6 replies to this topic

[djack77494]

With all the interest in global warming today, I've not heard of any new approaches to "the problem". Any thoughts to deploying a (many) large reflective film(s) in space to reflect incoming radiation away from the earth. An advantage to this method is that the reflection could be selectively applied. For example just shielding polar areas.

I'm not totally naive, and do realize that there are some incredible problems with this approach. (Compare it to subsea sequestering of CO2, however. and that's been seriously discussed!!! by smart people?) Maybe we need to relax the standards for particulate emissions and do something to load the upper atmosphere with reflective dust particles. There are alternatives to "tightening your belt", and given the enormity of the problem, even some pretty far-fetched ideas may deserve consideration.

As always, the real solutions to this and MANY other global problems are population control, especially in developing countries, and nuclear energy. Why can't we address these issues? Your thoughts?

[JEBradley]

How big would they need to be?

[djack77494]

How much cooling would be needed? Seriously, they would probably need to be pretty big and the challenges involved would be enormous. But look at the alternatives.

Yesterday, I saw another "non belt tightening" approach to the problem. It called for bringing deep, nutrient-rich seawater to the surface. This would presumably result in large algae blooms, since such growth is mainly nutrient limited. Those algae would grow, then die, then sink, carrying enormous amounts of carbon to the bottom of the sea. There were some problems/challenges/difficulties with this approach, but I would be amazed if there weren't big obstacles to any proposed approach. I guess my whole point is that there may be some very viable approaches that do not include keeping a parka on while you're in your house in winter and limiting your driving to packed full hybrids.
Doug.

The original novel idea of putting reflectors out in space made me remember a Nova special I saw the other day. The special was about a topic called Global Dimming. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

This was first "discovered" around the 1980s by an Israeli Agricultural scientist that had performed a study to map out the irrigation needs of the Israel back in the late 1940s. The same scientist revisited the study and found the warming of the sun was different. Several other scientist have joined in the study.

The overall conclusion I got from the show was that air pollution has caused Global Dimming and Global Warming, which are competing against each other.

Here are other articles:
http://www.guardian....ience.research1
http://www.bbc.co.uk...ing_trans.shtml (the very long NOVA transcript)

[kevinlewis]

Hi
One large contribution to global warming is the power industry. We all use electricity, but how much of it is produced by an old plant, not as efficient as it could be and pumps out Carbon Dioxide as if it's the best thing since sliced bread

[Art Montemayor]

Kevin:

Your concern for so-called global warming is commendable. However, your statement is inherently flawed.

All power plants follow a stoichiometric relationship to produce energy: they combust all carbon to the complete, oxidized state - CO2. That is why excess oxygen is always fed to the boilers - to ensure complete combustion and eliminate the inefficient monoxide state of carbon (CO).

A power plant's efficiency is a measure of its thermodynamic cycle - not its stoichiometric balance. All fossil fuel power plants produce the same amount of CO2 from each pound (or kilogram) of carbon fed to them. Their efficiency is based on how successfully they can convert the heat energy released (from the complete combustion) to saleable electricity.

ALL fossil fuel power plants - regardless of their design, nationality, type, location, efficiency, or dancing abilities - produce bountiful quantities of carbon dioxide. The ones using hydrocarbon fuels instead of coal also produce bountiful WATER. If you were able to come up with a 100% thermodynamic cycle in the conversion of thermal energy to useful electricity, YOU WOULD BE PRODUCING THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 AS IS PRODUCED IN A 30% TO 40% EFFICIENT CYCLE.

[StealthProg]

At some point the human race will realize that we haven't escaped from the rules of Darwinian evolution. There is not enough resources to go around, we will not solve the CO2 problem without major upheavals in the way our society works and the freedoms we now believe in. The question is do people care enough about anything apart from themselves enough to want to change, and what kind of society do we wish to live in?

Would you be happy knowing that your food is produced in Africa, when Africans are starving and have run out of fresh water? That is the way the world is going with Asian and Western companies buying vast tracts of land in Africa to future proof against the expected huge increases in world population over the next 50 years.

Currently most of the worlds energy is consumed by a relatively few privileged people, but that also is beginning to change with China, India and other countries becoming more modernized and affluent year by year. Oil is beginning to run out and yet oil demand is ever upward. This is clearly unsustainable and where does that leave global warming on a list of priorities? Near the bottom I suspect.