1
   

The CO2 Prize

 
 
littlek
 
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:54 pm
This makes me excited in a nervous sort of way...... Confused

Komo TV

Quote:
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 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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 965 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 05:57 pm
Artificial solutions are fraught with dangerouse possibilities.

Is the danger what excites you k
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 06:12 pm
This suggests the technologies implicit in terraforming might be given a leg up.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 09:36 pm
Danger doesn't excite me. If someone can figure out how to apply a man-made fix without screwing up the environment in the process, I'd be pretty excited. The nervousness comes from knowing how the environment works.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 10:15 pm
I think you're on the right track, littlek. Surely, the guy that introduced rabbits to australia was filled with good intentions, too.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 10:21 pm
Yessir, I'm sure he was. Sulfer in the atmosphere and iron in the oceans are especially disturbing.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 11:00 pm
The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's temperature.
Thats the one you need to really worry about.
sulpher and Iron occor naturally so mother will have a way of fixing an over concentration..... eventually, but if your "trillions of space mirrors" is wrong how you gonna fix that?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:03 pm
dadpad wrote:
The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's temperature.
Thats the one you need to really worry about.
sulpher and Iron occor naturally so mother will have a way of fixing an over concentration..... eventually, but if your "trillions of space mirrors" is wrong how you gonna fix that?


Trillions of very ugly space faces?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 05:05 pm
dadpad wrote:
but if your "trillions of space mirrors" is wrong how you gonna fix that?
Naturally enough with the exact reverse process.

In essence however, modulation is the key in combination with accurate modeling, not a one shot deal.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 07:17 pm
Instead of Mirrors why not Solar powered satellites? All those gigawatts of old Sol's power trying to hear Uranus. A system of satallites fould be deployed to collect energy, convert it ti microwaves and broadcast it back to retenna farms on non arable real estate.

The Sarah and the Sonoma come to mind.

Years ago I remember reading an article on a Solar Powered Satellite System or SPSS fer short.

Rap
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 08:23 pm
For producing energy? We're talking about reducing greenhouse gases. Linked, but different.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:06 pm
Solar power satellites would reduce emissions by providing power that is currently generated using fossil fuels.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:12 pm
I know, but some would argue that we are on an irreversible course - that cutting emissions now won't stop G.W. (just realized global warming shares GW's initials).
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2007 11:54 am
littlek wrote:
.......... some would argue that we are on an irreversible course - that cutting emissions now won't stop G.W.


Nonsense. It has been much warmer on Earth in the past than it is now, and it obviously DID reverse. And without Man's 'help'.

BTW since over half of the planets in our solar system are also showing signs of warming, who's to blame for those?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2007 02:17 pm
I thought you believed in free will and thus we should control our planet.
Are you a fan of emphysema?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2007 03:33 pm
rl wrote- somewhat disingenuously I fear-

Quote:
Nonsense. It has been much warmer on Earth in the past than it is now, and it obviously DID reverse. And without Man's 'help'.


Sure, except there weren't ten billion silly sods running around at the time of which you speak. Land was peanuts to the square mile in an investment cycle then.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:28 am
Chumly wrote:
I thought you believed in free will and thus we should control our planet.


Do you have any proof that man is causing the global warming on over half of the planets in the solar system?

If not, what makes you think man must be at fault if the Earth is permanently warming ( an idea which has not, by any stretch, been proven)?

What made the Earth warm to much higher temperatures centuries ago when man WASN'T burning fossil fuels?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 02:13 am
Given your typically absurd requisites for your so-called "proof" as it relates to the obvious fact of evolution, I demand you to tell me what would satisfy you as proof of the pragmatic risks of global warming.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The CO2 Prize
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 07:19:05