Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby Kylon » Mon 15 Oct 2007, 10:43:45

This is going to sound crazy, but we mass produce Nitrogen dioxide in order to A) block out the sun due to it's reddish brown color, B) increase the global dimming effect by the production of more particles for many small droplets to form around and C) increase the amount of ozone produced.

The problem with Nitrogen Dioxide is that it's extremely toxic, even though it makes up a good deal of the smog we already produce.

What's great is nitrogen makes up 70% of the atmosphere, so theres an abudance that could be converted cheaply, with the only end cost being energy.

This could by us some time.

If we did it in large enough concentrations at remote locations, far away from populated areas, then the nitrogen dioxide would float up into the atmosphere, where it would be spread around making large numbers of highly reflective clouds.

BTW- A well known scientist proposed we used sulfur for this same effect. This idea would be much, much cheaper, and could be scaled up, without requiring sulfur mining. Instead you could simply use energy and the atmosphere that already exist and simply make modifications to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog#Photochemical_smog
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Mon 15 Oct 2007, 19:14:51

Kylon wrote:, with the only end cost being energy.


Ahhh, the seven little words keeping us from jetpacks, cold fusion, interstellar travel, helium-3 mining operations on the moon and a humanist middle-class utopia.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 15 Oct 2007, 20:20:32

We can burn coal to get energy to stop greenhouse warming caused by burning coal to get energy.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26607
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby turmoil » Mon 15 Oct 2007, 20:48:00

Plantagenet wrote:We can burn coal to get energy to stop greenhouse warming caused by burning coal to get energy.

I suppose we'd have to use less energy to stop the warming than it takes to generate the energy to stop the warming...
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby Kylon » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 01:32:49

What if you use nuclear as the power source?
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby jasonraymondson » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 01:51:34

shit... I thought this was going to be a thread about migitizing bush
jasonraymondson
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Peace Out

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby jasonraymondson » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 01:55:14

What effect will UVC rays have on this new setup??? Your saying this will increase O3 but this pure speculation isn't it?
jasonraymondson
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Peace Out

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby strider3700 » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 03:11:33

Kylon wrote:This is going to sound crazy


I'd expect nothing less of your ideas
shame on us, doomed from the start
god have mercy on our dirty little hearts
strider3700
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby Terran » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 04:10:08

What about blowing up a couple dozen nukes in the stratosphere? Wouldn't the dust in the upper atmosphere reflect back a certain degree of sunlight?

Or how about loading up several dozen tanker ships filled up with an iron compound. Dumping it into the oceans while sailing around the world. Wouldn't it produce an algae boom, where it increases photosynthesis, and absorb more CO2? For one thing, the oceans lack iron as a nutrient.
User avatar
Terran
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed 07 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Berkeley CA

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby jasonraymondson » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 12:51:34

Terran wrote:What about blowing up a couple dozen nukes in the stratosphere? Wouldn't the dust in the upper atmosphere reflect back a certain degree of sunlight?

Or how about loading up several dozen tanker ships filled up with an iron compound. Dumping it into the oceans while sailing around the world. Wouldn't it produce an algae boom, where it increases photosynthesis, and absorb more CO2? For one thing, the oceans lack iron as a nutrient.


and also knock out all electronic devices on the planet and put us back in the dark ages
jasonraymondson
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Peace Out

Re: Idea on how to reduce GW

Unread postby Kylon » Tue 16 Oct 2007, 22:25:29

That's why you do it in the ground, like the Sahara, causing massive dust storms.

Had that idea too. For some reason people are opposed to it, only problem is, if we do nothing, we all die.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby kiwichick » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 15:13:17

t

that makes sense for countries like canada , russia and norway/sweden/finland, greenland and iceland

maybe the uk and ireland

but how to explain denial in the us and australia?

is it the realisation that there is trouble ahead, but because people are invested in their housing /business/community they can't
admit it?
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 16:25:57

I can't answer for Australia but in the USA the average Joe6pack imagines Alaska to be a place full of oil where it is really cold and uncomfortable to live. Thawing out Alaska appeals to Joe6pack.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 16:41:12

kiwichick wrote:t

that makes sense for countries like canada , russia and norway/sweden/finland, greenland and iceland

maybe the uk and ireland

but how to explain denial in the us and australia?

is it the realisation that there is trouble ahead, but because people are invested in their housing /business/community they can't
admit it?


There seems to be some research that supports that idea.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/

I think they update the report and not all reports have all the core data. But one year I went through it in detail and found the deniers were older, more well educated, richer, home owners. The people that should know better but have a lot invested in the status quo.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 18:34:45

Who Needs Tar Sands Oil When We Have AirCarbon?

The company NewLight Technologies first came across our radar last year, when it announced a system for making plastic almost out of thin air. Instead of using petroleum, the feedstock is the airborne carbon emitted by sewage treatment plants, landfills, power plants, and other industrial sites, so in addition to reducing the need for petroleum the system also captures and recycle greenhouse gas emissions.

How’s that for a nice sustainability twofer? Now that NewLight Technologies is a star – just last month it made headlines in USAToday – let’s see what they’re up to now.


When we first met NewLight Technologies the company was using the name AirFlex for the plastic produced by its carbon capture system, which now goes by the name AirCarbon™.

According to NewLight, AirCarbon is the performance equivalent of a range of plastics that includes polypropylene, polyethylene, and polystyrene.

AirCarbon also lends itself to various manufacturing processes including extrusion, blown film, fiber spinning, and injection molding.

To top it off, AirCarbon plastic is biodegradable and recyclable, and to top that off, Newlight cites a third party verified cradle-to-grave analysis demonstrating that AirCarbon is a carbon-negative material:


cleantechnica
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby americandream » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 19:35:38

Graeme wrote:Who Needs Tar Sands Oil When We Have AirCarbon?

The company NewLight Technologies first came across our radar last year, when it announced a system for making plastic almost out of thin air. Instead of using petroleum, the feedstock is the airborne carbon emitted by sewage treatment plants, landfills, power plants, and other industrial sites, so in addition to reducing the need for petroleum the system also captures and recycle greenhouse gas emissions.


So basically, the company locates itself by high carbon emitters and scrubs the air manufacturing the resulting bio-degradeable product?
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 20:27:23

Yes, that is one of many "methods" we can use up until later this century when we can start using direct air capture. Here is another very important one:

'Our message to adults and global leaders: stop talking, start planting'

You were nine when you set up Plant for the Planet. How did it all begin?

It started as a small school project in my class seven years ago, when I had to give a speech about the environment. Inspired by Wangari Maathai, who planted 30m trees in Africa, I proposed that children could plant one million trees in each country of the world to create a CO2 balance.

It slowly grew from there. We planted the first tree in my school, and then some other schools joined in, planting trees as well. Children in other countries also found out about it and got active as well, doing similar things.

How does Plant for the Planet work now?

We have a worldwide network of 23,000 climate justice ambassadors, who work from regional clubs and academies to campaign for tree planting in their schools and among families and friends. We have a global board which is made up of one adult and 14 children, representing all the Plant for the Planet regions.

The board is re-elected each year, and votes on campaign matters, supervises and supports our regional clubs. We aim to plant 1 trillion trees around the world by the year 2020. To achieve this, we will need some help from adults, but we feel that children are central to success.


theguardian
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread

Unread postby americandream » Fri 03 Jan 2014, 22:59:41

Graeme wrote:'Our message to adults and global leaders: stop talking, start planting'


These emotive appeals just don't work. Geldoff used the same tactic with aid to Africa and if anything, the situation has gotten worse. The French recently launched another of their invasions of an African country and nary a peep from the media or NGO's.

I can see that you are keen to make this work but the one thing that does not add up is running an infinite system with massive built obsolescence with the finite, even if some portion of it is renewable. And I can't see how you will be able to persuade companies to downsize when they are going in the opposite direction. Plus the turnaround of commodities from China is at lightening speed these days. Take a walk into the Warehouse and look at how fast they shift their shelves. You can't blame entrepreneurs. They are in the business of getting rich and you don't do that by taking a voluntary profit cut. As I am so often lectured on here, people are supposedly greedy. I really do feel sorry for these kids.

Straight talking is the only thing that will work. No messing around. People have got to know the hard facts. If they choose to ignore them, well, thats too bad. And I can tell you, people hate this truth but all you can do is sow the seeds. Change the system or prepare for calamity.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 29 Jan 2014, 19:00:54

Geoengineering, another haven for climate change denial

Even if humans miraculously halted all carbon emissions next week, the problem of climate change would be an inescapable and grim reality as most of the heat-trapping gas would linger in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries. The inertia in the world’s warmed oceans would prevent a quick return to cooler temperatures, even as the CO2 levels decrease. The most optimistic predictions for the rest of the century, cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 assessment report, forecast a rise of 2.0 to 5.2 degrees by 2100, while the direst anticipate a rise of 4.3 to 11.5 degrees. Among the anticipated effects are rising sea levels, increasingly severe storms and droughts, and melting glaciers and permafrost.



Hamilton agreed that what was initially a Plan B is now a nearly inevitable course of action as mitigating efforts do not seem to be progressing forward at the requisite rate to stem drastic climate change. But he expressed a lot of reservations about the Promethean-like nature of this sort of intervention and the “technology will save us now” air to it. “In essence, this plan is being marketed as turning a drastic failure of the free enterprise system into a triumph of humanity’s ability to solve our greatest problems through technology.” In her recent article, Dr. Rachel Smolker took issue with what she perceived to be the normalization of geoengineering: “This insistence that we engage in debate over climate geoengineering is part of the process of ‘normalization’ that seems orchestrated -- perhaps deliberately -- with the intent of habituating people to the whole idea of climate geoengineering as an option.”
In a response, Dr. Simon Nicholson stated, “geoengineering is in fact entirelynormal. It is the expected response of a culture that looks to technological solutions to complex societal challenges. It makes far more sense, in that light, to have an active voice in the geoengineering conversation than to seek to suppress it.”


voiceofrussia
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 30 Jan 2014, 17:42:23

10 Carbon-Storing Trees, and How to Plant Them

Which trees should I plant?
Studies have identified several optimal tree species for carbon storage, and botanists continue to experiment with new hybrids. Surprisingly, we should avoid trees such as the willow, which store comparably little carbon and emit more harmful volatile organic compounds. When choosing trees to plant, consider:

- Fast growing trees store the most carbon during their first decades, often a tree’s most productive period.

- Long-lived trees can keep carbon stored for generations without releasing it in decomposition.

- Large leaves and wide crowns enable maximum photosynthesis.

- Native species will thrive in your soil and best support local wildlife.

- Low-maintenance, disease-resistant species will do better without greenhouse-gas-producing fertilizers and equipment.

Consider these reliable and versatile star-performers. The “best trees” vary by region, so look around local parks to see what’s hardy in your climate zone.

1. Yellow Poplar (or Tulip Tree), the top carbon-storer in one New York City study, works hard under rough conditions.

2. Silver Maple can trap nearly 25,000 pounds of CO2 in a 55 year period, according to the Center for Urban Forests.

3. Oak (White Oak, Willow Oak, Laurel Oak and Scarlet Oak) has adapted to thrive in many climates, provides food and shelter to wildlife.

4. Horse Chestnut grows well in cities; its domed top provides exceptional shade which offers passive cooling benefits.

5. Red Mulberry provides the added benefit of delicious seasonal fruit.

6. London Plane is an excellent choice for urban planning, very tolerant of pollution and root-cramping, resistant to cold and disease.

7. American Sweetgum has brilliant fall colors, is large and long-lived. In the north, consider American Linden instead.

8. Dogwood offers lovely seasonal flowers; this and other particularly dense trees like Black Walnut can store more carbon in a smaller tree.

9. Blue Spruce, widely introduced as an ornamental, thrives in most northern regions; in the Pacific Northwest, Douglas Fir also excels.

10. Pines (White, Red, Ponderosa and Hispaniola) are the most carbon-effective conifer; find out which is right for your zone.

Where trees are most needed?
Cities and suburbs.
In urban “heat islands,” vast stretches of asphalt magnify and reflect sun, sending CO2 directly skyward and creating “dead zones” below. A tree forms an oasis of shade, provides wildlife habitat, and improves air quality. Adding street trees can actually lower summer temperatures through evaporative cooling.


eartheasy
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests