On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:11:28 AM UTC-4, Arkalen wrote:
> On 20/07/2023 04:29, VSim wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> >>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> >>>>>>> V. Sim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> >>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> >>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> >>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> >> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> >> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >>
> >> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> >>
> >> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
> >>
> >> You figure out the energy involved in doing that
> >
> > As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
> > And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
> >
> "Throwing out big numbers" is exactly the point.
[A hundred lines or so of detailed explanation, backed by actual facts and numbers, elided].

Summarizing the deleted part:

"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."

John McCarthy

pt

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).

Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...

> But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.

what natural global warming do you think we have?
We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact

In article <6d1f02e7-be0e-4658-9685-242aba0e9f9dn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
>Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
>
>We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
>
>1% of earth's mass is 5.972 =C3=97 10^22 kg
>
>You figure out the energy involved in doing that

Well, no. The good news is all we need to do is get the moon into
a transfer orbit from Jupiter's orbit to ours. The even better
news is Atomic Rockets has charts for this sort of stuff.

https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php

The bad news is that Moon-sized moons are rather astonishingly
the size of the Moon, and hilariously beyond the ability of
any technology humans are likely to ever have to move.

This is a nice example of something that probably has a formal
name: trying to avoid solving a problem with achievable but
inconvenient methods by appealing to a supposedly better
solution we lack the means to impliment.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:19:18 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <6d1f02e7-be0e-4658...@googlegroups.com>,
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> >Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >
> >We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> >
> >1% of earth's mass is 5.972 =C3=97 10^22 kg
> >
> >You figure out the energy involved in doing that
> Well, no. The good news is all we need to do is get the moon into
> a transfer orbit from Jupiter's orbit to ours. The even better
> news is Atomic Rockets has charts for this sort of stuff.
>
> https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable.php
>
> The bad news is that Moon-sized moons are rather astonishingly
> the size of the Moon, and hilariously beyond the ability of
> any technology humans are likely to ever have to move.
>
> This is a nice example of something that probably has a formal
> name: trying to avoid solving a problem with achievable but
> inconvenient methods by appealing to a supposedly better
> solution we lack the means to impliment.

"The Best is the enemy of the Good."

pt

On 7/19/2023 11:04 PM, Default User wrote:
> James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> In article <u99e1a$29kb4$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>>>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>>>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>>>> appropriate location on Earth.
>>>
>>> And that location is ?
>>>
>> Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.
>
> Krakatoa?
>
If you really want to "solve" "global warming" it will have to be an
order of magnitude or two bigger than that I think.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

begin fnord
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:

> This is a nice example of something that probably has a formal
> name: trying to avoid solving a problem with achievable but
> inconvenient methods by appealing to a supposedly better
> solution we lack the means to impliment.

Libertarianism?

--
Steve Coltrin spcoltri@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:29:11 PM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > > > > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > > > > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > > > > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > > > > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > > > > > V. Sim.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> > > > > > and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> > > > Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> > > I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> > Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> > Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >
> > We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> >
> > 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
> >
> > You figure out the energy involved in doing that
> As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
> And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
> > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done). But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

> It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.

Not at all.

William Hyde

On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:11:39 AM UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>>>
>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>
>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>
>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>
>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>
>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
>>> V. Sim.
>>>
>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>>>
>>> -------------------
>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
>> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Who's going to control the process ? The UN ? Or the US ? :)
> Anyway, I don't think it works. Too costly. The umbrellas would have to be big and would go broke way too quickly. The orbit, once increased, remains so for a lot of time.
>
> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.

Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship
needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth
could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball. After all,
Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both
of the poles are ice bound. The double pole Ice Age has occurred 11% of
the time since Earth was created according to Geologists.

Lynn

Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:

> > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).

> Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...

How much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda?
How much is spent on research into alternatives?

--
-Jack

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:15:41 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:11:39 AM UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > >
> > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > >
> > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > >
> > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > >
> > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > >
> > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > >
> > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > V. Sim.
> > >
> > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> > > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> > I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
> > controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.
> >
> > Lynn
> Who's going to control the process ? The UN ? Or the US ? :)

Now that is a good question, one that applies to all climate modification plans.

> Anyway, I don't think it works. Too costly. The umbrellas would have to be big

You're talking about knocking planets around like billiard balls and large umbrellas strain
your credulity?

Useless as it is, we could probably implement Lynn's plan in a few decades. Yours, not
for centuries.

and would go broke way too quickly. The orbit, once increased, remains so for a lot of time.
>
> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable,

Actually the side effects are predictable, and negative.

>and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody.

In actual fact even if we could move the earth farther out, you would be removing sunlight, not increasing
IR emission. The two have a different effect on the planet, both spatially and seasonally, so the sum of
cooling from sunlight diminishment and warming from GHG in the atmosphere would not be zero. You
just get a different form of climate change.

The planet, odd as it may seem to you, pays no attention to what you think.

And the oceans still get more and more acid.

>(Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet..)

So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.

I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?

> And the side effects hopefully are minimal.

Sure, just duck and cover.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:45:55 PM UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.

Let bulk cargo ships return to using heavy-sulpher fuel oil, their emissions
were to blamed for causing Global Cooling so they were phased out in the
1970s.

We could induce a large volcanic eruption by drilling/fracking
a volcanic site, and that would cool things down for a few
years, buying us some time to work on longer term geoengineering.

--
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"This could be the final breath; This is life and death;
This is hard rock and water; Out here between wind and flame;
Between tears and elation; Lies a secret nation" (Ron Hynes)

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, Jonathan Harston wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:45:55 PM UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> > Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.
> Let bulk cargo ships return to using heavy-sulpher fuel oil, their emissions
> were to blamed for causing Global Cooling so they were phased out in the
> 1970s.

Acid rain was the main reason sulphur was regulated

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:37:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>
>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>> appropriate location on Earth.
>
>And that location is ?
>
Heck you could have pretty much the same effect by detonating 50
Hiroshima sized nukes each in Siberia and Northern Canada each year
for the next 20 years but somehow I think Messrs Putin and Trudeau
might object.

Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>On 7/19/2023 11:04 PM, Default User wrote:
>>James Nicoll wrote:

>>>Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.
>>
>>Krakatoa?
>>
>If you really want to "solve" "global warming" it will have to be an
>order of magnitude or two bigger than that I think.

I was just suggesting a location for his asteroid drop.

Brian

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 3:29:57 AM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
> >On 7/19/2023 11:04 PM, Default User wrote:
> >>James Nicoll wrote:
>
> >>>Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.
> >>
> >>Krakatoa?
> >>
> >If you really want to "solve" "global warming" it will have to be an
> >order of magnitude or two bigger than that I think.
> I was just suggesting a location for his asteroid drop.

So, in the middle of a densly populated region?

Not the best spot.

pt

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:

>> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
>> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>
>Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship
>needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth
>could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball. After all,
>Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both
>of the poles are ice bound. The double pole Ice Age has occurred 11% of
>the time since Earth was created according to Geologists.

Which is completely irrelevent. Humans have been on the earth for
0.0004% of time that the earth has been circling the sun, most of
it in the current geological era.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:37:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02?PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09?AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>>> enough flyby object.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>
>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>>> or less similar conclusions.
>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>>> don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>>> a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
>>> would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>>> right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
>>> Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>>> completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>>> enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>>> judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>>> above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
>>> in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>>> moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>>> could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>>> leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>>> right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>>> even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>
>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>>> probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>>> because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>>> considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>>> the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
>>> effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>>> planet later.
>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>>> possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>>> if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>>> still something worth saving.)
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------
>>>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>>> 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>>> where one is a major plot point,
>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>>> envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>
>>>> pt
>>>
>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>
>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>> appropriate location on Earth.
>
>And that location is ?

Florida, which is now making The White Man's Burden the Official
Public School Curriculum justification for slavery, would be an
/excellent/ choice.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 10:21:07 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:
>
> >> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
> >> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
> >
> >Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship
> >needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth
> >could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball. After all,
> >Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both
> >of the poles are ice bound. The double pole Ice Age has occurred 11% of
> >the time since Earth was created according to Geologists.
> Which is completely irrelevent. Humans have been on the earth for
> 0.0004% of time that the earth has been circling the sun, most of
> it in the current geological era.

Check your math.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 10:21:07=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:=20
>> >On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:=20
>>=20
>> >> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I'=
>ve read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the =
>orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things:=
> the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does=
> what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that,=
> they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the =
>expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and R=
>ussia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.=20
>> >> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for=
> everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their o=
>wn climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like gl=
>obal warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of=
> the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.=20
>> >=20
>> >Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship=
>=20
>> >needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth=
>=20
>> >could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball. After all,=20
>> >Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both=
>=20
>> >of the poles are ice bound. The double pole Ice Age has occurred 11% of=
>=20
>> >the time since Earth was created according to Geologists.
>> Which is completely irrelevent. Humans have been on the earth for=20
>> 0.0004% of time that the earth has been circling the sun, most of=20
>> it in the current geological era.
>
>Check your math.
>

Yes, my rough estimate was incorrect:

$ printf '%f\n' $(( 20000.0 / 4300000000.0 ))
0.000004

Assuming Human Sapiens,
I was off by one order of magnitude (300,000 yo); not relevent
to the point.

$ printf '%f\n' $(( 300000.0 / 4500000000.0 ))
0.000066 (0.006%)

Ancestors of Sapiens:

$ printf '%f\n' $(( 25000000.0 / 4500000000.0 ))
0.005555 (0.5%)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:28 PM UTC+3, Arkalen wrote:
> On 20/07/2023 04:29, VSim wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> >>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> >>>>>>> V. Sim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> >>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> >>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> >>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> >> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> >> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >>
> >> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> >>
> >> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
> >>
> >> You figure out the energy involved in doing that
> >
> > As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
> > And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
> >
> "Throwing out big numbers" is exactly the point. The laws of physics and
> thermodynamics say what is possible to do and what it would take to do
> it, and it seems you don't have an appreciation for what it would take
> to do what you're saying - on a pure resource consumption level, let
> alone developing the infrastructure and political will to achieve
> something so unlike anything any human society has ever done before.
>
>
> It seems like your mental image of this problem is that we need to nudge
> these huge foam balls floating in space in our direction. Like a small
> tugboat pulling a huge ship, it seems manageable because there is no
> friction, right. Even if you can't move it a lot, a small amount of
> acceleration in the right direction is enough to make it move in the
> right direction and then it kind of takes care of itself.
>
>
> The two issues are 1) these aren't huge foam balls or a large ship,
> they're planetary bodies within two order of magnitudes of our own
> planet in size. It's hard to picture how big that is because we can't
> even picture how big *our* planet is BECAUSE IT'S SO BIG, but it's big.
> And 2) while there is no friction in space to oppose movement, all those
> planetary bodies are subject to gravitational forces that do.
>
>
> Now, it's been too long since I've done maths and physics to actually do
> the maths for you but I can try and find numbers that can help our
> intuitions. First, in terms of mass it seems that Europa or Io are the
> only ones of Jupiter's moons that are in our ballpark, with about
> 9x10^22 kg to the Moon's 7 for Io and 4x10^22 for Europa. Io is about
> 420 000 km from Jupiter, only a bit more than the 380 000 km the Moon is
> from the Earth, and Europa is further at 670 000 km from Jupiter. All
> the other moons are bigger (Callisto and Ganymede) or so many orders of
> magnitudes smaller that you'd need millions to get the mass you want.
>
>
> (already things are starting pretty badly because I can already say the
> political will for destroying Io or Europa, of all moons in the Solar
> System, will be nil).
>
>
> Anyway, the distance from Jupiter tells you how much energy they'll need
> to get out of Jupiter's orbit. Earth's mass is about 6x10^24 kg while
> Jupiter's is about 500x that. While I can no longer do the math, I
> *think* it should mean that at from an equal starting distance it should
> take about 500x more energy to leave Jupiter's orbit than Earth's (I
> checked equations, yes it seems energy should scale linearly with mass
> and inversely with distance).
>
>
> In other words, it would take 500 times more energy to pull Io from
> Jupiter's orbit than it would take to pull the Moon from Earth's orbit,
> and with smaller, further Europe it would merely take a modest 100 times
> more energy to achieve that goal.
>
>
> OK so pulling the Moon from Earth's orbit is also pretty hard to
> picture, but unlike Io and Europa we have some concrete examples of
> interacting with it. So here are some questions for you:
>
>
> * By how much did the Apollo landers push the Moon when they landed on
> it, do you think? Did they appreciably impact its orbit or was their
> impact about as negligeable as that of you jumping on the couch ?
>
>
> * For that matter, would you say that the total number of spaceships
> that crashed into the Moon since the dawn of the space age had a
> noticeable impact on its orbit or nah?
>
> * While we're at it, what impact do you think atom bomb explosions had
> on Earth's orbit?
>
>
> * With that calibration out of the way, how much mass in terms of
> spaceships or energy in terms of atom bombs do you think we'd have to
> slam into the Moon to significantly impact its orbit?
>
>
> * How much more do you think it would take to make it leave Earth's
> orbit entirely and hurtle down towards Venus?
>
>
> * If that mass is supposed to come from Earth, what fraction of that
> mass would you say is carried in a typical Artemis launch - the most
> powerful rocket launched so far ? 2 ? 10 ? 1000 ? 1 000 000 ? A number
> too big to usefully picture?
>
> * How many Artemis launches could humanity make a year if we *really*
> tried do you think - considering right now we've done 1 and the next is
> in a couple of years? And that adding it all other rockets (even though
> many are doing things like launching satellites that we might want to
> continue doing) increases that number by maybe two orders of magnitude
> at most?
>
>
> And that's ignoring the distance issue. Currently a probe takes 4-6
> years to get to Jupiter (if they're actually going there; flybys can get
> there in a year but this wouldn't be a flyby. And of course it takes
> waaaaaaay longer than a year to organize a mission to Jupiter from
> scratch). But Io or Europa are something like 10^20 more massive than a
> probe, so accelerating them to a similar velocity is, well, I don't
> know, maybe way harder than getting them to escape velocity; certainly
> not much easier. So either we're adding yet more orders of magnitudes to
> the energy we don't have, or the trip will be too long for a "quick"
> solution. If it can even happen within a generation, again I haven't
> done the math.
>
>
> That's not even considering the fact that in space everything actually
> depends on where the orbits are at any given time - you can definitely
> reduce the amount of energy required, not to a possible amount but still
> reduced, by picking the impulses and trajectories so as to use
> gravitational forces as much as possible, as we currently do with
> gravitational slingshots. I don't know what combination would be
> required for the best results but apparently Earth and Jupiter have
> close approaches about once a year. Add Europa/Io's orbits and I'd guess
> we'd have several years between windows. And if you want to use
> asteroids or other moons to push them instead of mass coming from Earth
> then you also need to calculate those orbits - I wonder if that starts
> hitting the limits of what we can even do computationally tbh.
> >>>> although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> >>> Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> >> It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> >
> > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done). But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> The catastrophe of anthropogenic global warming isn't so much that it's
> happening (which is a problem, but not necessarily a catastrophe), but
> that it's happening too fast for even our societies to smoothly adapt,
> let alone evolved ecosystems. Natural climate fluctuations are much less
> of an issue on that front; even insofar as it's true that we're adapted
> to an unusually stable Holocene period and that natural fluctuations
> could take us into unprecedented territory, we're also very adaptable
> critters and there's no reason to think we couldn't make such a change
> work if it happened over millenia or more. At those scales global
> warming could even be beneficial, insofar as it causes the Earth to
> support higher productivity.
>
>
> I'm not sure what natural global warming you're talking about, if it's
> linked to the Milankovich cycles or what, but do you have a cite on the
> rate of change that's expected from it?
>
>
> Either way I don't really see how moving the Earth's orbit would protect
> us from climate fluctuations. It would make for a slightly colder
> baseline, but *natural* climate change is capable of fluctuations around
> that baseline that are massively larger than anything humanity's ever
> experienced. If we're considering the human future over geological time
> frames then dealing with significantly different climates (or forces
> threatening to cause such) will be a must. Unless you think we should
> keep adjusting the Earth's orbit like a dial marked "RACISM".

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:15:28 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:29:11 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > > > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> > > It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)
> > I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done).
> Well considering how much money is spent on fossil fuel propaganda compared to research into alternatives...
> > But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.
> what natural global warming do you think we have?
> We're probably in a slight cooling period without human impact

The way I know it, we're in an interglacial period where the Earth is naturally warming even without fossil fuel emissions. Nobody knows how much it will last, but estimates are 10.000 years at least. Nobody knows what fraction of the current global warming is natural and how much human-induced. I'm pretty sure that's how it is so, again, you're talking nonsense. And then you ask me to look at your besides-the-point calculations. No thanks.

OK, I've had enough of all this besides-the-point nonsense. As if I have time to read tons of useless posts and reply to each of them.

It's very simple. If anybody considers themselves an expert who could actually do some very heavy calculations, *and* wants to give it some time talking to me seriously about it, and not with the pre-conceived idea that I'm talking nonsense, then please first *read the details of my plan from my web page, it's indicated at the begin of this discussion*, and if you want to discuss it further then please tell me so. But only if you're an actual expert.

I'm not going to answer nor read any other posts on this thread. Have fun discussing besides the point.

In article <c0e3fdd7-f973-455e-b96f-e1cc730d42a2n@googlegroups.com>,
VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>OK, I've had enough of all this besides-the-point nonsense. As if I
>have time to read tons of useless posts and reply to each of them.
>
>It's very simple. If anybody considers themselves an expert who could
>actually do some very heavy calculations, *and* wants to give it some
>time talking to me seriously about it, and not with the pre-conceived
>idea that I'm talking nonsense, then please first *read the details of
>my plan from my web page, it's indicated at the begin of this
>discussion*, and if you want to discuss it further then please tell me
>so. But only if you're an actual expert.
>
>I'm not going to answer nor read any other posts on this thread. Have
>fun discussing besides the point.

And so dies the hope of a modern day Alexander Abian posting to
rasfw.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 1:51:13 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 10:21:07=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:=20
> >> >On 7/19/2023 7:15 AM, VSim wrote:=20
> >>=20
> >> >> They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I'=
> >ve read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the =
> >orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things:=
> > the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does=
> > what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that,=
> > they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the =
> >expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and R=
> >ussia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.=20
> >> >> With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for=
> > everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their o=
> >wn climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like gl=
> >obal warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of=
> > the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.=20
> >> >=20
> >> >Any process that changes the position of the Sol to Earth relationship=
> >=20
> >> >needs to be easily and quickly reversible. Your process of moving Earth=
> >=20
> >> >could be fatal to us all by turning Earth into an iceball. After all,=20
> >> >Earth is still in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are defined as when one or both=
> >=20
> >> >of the poles are ice bound. The double pole Ice Age has occurred 11% of=
> >=20
> >> >the time since Earth was created according to Geologists.
> >> Which is completely irrelevent. Humans have been on the earth for=20
> >> 0.0004% of time that the earth has been circling the sun, most of=20
> >> it in the current geological era.
> >
> >Check your math.
> >
> Yes, my rough estimate was incorrect:
>
> $ printf '%f\n' $(( 20000.0 / 4300000000.0 ))
> 0.000004
>
> Assuming Human Sapiens,
> I was off by one order of magnitude (300,000 yo); not relevant
> to the point.
>
> $ printf '%f\n' $(( 300000.0 / 4500000000.0 ))
> 0.000066 (0.006%)
>
> Ancestors of Sapiens:
>
> $ printf '%f\n' $(( 25000000.0 / 4500000000.0 ))
> 0.005555 (0.5%)

I just tend to check math for sanity. Here, what I assume you
did was fail to move the decimal point when turning a fraction into
a percentage.

Generally agreed age of the Earth is 5 billion years.
0.0004% of 5B is 20,000 years.

pt