you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

That's not how weather works you moron.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Technically, physics does allow a satellite-based method to deal with climate change. Economics, on the other hand, does not. You would need to chuck an unfathomable amount of mass into orbit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Do you though? I mean, a satellite orbiting the sun between the earth and the sun could cast a large shadow, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Not really. Case in point - the Moon. It's absolutely massive, like several orders of magnitude larger than any satellite we've ever launched, and when it happens to line up just right between the Earth and the Sun, the umbra is only like 150km wide.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    If the sun was a point light source that is accurate. It is not though. You would need an absolutely enormous sat to cast a shadow that would actually affect our weather. Plus you would also need a way to keep it in position as the solar radiation would push it out of position quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    That's... Not how shadows work... Or orbital mechanics... Or economics...

    His suggestion, impossible as it is at the current stage of human development, is slightly less impossible than this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    psst.. "climate"... and pray tell, which energy source do you think powers the atmosphere to exhibit weather or climate?

    Geothermal? Tidal? Nuclear isotope decay in the core?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments