Could crazy technology save the planet?
Steve Dufour
SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Crazy-sounding ideas for saving the planet are getting a
serious look from top scientists, a sign of their fears about global
warming and the desire for an insurance policy in case things get
worse.
How crazy?
There's the man-made "volcano" that shoots gigatons of sulfur high
into the air. The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little
reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's
temperature. The forest of ugly artificial "trees" that suck carbon
dioxide out of the air. And the "Geritol solution" in which iron dust
is dumped into the ocean.
"Of course it's desperation," said Stanford University professor
Stephen Schneider. "It's planetary methadone for our planetary heroin
addiction. It does come out of the pessimism of any realist that says
this planet can't be trusted to do the right thing."
NASA is putting the finishing touches on a report summing up some of
these ideas and has spent $75,000 (U.S.) to map out rough details of
the sun shade concept. One of the premier climate modeling centers in
the United States, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has
spent the last six weeks running computer simulations of the man-made
volcano scenario and will soon turn its attention to the space
umbrella idea.
And last month, billionaire Richard Branson offered a $25-million
prize to the first feasible technology to reduce carbon dioxide levels
in the air.
Simon "Pete" Worden, who heads NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett
Field, Calif., says some of these proposals, which represent a field
called geoengineering, have been characterized as anywhere from
"great" to "idiotic." As if to distance NASA from the issue a bit,
Worden said the agency's report won't do much more than explain the
range of possibilities.
Scientists in the recent past have been reluctant to consider such
concepts. Many fear there will be unintended side effects; others
worry such schemes might prevent the type of reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions that scientists say are the only real way to fight
global warming. These approaches are not an alternative to cutting
pollution, said University of Calgary professor David Keith, a top
geoengineering researcher.
Last month, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of
Sciences, told the nation's largest science conference that more
research must be done in this field, but no action should be taken
yet.
Here is a look at some of the ideas:
---
The Geritol solution
A private company is already carrying out this plan. Some scientists
call it promising while others worry about the ecological fallout.
Planktos Inc. of Foster City, Calif., last week launched its ship, the
Weatherbird II, on a trip to the Pacific Ocean to dump 50 tons of iron
dust. The iron should grow plankton, part of an algae bloom that will
drink up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The idea of seeding the ocean with iron to beef up a natural plankton
and algae system has been tried on a small scale several times since
1990. It has both succeeded and failed.
Planktos chief executive officer Russ George said his ship will try it
on a larger scale, dumping a slurry of water and red iron dust from a
hose into the sea.
"It makes a 25-foot swath of bright red for a very short period of
time," George said.
The concept gained some credibility when it was mentioned in the 2001
report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which cited it as a possible way to attack carbon emissions.
Small experiments "showed unequivocally that there was a biological
response to the addition of the iron," the climate report said.
Plankton used the iron to photosynthesize, extract greenhouse gases
from the air, and grow rapidly. It forms a thick green soup of all
sorts of carbon dioxide-sucking algae, which sea life feast on, and
the carbon drops into the ocean.
However, the international climate report also cautioned about "the
ecological consequences of large-scale fertilization of the ocean."
Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, said large-scale ocean seeding could change the crucial
temperature difference between the sea surface and deeper waters and
have a dramatic effect on marine life.
Cicerone, a climate scientist who is president of the National Academy
of Sciences and advocate for more geoengineering research, called the
Geritol solution promising. However, he noted that such actions by a
company, or country, can have worldwide effects.
George, Planktos' CEO, said his company consulted with governments
around the world and is only following previous scientific research.
He said his firm will be dropping the iron in open international seas
so he needs no permits. Most important, he said, is that it's such a
small amount of iron compared to the ocean volume that it poses no
threat.
He said it's unfair to lump his plan in with geoengineering, saying
his company is just trying to restore the ocean to "a more
ecologically normal and balanced state."
"We're a green solution," George said.
Planktos officials say that for every ton of iron used, 100,000 tons
of carbon will be pulled into the ocean. Eventually, if this first
large-scale test works, George hopes to remove 3 billion tons of
carbon from the Earth's atmosphere, half of what's needed. Some
scientists say that's overstated.
Planktos' efforts are financed by companies and individuals who buy
carbon credits to offset their use of fossil fuels.
---
Man-made volcano
When Mount Pinatubo erupted 16 years ago in the Philippines it cooled
the Earth for about a year because the sulfate particles in the upper
atmosphere reflected some sunlight.
Several leading scientists, from Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen to the
late nuclear cold warrior Edward Teller, have proposed doing the same
artificially to offset global warming.
Using jet engines, cannons or balloons to get sulfates in the air,
humans could reduce the solar heat, and only increase current sulfur
pollution by a small percentage, said Tom Wigley of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research.
"It's an issue of the lesser of two evils," he said.
Scientists at the Center for Atmospheric Research put the idea into a
computer climate model. The results aren't particularly cheap or
promising, said NCAR scientist Caspar Ammann. It would take tens of
thousands of tons of sulfate to be injected into the air each month,
he said.
"From a practical point of view, it's completely ridiculous," Amman
said. "Instead of investing so much into this, it would be much easier
to cut down on the initial problem."
Both this technique and the solar umbrella while reducing heating,
wouldn't reduce carbon dioxide. So they wouldn't counter a dramatic
increase in the acidity of the world's oceans, which happens with
global warming, scientists said. It harms sea life, especially coral
reefs.
Despite that, Calgary's David Keith is working on tweaking the
concept. He wants to find a more efficient chemical to inject into the
atmosphere in case of emergency.
---
Solar umbrella
For far-out concepts, it's hard to beat Roger Angel's. Last fall, the
University of Arizona astronomer proposed what he called a "sun
shade." It would be a cloud of small Frisbee-like spaceships that go
between Earth and the sun and act as an umbrella, reducing heat from
the sun.
"It really is just like turning down the knob by 2 percent of what's
coming from the sun," he said.
The science for the ships, the rocketry to launch them, and the
materials to make the shade are all doable, Angel said.
These nearly flat discs would each weigh less than an ounce and
measure about a yard wide with three tab-like "ears" that are
controllers sticking out just a few inches.
About 800,000 of these would be stacked into each rocket launch. It
would take 16 trillion of them - that's million million - so there
would be 20 million launches of rockets. All told, Angel figures 20
million tons of material to make the discs that together form the
solar umbrella.
And then there's the cost: at least $4 trillion over 30 years,
probably more.
"I compare it with sending men to Mars.I think they're both projects
on the same scale," Angel said. "Given the danger to Earth, I think
this project might warrant some fraction of the consideration of
sending people to Mars."
---
Artificial trees
Scientifically, it's known as "air capture." But the instruments being
used have been dubbed "artificial trees" - even though these devices
are about as treelike as a radiator on a stick. They are designed to
mimic the role of trees in using carbon dioxide, but early renderings
show them looking more like the creation of a tinkering engineer with
lots of steel.
Nearly a decade ago, Columbia University professor Klaus Lackner, hit
on an idea for his then-middle school daughter's science fair project:
Create air filters that grab carbon dioxide from the air using
chemical absorbers and then compress the carbon dioxide into a liquid
or compressed gas that can be shipped elsewhere. When his daughter was
able to do it on a tiny scale, Lackner decided to look at doing it
globally.
Newly inspired by the $25 million prize offered by Richard Branson,
Lackner has fine-tuned the idea. He wants to develop a large filter
that would absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Another chemical
reaction would take the carbon from the absorbent material, and then a
third process would change that greenhouse gas into a form that could
be disposed of.
It would take wind and a lot of energy to power the air capture
devices. They would stand tall like cell phone towers on steroids,
reaching about 200 feet high with various-sized square filters at the
top. Lackner envisions perhaps placing 100,000 of them near wind
energy turbines.
Even if each filter was only the size of a television, it could remove
about 25 tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about how much one
American produces annually, Lackner said. The captured carbon dioxide
would be changed into a liquid or gas that can be piped away from the
air capture devices.
Disposal might be the biggest cost, Lackner said.
Disposal of carbon dioxide, including that from fossil fuel plant
emissions, is a major issue of scientific and technological research
called sequestration. The idea is to bury it underground, often in old
oil wells or deep below the sea floor. The Bush Administration, which
doesn't like many geoengineering ideas is spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on carbon sequestration, but mostly for power
plant emissions.
---
On the Net:
The Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/
The National Center for Atmospheric Research: http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/
Planktos Inc.: http://www.planktos.com
Roger Coppock
> Could crazy technology save the planet?
>
> SETH BORENSTEIN
> Associated Press
Why not wait until Captain Kirk and Mr. Scott
come? The Starship Boobyprize can remodulate
the Sun for us. Then everything will be all
better.
King Amdo
...the planet is like a giant pressure cooker - why not merely 'vent
off' excess heat and CO2 into outer space? (dig the mental pic?)
James
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174111116.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Could crazy technology save the planet?
>
> SETH BORENSTEIN
> Associated Press
That's all we need are government solutions to a non existant problem. I
doubt anyone would anyone would approve of any risky "Al Gore" schemes. Wait
a minute. It's the government.
More then likely these are wild ass solutions once again for the public to
get upset over and accept the original plan of doing away with fossil fuels
altogether as the alternative. The mad scientists from the 1930s movies are
alive and well and working for the government. Lexx Luthor seems to be in
charge and Superman has given up and moved on to another planet where some
semblance of intelligence still exists. Tsk.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>> Could crazy technology save the planet?
>> SETH BORENSTEIN
>> Associated Press
>That's all we need are government solutions to a non existant problem. I
>doubt anyone would anyone would approve of any risky "Al Gore" schemes. Wait
>a minute. It's the government.
Al Gore is notorious for crazy schemes. Once he advocated total gun
confiscation. Then he advocated total automobile bans.
Of course, he would be exempt from those restrictions, just as he
feels he has the right to be exempt from the restrictions he wants to
impose on us by destroying the American Dream.
Fuck off, Al Gore! You are an idiot.
--
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)!
Primary Cause of Global Warming!
The DHMO Institute
Houston, Texas
Roger Coppock
Two unanswered questions:
-- How do you separate just the CO2 from Earth's atmosphere?
-- How do you accelerate that CO2 to escape velocity?
Maybe Superman can do it with his super-breath.
What!?! You say, "Superman is a fictional character
and global warming is quite real."
Then why put the excess fossil CO2 into the atmosphere in
the first place? It's far easer to cut back on fossil
fuel consumption, isn't it? With increased efficiency,
it could be a snap.
Rick
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw a report on BBC yesterday that the Germans have developed
technology to burn coal to generate electricity and capture all the
CO2, then store it underground. They expect to have it functional by
2020-2025.
ToyotaRocks
survive forever... I found the borg queen living in florida disgused
as a cop (crappy disguse you can tell who she is)
resistance is futile.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>-- How do you accelerate that CO2 to escape velocity?
Boltmann's distribution tells you that some molecules are at the
escape velocity. That's how evaporation works.
However essentially all the molecules that were capable of escaping
have already done so. That's why we have the concentrations of the
various constituents that we have now.
spiritrising
germans using that technology. comnpany is owned by swedes too! its
considered the castor program. even with this process it has its drawbacks.
there is only so much storage that will contain the gas, and when it is
full, those companies will still have the same problem as before, (a place
to get rid of the gas's) spiritrising
--
got love? Remember to spay or neuter your pet
"Rick" <mulem...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1174148477.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Joe Fischer
>More then likely these are wild ass solutions once again for the public to
>get upset over and accept the original plan of doing away with fossil fuels
>altogether as the alternative. The mad scientists from the 1930s movies are
>alive and well and working for the government. Lexx Luthor seems to be in
>charge and Superman has given up and moved on to another planet where some
>semblance of intelligence still exists. Tsk.
People will do away with fossil fuels just as soon
as an alternate is available at an affordable price, but
I don't know anybody willing to freeze to keep from
getting too warm.
And that seems to be a good representation of
what the AGW proponents are suggesting. Sounds
too much like the saying "don't cut off your nose to
spite your face" can be applied.
Joe Fischer
brad...@gmail.com
What's crazy is educating common folks into appreciating those regular
laws of physics, and thus accepting upon the best available science,
would become the ultimate demise of most religions, as well as having
uncovered our mutually perpetrated cold-wars, and we simply can't have
that sort of outcome, can we.
Asking silly questions, like any of the following, is usually asking
for yet another Usenet butt-load of trouble, or simply lethal loads of
mainstream flak being tossed your way.
How much h2o does our atmosphere hold? (I've heard it stated as worth
50e12 tonnes)
How much applied energy is our atmospheric gravity-forced tide worth
these days?
Is our badly soot polluted atmospheric pressure going up, or is it
going down?
Wouldn't those nifty little diatoms once again save the CO2/GW day?
Unfortunately, most Usenet folks (including myself) are not happy
campers, especially those of us having since realized just how badly
snookered and summarily dumbfounded we've all been taken through the
infomercial cleaners, of having our clocks cleaned by way of whatever
the mainstream status quo had within their silly mindset to do to the
rest of us village idiots.
Such as all the flak others and I've taken over those few perfectly
honest notions, as fully intended in order to once and for all fix
what's happening to our frail environment that's unavoidably going GW
postal on us, that's mostly in spite of our environment having
received as much ongoing human contributed global warming that's
essentially gotten more than a little out of control, whereas the
notion of moving icy little Sedna into Earth's L1 would likely become
a slightly more than sufficient, with shade to burn (sort of speak).
However, moving our existing and no longer so icy moon into Earth's L1
would become even better, and obviously offering us soot producing
heathens loads of spare shade to burn, not to mention having reduced
the moon's orbital worth of gravitational trauma and of extensively
moderating those pesky tidal forces (inside and out) by a good
reduction factor of 16:1.
Remember, that as far as we know of for absolute certain, we've only
had that somewhat salty moon of ours since the last ice age this
unusually wet and salty planet will ever see, and we've also been a
little extra seasonal tilted ever since having survived that initial
lithobraking encounter. Going back 15,000 BC and there's simply no
moon to behold, a nearly monoseason Earth and obviously as having much
less ocean to deal with. Even as of 12,000 BC is somewhat moon iffy.
Of course, folks here within this mostly Old Testament faith-based
Usenet land, of what's mostly based upon their all-knowing naysay
hypology and infomercialism, that's nearly all hocus-pocus based upon
their skewed conditional laws of physics, as such they are not buying
into any of this truth crapolla because, it seriously rocks their
silly good ship LOLLIPOP.
Trust me, it's actually not all my fault if those pesky regular laws
of physics and of independently replicated science are of what's not
being allowed, especially if such were intended as to apply whatever
understandings on behalf of our somewhat salty moon, or much less on
behalf of appreciating anything that pertains to Venus. Apparently
our GW fiasco is still a 100% terrestrial thing that's not caused by
way of anything big-energy, and even though Earth's core has been
cooling off, apparently there's something other of a weird faith-based
form of those extra special conditional physics taking place, that
which entirely excludes any of those pesky regular laws of physics, or
of otherwise having merely excluded whatever the best available
science has been telling us otherwise.
-
Brad Guth
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> Al Gore is notorious for crazy schemes. Once he advocated total gun
> confiscation. Then he advocated total automobile bans.
>
> Of course, he would be exempt from those restrictions, just as he
> feels he has the right to be exempt from the restrictions he wants to
> impose on us by destroying the American Dream.
>
> Fuck off, Al Gore! You are an idiot.
Crackpot Citizen Bob, Ignore.
Carbon Criminal Polluters
> People will do away with fossil fuels just as soon
> as an alternate is available at an affordable price, but
> I don't know anybody willing to freeze to keep from
> getting too warm.
>
> And that seems to be a good representation of
> what the AGW proponents are suggesting. Sounds
> too much like the saying "don't cut off your nose to
> spite your face" can be applied.
>
> Joe Fischer
Crackpot Joe Fischer, ignore.
Vendicar Decarian
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> That's all we need are government solutions to a non existant problem.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
--------------------------------------
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors
9 December 2006
For more information:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects:
rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The
pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the
last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas,
is higher than it
has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is
heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific
predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes.
As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and
severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems
and societies.
These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to
come, some of which will be irreversible.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental
and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle
climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by
mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive
research, development and eployment effort to transform the existing and
future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit
greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic
opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential
that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities
more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information
presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change.
It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger
leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the
challenge. We owe this to future generations.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(www.ipcc.ch/), and the joint National Academies' statement
(http://nationalacademies. org/onpi/06072005.pdf).
Carbon Criminal Polluters
pollution?
Vendicar Decarian
"Citizen Bob" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote
> Al Gore is notorious for crazy schemes. Once he advocated total gun
> confiscation.
Ya, that's just insane. Crazy. Out of this world... Inconcieveable...
Oh... Hold on... So did Einstein.
Hmmmmm......
Arnold Walker
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ht4Oh.12354$Sm....@read1.cgocable.net...
The right to bear arms was for when the government went crazy.
And crazys like your self know that.
Someone might shoot your ass if you allowed to them bear arms.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Hang all Exxon Directors
wrote:
> "Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Ht4Oh.12354$Sm....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> > "Citizen Bob" <s...@uce.gov> wrote
> >> Al Gore is notorious for crazy schemes. Once he advocated total gun
> >> confiscation.
>
> > Ya, that's just insane. Crazy. Out of this world... Inconcieveable...
>
> > Oh... Hold on... So did Einstein.
>
> > Hmmmmm......
>
> But then we know you are insane ....
> The right to bear arms was for when the government went crazy.
> And crazys like your self know that.
> Someone might shoot your ass if you allowed to them bear arms.
>
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> The right to bear arms was for when the government went crazy.
Then why aren't you out in the street doing battle with AmeriKKKan
Government forces right now?
Are you a Coward, or don't you have a gun with which to kill your fellow
AmeriKKKans?
Exxon Liars & Crooks
wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwal...@consolidated.net> wrote
Unequivocal, Vendicar Decarian, "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species