D.I.Y Planet Cooling

[jungjedi]

i wish i had an electric car.but,they stopped makeing them

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But what might take millions of years of carbon concentration in vast underground oil fields or coal seams is being undone by us injecting it back into the *active* carbon cycle in only a century or two.

That is certainly true, it's one of the things that has been shifting the equilibrium. That, actually, is the whole point: shifting the equilibrium.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

All the carbon that's currently underground in oil or coal form wasn't all actively part of the cycle at once. It took a bit of time.

...........

But the field will regrow in the blink of an eye, compared to the time it'll take for the carbon coming from fossil fuels to end up back in an oilwell again. Just as long as the field is regrown. Deforestation, of course, is another matter completely, because the carbon isn't taken out again by new growth.

It's a quantitative difference, enhanced in the case of deforestation, but there's also the difference between whether or not the carbon gets re-oxidated and released. This depends on what is done with the vegetation etc. and of course is no simple matter. Certainly not as simple as the rhetoric I'm criticizing has it.

Indeed, I hadn't said the arithmetic "isn't as simple as 1+1" but instead that it isn't as simple as 1-1, a quite different thing. Now that was the only thing I had criticized apart from the water vapour issue. What I don't agree with is the rhetoric being sold. "The carbon burnt was taken from the air anyway, 1 - 1 = 0!!!!! No problem!!!!!" Now if each acre more of biofuel crop were an acre less of paved ground, that would sure be nice wouldn't it?

On the pro plate of the biofuel balance, mostly it's renewable. If you're talking ethanol then, further, I believe the H to C ratio is a bit better than most hydrocarbons although not better than with methane (including natural gas). And, of course, it just might have involved more photosynthesis per oxidated than some other uses of the land, but show me a proper statistical analysis before I'll buy the argument. Most uses of land (that aren't unexploited wilderness) are things that folk won't renounce, in trade for the biofuel crop, so in the end the extra acre is traded for something unexploited, and it won't all be acerage that was photosynthesizng less.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But the problem arises when we artificially water large tracts of land (where this argument started) in order to grow crops in previously unsuitable land.

Errrr, where did this argument start? I said that water atmospheric vapour has a totally different kind of equilibrium, qualitatively.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The water vapour that will inevitably end up in the atmosphere through this will trap more heat, seeing as water vapour is a particularly nasty greenhouse gas, which will raise the atmospheric temperature, which will raise the volume of water vapour that can be suspended in the atmosphere - which will in turn raise the volume of greenhouse gas (water vapour) even further. It's a bit of a bitch, really.

Bit of a bitch, yeah, if there's a bit of positive reaction, but I don't think it's quite a viscious cycle.

Now if a plant is taking water from ground or river, where was that water going to wind up anyway? The vegetation is certainly enhancing vapourization, equivalent to quite a bit more ocean or lake surface, but I don't think it's really the point if you look at the whole thing globally. I don't quite agree about:

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But we shouldn't be artificially watering deserts to turn them into rainforests. The deserts are just as necessary for the global balance as the rainforests might be.

but I'll get to that.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I fail to see the relevance of this. I don't remember mentioning any oceans of liquid carbs.

You didn't, but I did!

I was only pointing out that the equilibrium is qualitatively different, for carbon dioxide and for water. Earth's oceans are a humonguous hygrostat for the lower and medium atmosphere. High flying jets are causing as great a problem with water as with carbon dioxide, but despite the much greater separation Fick's law is still valid. Cirrus clouds aren't so precipitative, but even upper atmoshere has always been in equilibrium with the rest, it just takes less tonnage per annum to shift the equilibrium up there. It is, however, an equilibrium whereas a given amount of vegetation and a given insolation won't photosynthesize proportionally to the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide afaik. There's the difference between a stable equilibrium (on the global scale, mind) and a cumulative effect.

You're not saying we should stop planting trees. I'm not saying we shouldn't use less fossil and more alternatives. I do say it isn't exactly 1 - 1 = 0 and I also disagree that planting trees where there were none to begin with would be counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The hallmark of Jo'burg is almost daily (and violent) impressive thunderstorms. This simply didn't happen 100 years ago. The forest Jo'burg finds itself in is injecting so much water vapour into the atmosphere that the average rainfall in the city have risen dramatically during the last century.

First of all, the thunderstorms show that the equilibrium is a lot more stable than it is for carbon dioxide, seems to be more negative reaction than positive. Second, the washed-away topsoil and surface erosion are typically a problem caused by deforestation so I guess there is some kind of a quid pro quo. I think the mistake there was that of an high concentration of forest and the erosion is probably in adjoining areas that don't have trees.

So, I don't think it would be troublesome to transform the Sahara and other deserts, where it's enough to use available water sources, as long as it's done appropriately. It would be adding to evaporation from other areas, it might even be a globally relevant addition to oceans and other wet areas, it would certainly increase precipitation and especially locally, helping to restore the situation of when the Sahara was a green fertile area. The Sahel has been marching on too, would it be a natural disaster to reverse that? I don't think it would cause as much harm as benefit.

Wow this has increased the length of my lunch break! Come for a ?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

So, I don't think it would be troublesome to transform the Sahara and other deserts, where it's enough to use available water sources, as long as it's done appropriately.?

One of the problems we have is considering deserts as "dead" ie not useful to us.
when if fact they have an incredibly diverse ecosystem;
animals, vegetable and minerals we need to understand before we start to "terra form' into farmland
(see recent "Critters post in terra preta forum)

ON the DIY topic
will we all need to become vegan
no more burgers"
T bones?
i tried to find the source of this (Akifumi Ogino)article but could not.
I guess he refers to a Japanese road trip and a Japanese house?

I wonder what the comparison is with transport, packaging, marketing, processing, and distribution of other foods such as cornflakes.
The major problem seems to be with factory farming. emissions are twice as high as with cows raised on Grass.
No doubt the huge USA subsidies to agri-business/grain growers would be a factor here. Also the price and taxes on gas.
Also the closed, very expensive, bureaucratic, highly protected Japanese meat market.
the permaculture people might have the right model for sustainablity.

[QUOTE]Eat a steak, warm the planet

From correspondents in Paris | July 19, 2007

A KILOGRAM of beef causes more greenhouse-gas and other pollution than driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home, according to a Japanese study.

A team led by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, calculated the environmental cost of raising cattle through conventional farming, slaughtering the animal and distributing the meat, New Scientist reports in next Saturday's issue.

Producing a kilo of beef causes the equivalent of 36.4 kilos in carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, Mr Ogino found.

Most of these greenhouse-gas emissions take the form of methane, released from the cow's digestive system.

That one kilo of beef also requires energy equivalent to lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days. The energy is needed to produce and transport the animals' feed.

A Swedish study in 2003 suggested that organic beef emits 40 per cent less greenhouse gases and consumes 85 per cent less energy because the animal is raised on grass rather than concentrated feed.

The study appears in full in a specialist publication, Animal Science Journal.

Eat a steak, warm the planet | The Australian[/QUOTE]

[Michaelangelica]

There is not a lot of good answers out there is there?

I have yet to see "Buy a bag of charcoal and bury it in your backyard"
This is the latest pathetic suggestions from Yahoo (Abbreviated) (in along line of of dumb articles from various media)

10. Don't use hot water when cold water will do.

9. Buy "recycled."

8. Turn on the ceiling fan. Circulated air does wonders for cooling a room without having to crank down that thermostat even further. And the whirring sound helps you sleep, right?

7. Buy in bulk. Not only will you expend less energy worrying over toilet paper, but you'll also expend less energy getting to the store. Energy savings also come from reduced packaging. Another bonus: presenting feedbag-size packages of Doritos at any gathering relaxes guests who a) want a lot of Doritos or b) privately question if anyone else is coming. (??????)

6. Strategic landscaping. Trees are great fuel, but get this: You can cool your home by planting a tree where the sun hits most directly. In addition to simple tasks like drawing the blinds, the shade can dramatically cut air conditioning use. A deciduous tree also loses its leaves in the winter, allowing sunlight to warm your house when you need it most. The tree will do this year after year at no extra cost.

5. Discover what "power strip" means to you. Cellphone and iPod chargers suck down electricity just by being plugged into the wall. Rather than dealing with the hassle of inserting and removing your chargers when they're in use, plug them into power strips with an on/off switch. A power strip in the off mode uses zero juice. For fun, free-associate with friends while saying the words power strip.

4. A better bulb.

3. The Energy Star.

2. Get with the program.

1. Get active. Getting active has never required less effort.you like most. There. That wasn't so inconvenient, was it?

Top Ways to Fight Global Warming - Yahoo! News

Hypography mensas have to be able to do better than this drivel?

[palmtreepathos]

OH, happy day!

Ocean restoration firm Planktos, Inc. announces a truly green and effective answer to global warming and ocean decline. The company will initiate commercial scale pilot projects this summer to demonstrate that marine plankton restoration can significantly lower atmospheric CO2, increase oxygen production, lessen coral-lethal ocean acidity, replenish the marine food chain and generate enough profits in the process to sustain the endeavor until the corner is turned.

On Earth Day 2006 Two Enormous Wrongs Await A Small Green Mr. Right--Plankton Power can Cool our CO2 Fevered Skies and Heal our Poisoned Seas

and then a big OOPS!

Phytoplankton are responsible for the production of several gases which are important in the atmosphere, including dimethyl sulfide, which
leads to the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and carbonyl sulfide and volatile organohalogens, which are believed to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion; all of these gases have been investigated extensively by Max Planck Institute for Chemistry researchers in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Biogeochemistry departments over the past three decades. Accelerated production of these gases resulting from iron fertilization would lead to changes in the atmospheric composition and climate, which could offset the beneficial effects of CO2 removal. The additional photosynthetic activity would also be expected to lead to a significant warming of the ocean’s surface waters, which may have important consequences for oceanic circulation and the climate, especially in regions such as the Southern Oceans, where much of the iron fertilization effort would be focused. It is argued that the known potential for significant side effects is sufficient that iron fertilization should not be made eligible for carbon trading credits. Research on the mechanisms controlling phytoplankton productivity and its link to the climate and atmospheric composition should continue, but this should be driven by basic science, rather than market interests.

Max Planck Society - Press Release

No wonder the scientific community may look at it this way...

geo-engineering is generally seen as fringe entertainment at best, although some of the new ideas concerning atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration are being looked into seriously.

RealClimate » Geo-engineering in vogue…

and then there is something that "tends more to satisfy weak minds " like mine , that is the Creator of all these awesomely messed up systems is getting pretty ticked off at the bungling of the present tenants and is about to evict the offenders and do a bit of restoration.

God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth" (Rev 11 vs 18)

the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace... And they will reside forever upon it. (Psalm 37:9,10 & 29)

In the mean time I make biochar, raise organic food, use way less water, preach and am hunkering down for the ride of our lives...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

There is not a lot of good answers out there is there?

Hypography mensas have to be able to do better than this drivel?

I propose an international moratorium on all vehicle racing using combustion engines. No planes, boats, cars, motorcycles, quads, or any variations thereon that emit exhaust. The amount worldwide consumed by these vehicles in practice, travel & transport to events and competition is spewing an enormous amount of pollution (pick your poison) into the atmosphere on little or no justification other than entertainment. It pales, however, in comparison to the amount of same pollutants emitted by fans driving to & from events.

How serious are we? litmus pop-quiz.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Turtle

It pales, however, in comparison to the amount of same pollutants emitted by fans driving to & from events.

And therefore since these events have a fraction of the attendance of Football (both kinds), Basketball, Baseball, Golf, etc. etc. etc. I propose that all spectator sports of all kinds be banned forthwith!

Data point:

• NASCAR: 38 events/year with 100,000 attendance; 3 people/car 50 miles@20mpg = 63m person/miles or 3m gallons
• US Football: 14 games/week * 19 weeks * 60,000; same car/distance = 266m person-miles or 13m gallons

Originally Posted by Turtle

How serious are we? litmus pop-quiz.

Fortunately, not very...

Bread and Circuses,
Buffy

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

And therefore since these events have a fraction of the attendance of Football (both kinds), Basketball, Baseball, Golf, etc. etc. etc. I propose that all spectator sports of all kinds be banned forthwith!

Bread and Circuses,
Buffy

I concur, but with the caveat that non-polluting vehicles may race and/or provide the conveyance for attendees to attend spectator events. Electric vehicles charged by wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, power etcetera.

either go green, or don't go,

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I concur, but with the caveat that non-polluting vehicles may race and/or provide the conveyance for attendees to attend spectator events. Electric vehicles charged by wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave, power etcetera.

either go green, or don't go,

Formula 1 racing, arguably the "pinnacle" of motorsports is already on board with moving in this direction. I do not believe they are attempting to address directly the spectators travel (although, F1 racing is international and many fans likely arrive by rail or cycle at the European and Asian events), however, the technology they come up in this effort with will definitely filter into the vehicles of regular commuters like you and I.


How green is this? : Nature

On the cover, McLaren's sensational rookie Lewis Hamilton leads Kimi Räikkönen's Ferrari in Montreal, en route to the first of his back-to-back wins in North America. Hamilton's chosen sport is hardly 'green', based as it is on carting machinery and personnel all over the world to drive around in circles. But, in the tradition of 'improving the breed' that brought disc brakes into automotive use, there are ambitious plans to recast the formula as a force for technological good. From 2009, new regulations will reduce the environmental impact of the sport, and introduce kinetic energy recovery systems to use energy otherwise wasted during deceleration. Later changes will involve recovering energy lost as heat. The combination of fierce competition, talented technicians and big research budgets should drive the technology forward in ways that may ultimately benefit road cars. Andreas Trabesinger interviews F1's Max Mosley, the man behind the new formula.

To Buffy's point, why don't we also all stop going to work? I mean, you do the math, and that's a lot of gas.


Working from home.

[Michaelangelica]

Drivel? ; Turtle? - a bit harsh?!



Another bright idea

Pumping 20 to 25 liters of aerosols per second to keep enough particles in the stratosphere would cool temperatures, causing the planet's carbon sinks to suck more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

"That kind of flow rate can be handled by a single fire hose," said Caldeira. "For something like $100 million a year you could probably keep a hose in the stratosphere suspended by an array of balloons with pumps along the way."

The problem is what happens if we stop short or screw it up.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...3412543&page=1