Remember me
▼ Content

Technology to reverse climate change



Page 1 of 212>
Technology to reverse climate change01-11-2021 01:35
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.
01-11-2021 02:49
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
Your going to need a long cable amongst other things.The air is very thin in the troposphere so you may struggle to find much CO2
01-11-2021 04:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.


No cables strong enough, the Platform would be moving through the atmosphere at high speed making it a hazard, and it takes more energy to break up CO2 than you get by burning the carbon.

The Platform, as you call it, cannot access a significant amount of CO2 either. The carbon you get is miniscule, and you still have to get it off the platform and shipped to where it is needed (if you could catch the damn thing!).

Fortunately, is a lot easier just to dig up coal and ship that. A lot cheaper too.

What have you got against CO2?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 01-11-2021 04:16
01-11-2021 04:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
duncan61 wrote:
Your going to need a long cable amongst other things.The air is very thin in the troposphere so you may struggle to find much CO2


You suffering from thin air? At sea level??!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-11-2021 04:19
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
Good catch I meant stratosphere.
01-11-2021 04:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
duncan61 wrote:
Good catch I meant stratosphere.

Okay. Why the stratosphere, particularly? The altitude of the Platform was never given.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-11-2021 06:35
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
I am taking the wee wee.How could the solar panels in space orbit with a great big cable hanging of it.
01-11-2021 07:09
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3804)
jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.


CO2 is heavier than 'air', and tends to stay closer to the surface. Hot air rises though, and so does CO2. Which, is why I'm a little skeptical of CO2's 'warming' properties.

The best actual solution, is to plant more trees, and other vegetation. Make California clean up the under-brush, so the aren't burning up half the state every year. Vegetation is cheap to produce, no manufacturing or materials needed. No wast products to dispose of responsibly. And they won't come crashing down to earth, when a cable breaks. Plants and trees provide food, and a vast array of healthy, wholesome products.

According to the IPCC, CO2 isn't even the most potent, or plentiful 'greenhouse' gas. We are lead to believe that we will be crossing the 'tipping point' in just a few decades. It would take a decade or more, to manufacture and deploy a significant number of carbon capture machines. Even then, several more decades to capture any useful quantity of CO2. Being so close to the tipping point, and there is still the biggest, and baddest 'greenhouse' gasses to tackle, it's a fail. We will still all burn up, and die horribly. Fortunately though, vegetation not only captures CO2, but they also capture some of that planet killing solar energy.

The planet has taken care of itself a lot longer than the human species has walked on it's hind legs. We are about as useless, as a toddler wanting to help change a flat tire, long-side a busy interstate. The job would go a lot smoother, if he sat quietly in the car...
01-11-2021 14:15
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
All good points. Thanks. From your comments I gather that the weight of the 100 mile-long cable is one of the obstacles to making this thing work. How about power over optics? Still too heavy? Hummm. We really need this to work.
01-11-2021 17:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
All good points. Thanks. From your comments I gather that the weight of the 100 mile-long cable is one of the obstacles to making this thing work. How about power over optics? Still too heavy? Hummm. We really need this to work.

How do you transmit power over optics?

Why do you need this to work?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-11-2021 18:13
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Power over optics? Donno but it's done; look it up.
Science says CO2 (and methane etc) in the upper atmosphere causes the hothouse effect. That we are suffering from that effect is beyond question in my mind. Our attempts to ameliorate that so far is by reducing emissions. Economics and politics gets in the way of that. Surely, I say to myself, there has to be a way to reverse the build up by breaking the molecule apart (in the upper atmos). I don't know how; but I hope some bright soul does. I just want to push the concept. Thanks.
01-11-2021 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
Power over optics? Donno but it's done; look it up.

Okay. You don't know the difference between power isolation and generating power.
jayley wrote:
Science says CO2 (and methane etc) in the upper atmosphere causes the hothouse effect.

Science says no such thing.
You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot reduce entropy. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap light. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

There is no magick gas or vapor capable of warming the Earth.

jayley wrote:
That we are suffering from that effect is beyond question in my mind.

Because you are deeply involved in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion that denies science and mathematics.
jayley wrote:
Our attempts to ameliorate that so far is by reducing emissions.

No need. Both gases naturally occur in the atmosphere. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on Earth. Neither gas can set aside the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
jayley wrote:
Economics and politics gets in the way of that.

Because people don't like fascism.
jayley wrote:
Surely, I say to myself, there has to be a way to reverse the build up by breaking the molecule apart (in the upper atmos). I don't know how; but I hope some bright soul does. I just want to push the concept. Thanks.

What build up? It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

It is the same with methane.

How do you know the Earth is warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either.

Why do you deny these laws of physics? Why do you deny statistical and probability mathematics?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-11-2021 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10385)
jayley wrote:Power over optics? Donno but it's done; look it up.[/qote]
So you believe everything you read on the internet. That would certainly explain your hair-brained ideas.

[quote]jayley wrote:Science says CO2 (and methane etc) in the upper atmosphere causes the hothouse effect.

Nope. Science does not gibber-babble in that manner.

jayley wrote: That we are suffering from that effect is beyond question in my mind.

Of course, you are a gullible moron who believes whatever he reads on the internet because ... it's on the internet.

What a tool.

jayley wrote:Our attempts to ameliorate that so far is by reducing emissions.

Explain why any rational adult should believe this bizarre fantasy of yours. Make sure to use all the appropriate and necessary science and math.

jayley wrote:Economics and politics gets in the way of that.

Nope. It's actual science that busts your bubble. You, unfortunately, don't know any, hence you are totally gullible to whatever your slavemasters order you to believe. This is what happens when you let others do your thinking for you.

If you have any actual questions that don't require full abandonment of math, science and logic, please do not hesitate to ask. If you are going to limit your questions to the domain of your scientifically illiterate fantasy then please feel free to hesitate ... for as long as you can.

jayley wrote: Surely, I say to myself, there has to be a way to reverse the build up

There is no "build-up" that needs to be "reversed" except in the zany world in which your slavemasters have you bent over furniture.

Good luck.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
01-11-2021 21:41
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
It's ok you do not sign on to the possibility; no doubt you will have a lot of company. My hope, however, is that radical ideas like this one will stir more workable ideas to do the same thing. Don't tell me why it won't work; tell me how to do it so it will work. Thanks.
01-11-2021 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
It's ok you do not sign on to the possibility; no doubt you will have a lot of company. My hope, however, is that radical ideas like this one will stir more workable ideas to do the same thing. Don't tell me why it won't work; tell me how to do it so it will work. Thanks.


Why do you want it to work? Why are you so afraid of CO2? Because you deny science and mathematics, that's why.

There's no reason to even consider building such a thing, or even to build any machine that destroys CO2. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on Earth.

Industrially, CO2 is used for fire extinguishers, baking most any product such as bread or pizza dough, as a welding gas, and of course in soda and beer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 01-11-2021 21:53
01-11-2021 22:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10385)
jayley wrote:It's ok you do not sign on to the possibility;

What possibility? Doesn't it bother you that you are a fervent activist for something you cannot even coherently articulate? Doesn't it bother you that you are obviously a tool for others. Doesn't it bother you that people you trusted are taking advantage of your ignorance and of your gullibility?

Well, it's always possible that you enjoy being bent over furniture. To each his own.

jayley wrote: My hope, however, is that radical ideas like this one will stir more workable ideas to do the same thing.

Do you mean like how radical ideas like The Communist Manifesto and Das Capital stirred violent genocides in NAZI Germany, Communist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Viet Cong Vietnam, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Chavez' Venezuela, etc... is that what you are looking to do?

jayley wrote: Don't tell me why it won't work; t

... because that would be explaining science to you ... which you don't want to hear. You simply expect people to act now as you would have them behave, and to give you their money as you would demand. Screw any sort of feasibility of any plan, that is totally unimportant. Political obedience is really what this is all about.

What a tool.

.




ell me how to do it so it will work. Thanks.[/quote]


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
02-11-2021 01:07
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
Into the Night wrote:
jayley wrote:
All good points. Thanks. From your comments I gather that the weight of the 100 mile-long cable is one of the obstacles to making this thing work. How about power over optics? Still too heavy? Hummm. We really need this to work.

How do you transmit power over optics?

Why do you need this to work?


tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power

https://optics.org/news/4/5/1


02-11-2021 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10385)
Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power

Here is the correct answer.

Power is not carried by fiber optic cables. That notion is pure marketing.

Fiber optic is only capable of transmitting light. That much should be common knowledge. Fiber optic cables can be used to carry the same kind of light that
photovoltaic power converters (solar cells) convert to electricity. This can serve as a viable solution for low power applications, e.g. a drone ... on a tether.

However, I have to laugh at the idea of placing a solar-cell-laden satellite into orbit to gather sunlight to send it down to earth via fiber optic cable when one can just place those same solar cells on the ground and collect the exact same sunlight which doesn't need any help making it all the way to earth's surface.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
02-11-2021 12:49
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
Ibdm are you not allowing for the shade effect.We are going to keep this device between us and the sun so in the daytime it is night time and in the night time it will be night time.All life on the planet will die and we will be a frozen rock hurtling through space and we will all be broke and happy
02-11-2021 15:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10385)
duncan61 wrote:Ibdm are you not allowing for the shade effect.We are going to keep this device between us and the sun so in the daytime it is night time and in the night time it will be night time.All life on the planet will die and we will be a frozen rock hurtling through space and we will all be broke and happy

I have mentioned that previously. Whenever someone raises that particular "solution" to save the planet, I remind them that it will kill everything on the planet.
Attached image:

02-11-2021 16:21
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
The cable is not intended to go to the ground, "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning), still an imposing distance. The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion) where the CO2 molecule is broken apart and the carbon eventually falls to the ground. I'm not married to this particular concept; I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work. We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels (a program which is still mired in political and economic sands). The clock is ticking. Thanks for your input.
02-11-2021 16:27
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.
02-11-2021 17:08
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1441)
Perhaps we could trap the extra heat and use it to make hot air balloons so cooling the planet and scooping up nasty carbon all at the same time
02-11-2021 17:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10385)
jayley wrote:The cable is not intended to go to the ground,

Yes, that is what you are describing. That is your requirement.

jayley wrote: "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning), s

You need to explain that "upper" atmosphere qualification. Why the "upper" atmosphere? The thickest accumulation of CO2 is at sea level (or below sea level). That is where you want to go to work, right?

jayley wrote: The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion)

Why specifically electrical propulsion? Why isn't this simply a ground-based or ocean-based platform? That's where CO2 is "thickest" and sunlight reaches there without any problem.

jayley wrote: I'm not married to this particular concept;

Congratulations.

jayley wrote:I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work.

You need to specify your priority. Is there something specific you wish to accomplish or are you simply looking to build something that will work? A roller coaster will work and will be fun. Have you considered that?

jayley wrote: We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels

Who needs this? Who is "we"? I don't need any alternative to hydrocarbons and carbon. Why do you need one?

jayley wrote:The clock is ticking.

You already have a clock that works. Why don't you build another one of those?

jayley wrote:One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

No support needed for anything based on the ground or floating in the ocean.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
02-11-2021 18:04
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3804)
jayley wrote:
The cable is not intended to go to the ground, "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning), still an imposing distance. The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion) where the CO2 molecule is broken apart and the carbon eventually falls to the ground. I'm not married to this particular concept; I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work. We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels (a program which is still mired in political and economic sands). The clock is ticking. Thanks for your input.


So, it's going to rain carbon dust, so we all can get Black-lung disease, like a Kentucky coal miner?
02-11-2021 20:34
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power


This can serve as a viable solution for low power applications, e.g. a drone ... on a tether.

However, I have to laugh at the idea of placing a solar-cell-laden satellite into orbit to gather sunlight to send it down to earth via fiber optic cable when one can just place those same solar cells on the ground and collect the exact same sunlight which doesn't need any help making it all the way to earth's surface.

.


Maybe the CO2 on the ground isn't a risk, but the CO2 high in the atmosphere is a risk.


02-11-2021 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
duncan61 wrote:
Ibdm are you not allowing for the shade effect.We are going to keep this device between us and the sun so in the daytime it is night time and in the night time it will be night time.All life on the planet will die and we will be a frozen rock hurtling through space and we will all be broke and happy


Just how big do you envision this Platform being??
I don't think he ever specified a size for the thing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2021 20:43
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.


Most balloon tests can't make it past ~ 30 miles high. Do you envision the cable to be lower than that? What altitude?


02-11-2021 20:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
The cable is not intended to go to the ground, "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning),

The thickest CO2 accumulation is the surface. It is also the thickest part of the atmosphere.
jayley wrote:
still an imposing distance.

No kidding.
jayley wrote:
The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion)

Why bother?
jayley wrote:
where the CO2 molecule is broken apart and the carbon eventually falls to the ground.

Why do you want to destroy CO2? CO2 is essential for life on Earth. You now expect to cause a rain of carbon dust? Have you seen the soot from coal plants in China? That's carbon dust. Rain actually turns black because of it.
jayley wrote:
I'm not married to this particular concept; I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work.

Seems like you are.
jayley wrote:
We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels

There is no such thing as fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn.
Oil is a renewable fuel and there is plenty of it. Why move away from this cheap energy source?
Coal is plentiful. Why move away from this cheap energy source?
Natural gas is plentiful and a renewable fuel. Why move away from this cheap energy source?

jayley wrote:
(a program which is still mired in political and economic sands).

The energy market is just that...a market. Government manipulation of any market is fascism.
jayley wrote:
The clock is ticking. Thanks for your input.

What clock?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2021 20:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2021 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
duncan61 wrote:
Perhaps we could trap the extra heat and use it to make hot air balloons so cooling the planet and scooping up nasty carbon all at the same time


I is not possible to trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything.

Hot air balloons require fuel. No fuel, no hot air for the balloon. That air must be hotter than the air around the balloon.

Once the fuel heating the air in the balloon is gone, the hot air will continue to heat the atmosphere around the balloon until inside and outside are the same temperature and pressure. The balloon descends. Without fuel, a hot air balloon MUST come down.

What is nasty about CO2? Carbon is not CO2. CO2 is not carbon. Don't confuse the two.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2021 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16460)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power


This can serve as a viable solution for low power applications, e.g. a drone ... on a tether.

However, I have to laugh at the idea of placing a solar-cell-laden satellite into orbit to gather sunlight to send it down to earth via fiber optic cable when one can just place those same solar cells on the ground and collect the exact same sunlight which doesn't need any help making it all the way to earth's surface.

.


Maybe the CO2 on the ground isn't a risk, but the CO2 high in the atmosphere is a risk.


Why? What is the risk?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
02-11-2021 22:15
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:




Maybe the CO2 on the ground isn't a risk, but the CO2 high in the atmosphere is a risk.


Why? What is the risk?


The sky falling.



Edited on 02-11-2021 22:36
02-11-2021 22:42
James___
★★★★★
(5344)
jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.



They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.
02-11-2021 22:53
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(807)
Into the Night wrote:
jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.


You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.


02-11-2021 23:13
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
I like your humor (that was humor wasn't it?). As far as shading the planet it should not happen to any appreciable extent because the solar cells do not need to be closely adjoined so as to create an umbrella effect and also because their area is so insignificant re the sphere of their position in space. I wouldn't worry about that. The real problems here as I see it are the weight and structural stability of the cable and whether the atmosphere at the thickest layer of CO2 can support a flying platform. As to the first their may be some hope for PoF (power over fiber) tech, which is being developed as we speak. But even if it becomes available would it, or any cable, be feasible? As to the promise of an airplane platform at the height where it could do most good that needs to be researched.
Thanks for the interest. Can we get serious about this?
02-11-2021 23:28
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Sorry, the "humor" I was referring to was: "duncan61 wrote:
Perhaps we could trap the extra heat and use it to make hot air balloons so cooling the planet and scooping up nasty carbon all at the same time." But on second thought maybe there is more there than can be seen: what can be made of that?
02-11-2021 23:31
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.


You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.


I see your point. Thanks.
03-11-2021 00:05
jayley
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
James___ wrote:
jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.



They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.


Thanks for the interest.

Energy into a beam a wonderful concept and it might could be made to work at least to an extent which would be a help.

If we have survived nuclear Armageddon we might could Death Rays also. I'm thinking that the more deadly ways we have of wiping out the human race the more restrained we become.

To your point re the ozone layer, the problem with CO2 is that in trapping reflected sunlight from getting back out into space the planet warms. It's not sunlight that is the problem (the earth needs it; we don't want to reduce it). The bad guy here is CO2.

Synthesizing new molecules using CO2 is a brilliant idea (assuming the new molecules would be beneficial). So now we have two ways forward: break apart CO2 or create a harmless of even beneficial molecule using CO2 as the starting point.
Any chemists in the forum?
03-11-2021 00:11
James___
★★★★★
(5344)
jayley wrote:
I like your humor (that was humor wasn't it?). As far as shading the planet it should not happen to any appreciable extent because the solar cells do not need to be closely adjoined so as to create an umbrella effect and also because their area is so insignificant re the sphere of their position in space. I wouldn't worry about that. The real problems here as I see it are the weight and structural stability of the cable and whether the atmosphere at the thickest layer of CO2 can support a flying platform. As to the first their may be some hope for PoF (power over fiber) tech, which is being developed as we speak. But even if it becomes available would it, or any cable, be feasible? As to the promise of an airplane platform at the height where it could do most good that needs to be researched.
Thanks for the interest. Can we get serious about this?



First I have to say that I said ions when I should have said molecules and compounds. CO2, O2, O3 are molecules. CH2O is a compound.

jayley, it has been proposed placing mirrors in orbit like we have with satellites.
It might take reflecting 1meter^2 out of every 75meter^2 to lower the temperature 1º C. From 2012; https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html
And if you consider that if kept within 30º North and South latitude where the most solar radiation is, that would decrease the amount of solar radiation that our oceans are absorbing and transporting. Cairo is pretty close to 30º north latitude and it was 71º F. today; https://en.tutiempo.net/solar-radiation/cairo.html
While creating a hybrid compound to reflect solar radiation might not be considered as technology, it might actually be feasible. If you consider that
chlorine tetrahydride (CCl4) is a compound of 1 carbon molecule and 4 chlorine molecules and it's also an ODS (ozone depleting substance), why can't we create a compound that reflects solar radiation?
Just an FYI, for whatever warming is happening, it won't last. We only need to minimize its effect so life as we know it can go on.

p.s., with lasers, because they are emitted from a crystal, another crystal can be used as a deep space radar and a prism at the same time. It could absorb the signal and allow it to be modified. In that instance as you mentioned, solar panels. That could pay for such an effort and could make something like that "economically feasible".
p.s.s, just to be ab a$$hole, I'm into the thermohaline circulation and tectonic plate rebound. That and the ozone layer. What you're talking about, maybe these guys can help you?

p.s.s.s, there are artificial rubies which are used in lasers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjXXRfwrHg The weapons technology is here and has been. And jayley, these guys in here had no clue. Maybe weapons tech can be used for a peaceful purpose?
As gfm would say, beat your weapons into plow shears.
Edited on 03-11-2021 00:52
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Technology to reverse climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Technology Mobile Network Do Help Spread All Virus Quicker Including The COVID, So Just Turn It Off009-08-2021 12:38
Want To Eliminate Corona Virus COVID, You Just Need Turn Off All Technology Devices !308-06-2021 16:58
TempleOS, Technology Cannot Help You Understand, Talk With God Because You Are Too Stupid505-02-2021 00:41
Independent and open technology gives us a real chance to reach global climate targets719-10-2020 23:34
Technology Stuffs Cause Climate Change Global Warming, Bring Natural Catastrophe Disaster Sooner310-09-2020 22:39
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact