Terraforming: Is it possible?

sealover wrote:
The cosmic time scale is very long.

sealover wrote:
The existence of the human race is just a blink of the eye on that time scale.

sealover wrote:
The earth will not always be able to sustain life.

sealover wrote:
The sun's luminosity continues to increase.

sealover wrote:
One day the earth's fate will be similar to that of Venus.

sealover wrote:
Long before the earth becomes too hot, the human race is very likely to have gone extinct for one reason or another.

sealover wrote:
This may be a unique opportunity in the history of the universe.

sealover wrote:
Whether or not the first life STARTED on earth, this planet can be the source of life on planets beyond our own star.

sealover wrote:
The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

But new life on other planets could create new symphonies of souls to play beautiful music that pleases the greater consciousness so much.

sealover wrote:
We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

sealover wrote:
This new mass extinction in progress is totally uncool.

sealover wrote:
But what would it take to plant seeds of life on a distant planet?

The journey would be far too long for any complex organism seeds, spores, embryos, etc., to be viable by the time they got to their new home.

sealover wrote:
But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms.

sealover wrote:
The kind most likely to survive an interstellar journey.

sealover wrote:
4000 million years ago, some intelligent species far from here might have been thinking the same thing.

sealover wrote:
They knew they could never send one of their own complex intelligent bodies.

Perhaps they planted seeds on Venus and Earth at the same time.

They would have done much better on Venus in those days.

sealover wrote:
It is not impossible that Earth is where it started, and there is no other place in the universe with similar life.

sealover wrote:
We might eventually discover that there was never life of any kind of Venus.

sealover wrote:
Our mythology is filled with Venus related themes, some even suggesting that Venus was the source of life on Earth, or at least the source of souls on earth.

sealover wrote:
In any case, understanding the natural history of life on earth could help us know what kind of seeds to send to younger lifeless planet.

Earth was very cold, had no free oxygen, and was abundant with energy rich reductants such hydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide.

sealover wrote:
This thread will be a good place for discussing how life ever could survive here, and what it would take to facilitate enabling new life to survive elsewhere.

sealover wrote:
To honor a true scientific genius who died several years ago, posts related to this theme will be on this thread under the same heading every time.

"Tony's Ark", they will be called.

sealover wrote:
Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

squeal over wrote:Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

squeal over wrote: By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

squeal over wrote:A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

squeal over wrote:21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium.

squeal over wrote: It is in STEADY STATE.

squeal over wrote:Equilibrium calculations can be used to predict concentrations of solutes, gases, acid base reactions, etc., etc. in a CLOSED SYSTEM with no input or export of energy.

squeal over wrote:The atmosphere is not a closed system. Not at all.

squeal over wrote:What keeps oxygen at 21%.

squeal over wrote:Oxygen is constantly added to the atmosphere by photosynthesis, and constantly removed from the atmosphere by oxidation reactions.

sqeal rover wrote:
If something happened to suddenly REDUCE oxygen concentration even by a percent or two, fires would burn with far lower intensity.

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - Bacteria to warm a cold planet.

Surviving members of the most ancient lines of bacteria would be included to warm a cold, young planet.

Methanogens, for example, would transform carbon dioxide into methane by combining it with hydrogen. The methane provides a powerful greenhouse gas.

However, others among the most ancient bacteria could warm the planet in a very different way. By removing sun-blocking hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere.

Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide as reductant would transform it to sulfate.

This removes a sun blocking gas to counter global dimming and allow warming.

There are not enough oxidants available in the environment to support oxidation of hydrogen sulfide, but anoxygenic photosynthesis oxidizes hydrogen sulfide with needing to acquire an oxidant from the environment.

The sulfate generated also opens up new niches for bacteria to use sulfate as oxidant to exploit the abundant organic carbon. Sulfate reducing bacteria would be given a niche for more life to thrive.

Presumably, conditions of the planet and its star would be similar to that of the earth and sun about 4000 million years ago.

This would mean the star has significantly lower luminosity than our sun today.

It would be a frozen planet with liquid water only on the equator.

It would need to have bacteria enhance global warming by adding methane, and diminish global dimming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

You discarded the 1st law of thermodynamics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - What about a lifeless OLD planet?

Over the last 4600 million years, the Earth spewed out a lot of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the lightest gas of them all. Most of it floated off into space.

This was the irreversible oxidation of the planet's crust that would have happened with or without life.

On Earth, life added more oxidants to the crust.

In addition to losing the hydrogen reductant, photosynthesis was using photooxidation to generate oxidants.

The ideal candidate for terraforming would be a planet like earth with a star like the sun in a state such as the earth and sun were 3000-4000 million years ago.

But we could also terraform a lifeless OLD planet.

We couldn't use methanogens. There would be plenty of carbon dioxide, but the hydrogen would be all gone.

We wouldn't WANT methanogens to do their thing there anyway.

The star is older and more luminous. The last thing life would need is to add a powerful greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and overheat the planet.

The older the planet we find, the brighter its star will be.

An old planet would have few available reductants in the environment to be an energy source for organisms via oxidation reactions.

Life there would have to depend of photosynthesis to create any high energy reductants.

Tony's Ark will carry a very different payload to a warm, lifeless, old planet with a very bright star.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

You discarded the 1st law of thermodynamics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.

You beat me to the punch.

If I grow a few tomato plants on my window sill, have I successfully terraformed?

The word "terraform" comes from sci-fi and carries powerful connotations that appeal to the type of wishful daydreamer that would be inclined to believe in fictions like Global Warming.

One of those connotations is "high tech" that can aid a scientifically illiterate loser into fantasizing about being smart and powerful.

Another connotation involved is one that Hitler utilized as the basis for the NAZI program of ethnic cleansing, i.e. "rebirth" which carries the inseparable implication that the one so terraforming is superior, has the superior "way" that should naturally survive while the rest are discarded to extinction.

A third connotation is that of playing God and being powerful to work Climate miracles, to save humanity and to be the hero that is worshipped and feared, instead of being the naive, scientifically illiterate loser who is mocked and manipulated.

Marxists don't want to actually define what they mean by "terraforming" lest they become exposed for being scientifically illiterate (i.e. get tripped up and advocate for something that is physically impossible) or be asked why they don't just become farmers and "terraform" as much as they feel they need to.

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

You know this because you used your quantum entanglement teleporter to pay me a visit.

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

That's not an exactly accurate recounting of the theory ... and thus far, it's a bunk theory.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

That's not quantum entanglement. It's fiber optic.

As far as science goes, science cannot confirm anything. The scientific method shows that things are false. Nothing is ever confirmed to be true. Ergo, scientists never confirm anything. They can demonstrate principles, but the principles they demonstrate simply have not yet been shown to be false (and they may never be shown to be false) but they are never "confirmed" to be true.

Quantum entanglement is a terrible misnomer. It should be called "expected initial state." When particles are created from other particles, one can anticipate the initial states of the resulting particles. There is no magical force connecting the particles once they are created and there are no additional laws of physics the new particles must obey above and beyond ... physics.

I realize that you are gullible and fall for these WACKY theories, but that's what you have me for ... to bring you back down to your padded cell on earth.

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

Thank you. I'm not gullible. I won't be buying into your little magical teleporter theory.

sealover wrote:
The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

squeal over wrote:We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

Swan wrote:LOL how is quantum entanglement fiber optic when there are no fiber optic wires?

Silicon Photonics is a combination of two of the most important inventions of the 20th century—the silicon integrated circuit and the semiconductor laser. It enables faster data transfer over longer distances compared to traditional electronics, while utilizing the efficiencies of high-volume silicon manufacturing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL how is quantum entanglement fiber optic when there are no fiber optic wires?

How are there no fiber optic wires if there are fiber optic wires?

Here's the schematic:

Here's the chip (singular) which should make you wonder how this demonstration somehow demonstrated quantum teleportation over large distances with only one photonic chip in, of course, only one place:

The topic is more than your brain can handle, obviously.

The topic is "Silicon Photonics" and is the evolution of processors from electrical to optical so as to be able to handle Big Data at scale with the higher speeds necessary.

You, however, are pretending to be Spongy Iris and are believing all sorts Bigfoot, chupacabra, UFOs, and Loch Ness monster stories surrounding it.

Silicon Photonics is a combination of two of the most important inventions of the 20th century—the silicon integrated circuit and the semiconductor laser. It enables faster data transfer over longer distances compared to traditional electronics, while utilizing the efficiencies of high-volume silicon manufacturing.

The chips you describe exist, to the extent that they transfer data via photons ... but no, they don't violate physics via quantum particle urban legends.

Swan wrote:LOL you are confusing optical transfer with quantum entanglement.

Swan wrote:NASA is doing experiments with the international space station

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

You know this because you used your quantum entanglement teleporter to pay me a visit.

I do not have a quantum entanglement teleporter, yet.

sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - Multiple Redox Couples to Create Multiple Niches.

Among the organisms sent to seed a distant planet would be chemoautotrophs.

Most of these are bacteria that gain their energy through oxidation of mineral reductants. They make organic carbon by reducing inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate). "Autotrophs" means they feed themselves with organic carbon that they synthesize from inorganic carbon.

sealover wrote:
Some reductants, such as hydrogen, are strong and yield high energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

Other reductants, such as ammonium, are weak and yield little energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

sealover wrote:
A strong reductant such as hydrogen can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with very weak oxidants, such as carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
Methanogens combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane and provide a small energy yield.

sealover wrote:
A strong oxidant, such as nitrate, can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with a very weak reductant such as ammonium.

sealover wrote:
Anammox bacteria combine ammonium and nitrate to make nitrogen gas.

sealover wrote:
And the list of potential redox couples is long, with many niches for oxidizers and reducers to couple many different reductants and oxidants.

Oxygen is not included here, although it is an even stronger oxidant than nitrate, because there would be no oxygen on the planet to be terraformed.

sealover wrote:
Not for a very, very, very long time.

Indeed, if the goal is to generate an oxygen atmosphere so that humans can eventually colonize the planet, it would be pointless.

We could never survive the journey anyway.

sealover wrote:
Not even frozen embryos to be raised by nannybots.

By the time our terraformed planet has free oxygen in its atmosphere, our sun will have expanded into a red giant and the Earth will be toast.

sealover wrote:
Humans will almost certainly gone extinct long before that.

sealover wrote:
So, why bother?

Is there enough intrinsic value in life to justify the effort to extend its range to a new planet?

We wouldn't be doing it for our OWN benefit.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow, the many faces of carbon... Carbon, organic carbon, inorganic carbon, CO2, man-made CO2, carbonate, bicarbonate... Lot of words to say nothing.

What happens in the petre dish, doesn't always scale up well, or survive in the world outside the lab.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

That's not an exactly accurate recounting of the theory ... and thus far, it's a bunk theory.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

That's not quantum entanglement. It's fiber optic.

As far as science goes, science cannot confirm anything. The scientific method shows that things are false. Nothing is ever confirmed to be true. Ergo, scientists never confirm anything. They can demonstrate principles, but the principles they demonstrate simply have not yet been shown to be false (and they may never be shown to be false) but they are never "confirmed" to be true.

Quantum entanglement is a terrible misnomer. It should be called "expected initial state." When particles are created from other particles, one can anticipate the initial states of the resulting particles. There is no magical force connecting the particles once they are created and there are no additional laws of physics the new particles must obey above and beyond ... physics.

I realize that you are gullible and fall for these WACKY theories, but that's what you have me for ... to bring you back down to your padded cell on earth.

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

Thank you. I'm not gullible. I won't be buying into your little magical teleporter theory.

LOL how is quantum entanglement fiber optic when there are no fiber optic wires?

The topic is more than your brain can handle, obviously.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

You know this because you used your quantum entanglement teleporter to pay me a visit.

I do not have a quantum entanglement teleporter, yet.

Saving up for one?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

That's not an exactly accurate recounting of the theory ... and thus far, it's a bunk theory.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

That's not quantum entanglement. It's fiber optic.

As far as science goes, science cannot confirm anything. The scientific method shows that things are false. Nothing is ever confirmed to be true. Ergo, scientists never confirm anything. They can demonstrate principles, but the principles they demonstrate simply have not yet been shown to be false (and they may never be shown to be false) but they are never "confirmed" to be true.

Quantum entanglement is a terrible misnomer. It should be called "expected initial state." When particles are created from other particles, one can anticipate the initial states of the resulting particles. There is no magical force connecting the particles once they are created and there are no additional laws of physics the new particles must obey above and beyond ... physics.

I realize that you are gullible and fall for these WACKY theories, but that's what you have me for ... to bring you back down to your padded cell on earth.

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

Thank you. I'm not gullible. I won't be buying into your little magical teleporter theory.

LOL how is quantum entanglement fiber optic when there are no fiber optic wires?

The topic is more than your brain can handle, obviously.

YOU brought the wacky shit about photons, dude.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

You know this because you used your quantum entanglement teleporter to pay me a visit.

I do not have a quantum entanglement teleporter, yet.

Saving up for one?

Nope, but I own quantum computer stock shares, does that count?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles.

That's not an exactly accurate recounting of the theory ... and thus far, it's a bunk theory.

Swan wrote:Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips

That's not quantum entanglement. It's fiber optic.

As far as science goes, science cannot confirm anything. The scientific method shows that things are false. Nothing is ever confirmed to be true. Ergo, scientists never confirm anything. They can demonstrate principles, but the principles they demonstrate simply have not yet been shown to be false (and they may never be shown to be false) but they are never "confirmed" to be true.

Quantum entanglement is a terrible misnomer. It should be called "expected initial state." When particles are created from other particles, one can anticipate the initial states of the resulting particles. There is no magical force connecting the particles once they are created and there are no additional laws of physics the new particles must obey above and beyond ... physics.

I realize that you are gullible and fall for these WACKY theories, but that's what you have me for ... to bring you back down to your padded cell on earth.

Swan wrote: You need not believe as you like

Thank you. I'm not gullible. I won't be buying into your little magical teleporter theory.

LOL how is quantum entanglement fiber optic when there are no fiber optic wires?

The topic is more than your brain can handle, obviously.

YOU brought the wacky shit about photons, dude.

Photons are what is being entangled, not my fault if your mind is wacky.

Swan wrote:
How fast is quantum entanglement? around 3-trillion meters per second

Swan wrote:
The team came back and said that quantum entanglement transfers information at around 3-trillion meters per second – or four orders of magnitude faster than light.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse

You know this because you used your quantum entanglement teleporter to pay me a visit.

I do not have a quantum entanglement teleporter, yet.

Saving up for one?

Nope, but I own quantum computer stock shares, does that count?

No. All that means it that you are willing to throw away your money on any wacky scheme that comes along if it has a fancy name.

You're the fool P.T. Barnum talked about.

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

sealover wrote:
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a quantitative variable that accounts for both inherent infrared absorption capacity of a molecule AND its mean residence time in the atmosphere.

In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

The inherent infrared absorption capacity of methane or carbon dioxide would be the same as today.

The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs, so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a quantitative variable that accounts for both inherent infrared absorption capacity of a molecule AND its mean residence time in the atmosphere.

In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

The inherent infrared absorption capacity of methane or carbon dioxide would be the same as today.

The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs, so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Changing the subject so soon?

sealover wrote:
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a quantitative variable that accounts for both inherent infrared absorption capacity of a molecule AND its mean residence time in the atmosphere.

In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

The inherent infrared absorption capacity of methane or carbon dioxide would be the same as today.

The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs, so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a quantitative variable that accounts for both inherent infrared absorption capacity of a molecule AND its mean residence time in the atmosphere.

In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

The inherent infrared absorption capacity of methane or carbon dioxide would be the same as today.

The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs, so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

That brings up one of the things, that confuse me most about your climate-religion. CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. A trace gas, which is critical to all life on the planet. Methane, is a lot more plentiful, and 20 time more potent greenhouse gas. Time is short, to avert a planet scorching catastrophe. Why go after CO2 first? All the wasted time, resources, screwing up the world economy, with little to no hope of actually accomplishing any significant progress, until we reduce methane emissions. The most plentiful, and potent, should have be the top priority. Methane is produced naturally, but humans also produce quite a bit as well. I'm not talking about Taco Bell, or manure pile either. Landfills produce huge quantities. It would have been simpler, and actually beneficial to work of methane reduction first. Methane makes for a pretty good fuel. More CO2, great for plants. More food for every living thing.