Remember me
▼ Content

How to create actual solutions to global warming


How to create actual solutions to global warming19-04-2014 16:52
Piquo Pie
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
In order to solve global warming reduction will not work alone, we have to work to reverse damage done. To solve this we need to isolate the problems and work toward solutions.

Example: One of the biggest problems with global warming is all the extra gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. Specifically the gases that get pulled into the upper atmosphere because plants can't remove the carbon Dioxide.

Once we isolate a problem we need to understand it a little better.

Example: In this example above global winds tends to take a lot of the pollution that we produce, and that occurs naturally from things like forest fires, and pulls it toward the poles. It's why the poles have more of an issue, there is a lot of pollution and nothing there to help reduce it.

Now we can work toward a solution. But even before we do that we need to keep in mind a few things. In this case the time and research required, cost, positive/negative impact on people/businesses/governments, negative environmental impact, longevity and efficiency. Probably a few more but that's what I came up with off the top of my head.

So now it's time to brainstorm solutions. Rule #1 write them down. Even if you would discard the ideas because of some foreseeable problem that does not mean that there won't be a solution. This way if you/others can't come up with a solution you can always revisit old ideas.

Example of brainstorming: Need to remove gases from atmosphere so; giant tube that sucks up atmosphere to go to bio-dome. Balloons flying around with an attached biodome to filter out pollution. Drones that glide and filter the air. Develop a plant that can grow in the arctic. Introduce a bacteria/mold that can float and clean the atmosphere.

Now we can narrow down these ideas. I prefer to narrow down what likely won't work.

In the example ideas provided;
The tube idea would not be stable in arctic areas. Even if a space elevator type apparatus was used ice is very hard to build on safely, especially with any significant weight. Yes it could be done in the south pole where there are some areas that don't have excessive ice but this idea would either need to be unbelievably massive, or there would need to be a number in a number of places. This idea would also likely have long lasting impact on weather patterns if it was to be strong enough to have an effect. Still, if the technology is there it might be worth exploring in the future.

Bacteria and molds. I don't know about you but the idea of creating a bacteria or molt that spreads in the atmosphere and alters the climate seems dangerous. Safeties could be built in, such as requiring a material that gets sprayed into the atmosphere, but the testing that would be required would take decades at the least and even then the risk might not be worth the potential reward.

Plants that can survive in the extreme cold tend to be very tiny and inefficient. Additionally to grow on ice, plants would need resources provided or it would need to be something like moss. Moss would be an option if one could be developed that would not just live but thrive. I don't know enough about genetic engineering or the capabilities of plants but I don't even know if such a plant could be made. Even assuming one could storms would bury the moss, meaning that it won't ever be able to cover as much of the poles as might be needed. Still this idea has some merit to mitigate the problem, especially for areas that don't have any wildlife or resources as there would be little resistance to implementing this idea and no real resources expended besides the research.

Drones and balloons. The idea of drones and balloons that scrub the atmosphere is interesting. On the surface there would be a lot of problems, namely the number you would have to produce. But if there is one thing we've learned it's that production is one thing that humans do really well. Choosing drones or balloons comes down to finding the best way to do the same thing so lets break it down.

There are two ways to do two different things. This immediately highlights the idea because it means that it's easy to comes up with options. The two different things to pick from are the delivery system and the cleaning system. For delivery balloons and drones and for cleaning we have plants, probably algae, or mechanical.

Lets narrow down the delivery system. In either case we need power, but being in the upper atmosphere solar would be easy to pull off, no particles to scratch the panels and near 24 hour exposure to the sun means the battery could be tiny. This would apply to both methods. Drones would need more propulsion, computers, and moving parts which does provide a challenge if ice forms. It might require a heat source for the whole glider which could take a lot of resources. Balloons, on the other hand require almost no moving parts and as long as ice does not build up in excess it wouldn't be an issue. In fact these are problems that have already been solved so I'll throw in some history here.

The atmosphere is not a perfect sphere. It ripples like waves on the ocean but to a exponentially larger degree. And man has sent up people in/carried by balloons so high that as the atmosphere dips the person/people actually rise above the atmosphere. It's been theorized that we don't know who the first man in space was because we generally only count people who rise above a set agreed upon distance from the earth, but someone might have gone outside the atmosphere first without knowing. With this in mind we know that we have the technology to put balloons with hundreds of extra pounds in the upper atmosphere for long periods of time and even extreme weights.

The downside to balloons is maneuverability. Sure we can track balloons with GPS, but if they are left to the complete whim of the weather, save some rising or falling, it could prove hazardous to planes and the balloons might cluster. Propulsion could be added to balloons but it would be inefficient, plus the more weight means the larger the balloon means the harder it is to push around. To keep the balloon buoyant it might require some method to refill it.

Drones have the opposite problem. Drones may be the hot thing now but operating them in extreme cold could be a problem. Fortunately the aviation technology available should be just as operational with a drone. Drones could be thrown about due to weather. Drones would likely require more investment and the space for leaning would be smaller. However as the drone would cover more ground it could use its speed to draw in more air to clean. Unfortunately any problems could result in more of an issue recovering the drone, it would travel farther off course and when it went down it would take a lot more damage than a balloon that simply lands.

So are drones or balloons better. I would go with balloons due to a lower cost but it would likely be easier to get support for drones. They are the hot thing right now and as they would be less likely to cause problems with airlines drones would have less resistance. That said there is nothing saying we could not test both.

So now we get down to mechanical air filtering vs biological. Mechanical would likely be quicker to design, however the mechanism would also wear down over time. There is also the issue of what to do with the CO2 and methane captured. Mechanical cleaning often requires a place to put the carbon. I have heard a bit about artificial trees but these seem to require collection and storage as well. In fact most artificial collection would require storage. And we can't just dump it all in the ocean as that just moves the problems in the air to the water. Still, when it comes to carbon condensing it into pellets to be dropped might be an option. Filling up the materials that we use to scrub could be a problem as well. Unless we could somehow remove the carbon dioxide and then turn it into a form of activated carbon which could actually be used to scrub the air.

Biological means such as algae might last longer and not require much in terms of production but research would likely take longer and be more expensive. A biological solution would also have the same problem of storing the excess carbon. It's possible that the other resources could be extracted and the carbon part of the algae/plant could simply be dropped into the ocean where it could break down naturally.

In the end all options have their merits but because mechanical scrubbers would need to drop off their excess carbon and requires suction I would pair this with drones. There is a high amount of efficiency but also a large amount of cost and the need to return to a base of some sort. Balloons, on the other hand, would likely be paired with biological scrubbing so they could stay up. You could also get more for the cost, though I do not know if this would translate into more carbon and/or methane taken out of the atmosphere per $.

By identifying and learning about what we need to do, brainstorming, and analyzing the pros and cons and long term consequences we can come up with solutions. What we can't do is take narrow minded roads to a perceived solution. We can't just cut back, we can't just account for our own production of pollution, we need to remove past damage from where it ends up and we need to reverse that damage.

Likely the idea presented here won't go anywhere. I am not a scientist as I can't afford to go to school to be one. I don't have connections, and likely no one with the means to pursue the solutions will ever see them. even then they may not be feasible. But that doesn't mean that others can't start addressing the example issue and more. Share ideas, make others challenge themselves and we can come up with feasible solutions.

In this spirit please share your own ideas or ideas of others below. Start a damned discussion, don't just read about what other people are doing.
05-05-2014 10:27
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
CO2 is not a problem, it is not a pollution, it's gas essential for life.
If governments were serious about removing CO2 from the atmosphere they would plant a billion trees, and invest in biochar (google it) fight desertification, but that is not what they want, they want more rules regulations and taxes, thats what it is all about, money and power.
05-05-2014 11:09
Piquo Pie
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Kano wrote:
CO2 is not a problem, it is not a pollution, it's gas essential for life.
If governments were serious about removing CO2 from the atmosphere they would plant a billion trees, and invest in biochar (google it) fight desertification, but that is not what they want, they want more rules regulations and taxes, thats what it is all about, money and power.


You are correct that C02 is necessary for life. It's even necessary in the atmosphere to help keep the planet warm. The problem is that the balances of gasses has changed. Again something that does naturally occur. The trick is that it's happened to fast and in excess. Also, being natural means we don't recognize when it becomes a problem because it doesn't happen immediately. A example of a faster acting pollutant is acid rain from excessive coal burning.

Anything can be a pollution if it's produced in excess and put somewhere it doesn't belong at those levels. Pure water can even be hazardous. Drinking to much pure water leads to the body loosing too many other nutrients, salts being the most immediately noticeable.

Planting trees is something that is being talked about. They are looking into planting forests where previously there were non, or at least not in the past few hundred years. But this presents it's own problem. They can only process the C02 that is around them and it would take a long, long time.

Rules, regulations, and taxes ala Money and Power. A lot of places make money saying global warming exists, a lot of places make money saying global warming does not exist. So who should we believe. Well, the majority of big news sites, politicians (on all sides) and business are quite wealthy. The majority of scientists aren't wealthy. Unless they are specially funded by politicians and big business. From what I've seen the misleading ones run their own businesses.

Being a scientist also has the side effect of cheating and lying leading to unemployment in a sector and even legal ramifications (usually for something like falsifying safety of something, but even then it's often the businesses that are fined cause they hide what the scientists tell them). On the other hand being a cheating lying businessman and/or politician means you're probably quite successful. The media doesn't actually care if it lies and cheats. All that matters is that they retain an audience. For some audiences that means honest reporting and for some that means reinforcing certain beliefs.

But in science it's reliability and replication that matters. It's why peer review and repetition of experimentation is so important. And it's why 13950 peer-reviewed climate articles, between 1991-2012, support global warming and only 24 reject global warming. http://www.jamespowell.org/

Another thing to keep in mind is fads. We get on about car pollution but making and repairing roads creates just as much pollution if not more. Air travel creates way more than cars. The idea that cars are the main problem is actually laughable. And stupid attitudes like that muddle the issue and make it unbelievable.
05-05-2014 11:39
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Quote "From what I've seen the misleading ones run their own businesses"
exactly because they don't have to rely on funding, there are enormous pressures in scientific institutes, to toe the line to go with the consensus, and I can find you many instances when scientists have been derided, admonished and even sacked, for suggesting climate change is not what they say.
What is interesting is that now many leading scientists when they retire suddenly start speaking out against climate change, this is one example
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8wTuTWdTJRoAKA5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDNhc2JxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1399307887/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.climatedepot.com%2f2014%2f04%2f30%2fanother-dissenter-geoscientst-former-un-consultant-dr-david-kear-declares-warming-fears-based-on-unfounded-unscientific-beliefs-an-innocent-gas-co2-has-been-demonized-and-criminalized%2f/RK=0/RS=6_fCDXe98qt5e_Vs8uUNMeGfKpQ-
31-03-2015 16:06
Common Sense
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Any serious discussion has to include reducing the worlds population. In my lifetime the population of the world has more than doubled from 3 billion to over 7 billion. All of these people will require a sufficient amount of energy needs.
01-04-2015 01:31
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Population control is the solution to a large number of problems. But I think it would be far better if it could be accomplished voluntarily or through the gentlest of social engineering techniques. First eliminate dependent deductions and eventually increase taxes for more than two or even one child.
RE: Why doesn't this explain it all?01-04-2015 03:26
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
This is a plot of the 100 year moving average of sunspot activity vs 100 year moving average of temperature (see attached). The two are bound together and have increased steadily for the last 100 years. This is like asking why its getting warmer in your house when you've been turning up the thermostat daily for weeks. Isn't it obvious?

The sun is putting out more energy (long term average) than any time in recorded history.
Attached file:
svtdata.pdf
02-04-2015 03:51
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Do a Google search for images from "sunspot index". You will find nothing that looks like the data you've presented us.

Additionally, direct measurements and isotopic proxies show that the changes in TSI (total solar irradiance) are sufficient to have caused only a small fraction of the observed warming.
Edited on 02-04-2015 03:53
02-04-2015 03:59
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
I suggest you do the research yourself. All I've done is pull together public data for sunspot count and temperature and examine longer term moving averages and their correlations. I haven't seen anyone examine the time frames I have looked at. There are no real correlations for shorter time frames. I've posted my excel files on other threads (80 year moving average). You're welcome to do your own analysis and critique of what I've done.
03-04-2015 00:48
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I have done the research. I find, as did you, no correlation between TSI and temperature. That would seem to me to be the end of the the idea.
03-04-2015 00:52
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
How did you get that from what I've shown? There is strong correlation between 100 year moving averages of temperature and solar activity (R^2=0.85). So I have found exactly the opposite of what you have suggested.
04-04-2015 00:57
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
You said "There are no real correlations for shorter time frames". Since the temperature data show numerous, significant features on shorter scales and since the correlation with CO2 is far better than that with TSI and since net TSI lacks the magnitude to produce the observed warming and since thousands of climate scientists have examined this exact question and have almost unanimously come to diametrically opposed conclusions, I'm going to have to say no.
29-09-2015 20:28
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
I think the solutions to global warming are pretty obvious, to the powers that be, they have enough scientific research and information at their fingertips. But the solutions are not the type of solutions that suit the capitalist world and what these powers really want to achieve, and so they keep looking.

The answer is that they will not find something that suits them and their ways - these are what helped create it in the first place.
29-09-2015 20:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
KeiranK wrote:I think the solutions to global warming are pretty obvious, to the powers that be, they have enough scientific research and information at their fingertips.

Science is not what they have at their fingertips. They have their agendas and they have the various religions at their disposal, e.g. Global Warming, Marxism, etc., to serve as the opiates of the masses and to get their way.

KeiranK wrote: But the solutions are not the type of solutions that suit the capitalist world and what these powers really want to achieve, and so they keep looking.

Obviously capitalists will be resistant to the Marxist attempts to destroy all capitalism, freedom, prosperity and happiness from the face of the earth. This is why Global Warming is not long for this world. The Marxists gave it their best shot but they need to go back to the drawing board and just let this one die.

Global Warming doesn't have much time left anyway. When temperatures drop over the next thirty years due to the solar minimum, people will compile historical documentaries about the Global Warming scam of the turn of the century.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2015 12:59
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
IBdaMann wrote:

Science is not what they have at their fingertips. They have their agendas and they have the various religions at their disposal, e.g. Global Warming, Marxism, etc., to serve as the opiates of the masses and to get their way.


Well I agree with this, ... and here is me thinking they may have actually had some intelligence about the state of the world
I give them too much credit!
06-10-2015 20:02
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Kano wrote:
CO2 is not a problem, it is not a pollution, it's gas essential for life.
If governments were serious about removing CO2 from the atmosphere they would plant a billion trees, and invest in biochar (google it) fight desertification, but that is not what they want, they want more rules regulations and taxes, thats what it is all about, money and power.


Salt is also essential for life, but too much inside of you, or in the wrong place in the environment (like in agricultural fields) is not a good thing and can be very bad. Same for CO2. If you don't think any amount of CO2 can be a problem, I suggest you try and set up housekeeping on Venus. There are many examples of substances that are beneficial up to a point.
06-10-2015 22:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
drm wrote:Salt is also essential for life, but too much inside of you, or in the wrong place in the environment (like in agricultural fields) is not a good thing and can be very bad.

Notice the use of the word "too" render the argument uselessly vague. By it's very nature "too much" of anything is bad.

Warmazombie Definition of "poison" or "pollution":
Any substance which is bad if there is too much of it.

Oh, every substance is bad if there is too much of it.

Ergo: Every substance is "pollution" and "poison."

That really makes a lot of sense.

drm wrote: Same for CO2.

Same for oxygen.

The definitions of "pollution" and "poison" are independent of quantity.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 06-10-2015 22:56
07-10-2015 23:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh on the political powers that be. After all, there is the Three Day Rule:

"If you can't feed your population for three days, they will revolt."

This rule has been proven and re-proven to be true throughout human evolution. Think about it. There are about 7 billion people on the planet, and if you assume that each one eats 1-3 meals per day, with the average being 2 meals per day, then that's 14 billion meals that have to be served every day. Over a year, that's 511 trillion meals. In addition, they all gotta somehow be clothed and sheltered at least in some fashion and, when possible, given medical care to a certain degree. That's a mind boggling task to accomplish on a planetary basis, and each government - democratic, socialist, communist, etc. - has to take on a piece of that pie.

Sometimes when I think about all the complexities involved to keep things running on a day-to-day basis, I marvel that the whole thing hasn't just collapsed under its own impossible weight.




Join the debate How to create actual solutions to global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NEW BOOK out re Global Warming solutions201-12-2018 21:36
Solutions anyone?3422-05-2018 02:45
Climate Change Solutions : What you thought you knew is obsolete. Joe Romm318-12-2017 21:53
Actual Measurements1409-05-2017 00:24
I present to you my Climate&Energy solutions and leads and quests I wrote/made over the past 2 years410-10-2015 00:01
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact