (too) slow CO2 reduction”, and Plan-C as “probative insurance against planetary over heating.” The main thrust of this paper is to suggest construction of a “Composite Solar Parasol” (composed of smaller sub-parasols) to be placed at Lagrange Point1 (L1), the neutral gravity point between Sun and Earth, thus it will track Earth in orbit around the Sun. It would variably (in Venetian blind fashion) shade the Earth with a maximum 3% reduction in solation. It notes the agricultural folly of having a single large parasol shading all of the Earth. So the proposal suggests a “cat’s eye” elliptical orbit of sub-parasols (see pic below) that would shade only the Arctic and Antarctic regions. This arrangement would restore the ice-caps, prevent methane liberation from a melting Boreal Permafrost, but allow normal farming in equatorial & temperate regions, with no penalty to food production & supply. It is more stable to implement the sub-parasols in a HALO orbit, in a plane at right angles to the Earth-Sun axis, with that plane located at Lagrange Point1, normal to the E-S axis. There already exist several satellites in such a HALO orbit at L1, for example SOHO, “Solar Observatory Halo Orbit”. A halo orbit is required to be “harmonic” (circular, elliptical, Lissajous) for it to impart considerable stability on such satellites. Another virtue of using sub-parasols, is that they can be inserted into orbit in a balanced two by two fashion, allowing a progressive evaluation of the total project.

Elliptical Torus as Composite

Parasol = “Cat’s Eye”

(viewed from Sun-side, Moon portrayed in background)

42 Sub-Parasols are portrayed in this version.
Clip taken at 54seconds into a 3minute HiRes Video, constructed by 2007 Graphics Design Team:

Size of Animagraphic Video Data Size of Hi-Resolution H264 Player = 500-MBYTES; = 10-MBYTES.

Only Arctic and Antarctic regions are shaded (i..e from + / - 85 degrees to + / - 90 degrees) permitting normal farming to continue in the temperate and tropical regions

Composite Solar Parasol
Elliptical Torus located at L1, Lying at point (Earth - L1) = 1.5E9 metres, Earth to Sun = 1.5Ell metres, Minor Diameter of Ellipse = 9E6 metres, Major Diameter of Ellipse = 10E6 metres, Thickness of Annulus Ring = 500km,

Diameter of each Sub-Parasol = 20-50km; Thickness of Sub-Para = 1 μm mylar Super-mirrored on Sun-side (using new nano-super-mirror materials), Total Number of Sub-Parasols = 42 (approx.) Number of Hydrazine thrusters = 2 – 4 per sub-parasol, All Sub-Parasols are proportionally “winkable” by radio-control, Weight of Sub-Parasols = X(?) gram, (depending on latest material science) Launch by ElectroMagCoils (reusable), not by Rail-Gun (explosive), Or Launch by “Synchronous Ring Race Track Accelerator” – see ANNEXE04 [Sub-parasol cargo launched in protective metal cylinders, which after the subparasol is ejected, finally trajectory into the Sun as incinerator].

See ANNEX 01, from <Rough Guide to Climate Change>, by Robert HENSEN, Rough Guides, London, 2006. See ANNEX 02, from <Boreal Forest Meltdown>, by Fred PEARCE, in New Scientist, 27 September 2006. Page: 2 47191938.doc


2 December 2010


“Just the Facts, Mam” (from 1950’s radio comedy show by Stan FREBURG).

The below graph shows 4 distinct data sets for climate representation: (i) average temp. in yellow - 1880 to 1960 - from ice core sampling; (ii) average temp. in mustard – 1960 to 2006 - from various atmospheric and land / sea sampling; (iii) instantaneous temp. in plum red – showing the variability in world temperatures, as distinct from the ‘averages’ above; (iv) average temp. in pink – 2006 to 2020+ - a band of possible future data outcomes. The first two sets of data are FACT - they are not conjectures as climate denialists so often misreport. Note: The average trend line is monotonically INCREASING over this period 1880 to 2006. The very last (future) data set portrayal may indeed be conjecture, derived from various computer models, showing a range of outcomes. But there is NO PREDICTION, IN ANY MODEL, THAT the future AVERAGE TEMPERATURE of land and sea WILL DECREASE. Thus even if ALL fossil fuel burning were to stop tomorrow, the planet is doomed.


“What’s that ahead” - Chief Lookout Officer, the Titanic

Climate Change: “One Degree And We’re Done For”
Boreal Forest Meltdown
Fred PEARCE New Scientist, 27 September 2006

Graph of Climate Change Hotspots
“Further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know.” So says Jim HANSEN, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. HANSEN and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2°C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

Page: 3


2 December 2010

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1°C of being its hottest for a million years, says HANSEN’s team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288) … Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat … “Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect,” says BALZTER. HANSEN’s paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. “In past eras, the release of methane* from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth’s history,” he says. And if HANSEN is right, that the carbon and methane* stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into “another planet”, then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.


Methane is a greenhouse gas 40 times more pluripotent than CO2 ! “Those who say it can’t be done, are usually interrupted by others doing it.” James Arthur BALDWIN


IEEE Spectrum
William B. GAIL


“You’re going to do – what ??” - in memory of Dr GIFFORD-JONES http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/273/

Giant Electromagnetic Space Launch Ring
Written by Hank GREEN Wednesday, 04 October 2006
Satellites are important … We’re talking $2000 per kilogram of payload and almost all of that goes into fossil fuels. So what’s the alternative? A space elevator would certainly be more efficient, and would only cost several trillion dollars to build. Well, we could just stop sending up satellites and let our gadgets crumble into museum pieces. Or how ‘bout this. We build a gigantic ring superconducting electromagnetic track with a diameter of 2 kilometers in the desert and continuously increase the speed of an object until it reaches 10 k/s and then shift the track to an inclined portion that rockets the object into orbit! … A recent AirForce study of this very concept has concluded that this device could decrease the cost of launches (and fuel consumed) 100 fold.

Page: 4


2 December 2010

The problem being, of course, that anything travelling in a circle at high speeds is going to have to deal with unfortunate G-forces


“Oh yeah, and how do we get there ?” – Daffy Duck

www.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/lo_ross_2001.doc The Lunar L1 Gateway: Portal to the Stars and Beyond Martin W. LO Navigation and Mission Design Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CalTech Shane D. ROSS Control and Dynamical Systems, CalTech AIAA Space 2001 Conference LUNAR L2 Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 28-30, 2001 HALO



Our Solar System is interconnected by a vast system of tunnels winding around the Sun generated by the Lagrange Points of all the planets and their moons. These passageways are identified by portals around L 1 and L2, the halo orbits. By passing through a halo orbit portal, one enters this ancient and colossal labyrinth of the Sun. This natural Interplanetary Superhighway System (IPS, see Figure 1) provides ultra-low energy transport throughout the Earth’s Neighborhood, the region between Earth’s L1 and L2.


Figure 1.a. Artist’s conception of portions of the Interplanetary Superhighway (tubes) of the Sun-Earth-Moon System generated by the halo orbits. The green tubes approach the halo orbits, the red tubes go away from the halo orbits. Thus, the halo orbits are the literal “Highway Interchanges” of the Interplanetary Superhighway. Figure 1.b An exploded view of the Lunar portion of the Interplanetary Superhighway. Arrows indicate the direction of transport.

CONCLUSION: It is hoped that to advance this proposal that IEEE can bring its world renowned standing to instigate a forum of experts who could further investigate this proposal. It is envisaged that there will be need of contributions from experts of: Space Launch Engineering, Space Trajectory Astro-Physicist, Lagrange Point Gravity specialist, HALO orbit specialist, Satellite Thruster specialist, Thin Film Materials Scientist, HF Communications Engineer (Long Range Telemetry & Control), Glaciologist(s), Agriculturalist(s), Grain specialist(s), Environmentalist(s) – especially with Arctic experience, Solar Flux specialist, Space Launch Budget Analyst, etc.

Page: 5


2 December 2010

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->