Remember me
▼ Content

Terraforming: Is it possible?



Page 2 of 3<123>
24-04-2022 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
The cosmic time scale is very long.

'Cosmic' is not a time scale. Void units.
sealover wrote:
The existence of the human race is just a blink of the eye on that time scale.

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

What do you care? You'll be dead.
sealover wrote:
The sun's luminosity continues to increase.

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

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

What do you care? You'll be dead.
sealover wrote:
This may be a unique opportunity in the history of the universe.

Rather arrogant, don't you think?
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.

There is quite probably life beyond our own star already.
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.

Please describe 'this Greater Consciousness'.
sealover wrote:
We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

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

What mass extinction?
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.

How do you know? Have you tried?
sealover wrote:
But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms.

How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
The kind most likely to survive an interstellar journey.

How do you know? Have you tried?
sealover wrote:
4000 million years ago, some intelligent species far from here might have been thinking the same thing.

Speculation.
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.

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

So you are describing the Theory of Abiogenesis. A nonscientific theory, and a religion.

Couple of problems with this religion.

Say that somehow a cell is created through a random series of unspecified events. What's it going to eat? Without something to sustain it, the cell dies. A single cell has no mechanism for obtaining energy directly.

Say that somehow TWO cells are created separately through a series of random unspecified events. One can now eat the other...enough to divide and you have two cells again. Now what?

This religion ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

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

Obvious.
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.

What mythology is this? Yours?
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.

How do you know? Were you there?
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.

Fine. Feel free to discuss that. At least keep your religions straight.
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.

Odd way to remember someone.
sealover wrote:
Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacies.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.25-04-2022 06:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
RE: Tony's Ark - Bacteria to warm a cold planet.25-04-2022 06:46
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony's Ark - Bacteria to warm a cold planet.
25-04-2022 06:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
I always thought the Earth was shallow swamps Volcanoes and steamy mangroves way warmer than now.The Earth cooled enough to allow life to begin starting with single cell bacteria called Stromatolites after oceans formed and tectonic activity created continents which are still moving.you are claiming the complete opposite.Interesting!
25-04-2022 07:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
squeal over wrote:Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

Nope. You got that wrong.

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

Global Warming is not possible. It can't happen today and it couldn't happen back then.

You should stop allowing your WACKY religion to screw with your speculations about the past.

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

If you weren't totally scientifically illiterate, you'd understand how the Stefan-Boltzmann law kills your religion's greenhouse effect miracle dead.

However, you are just one of the scientifically illiterate laymen who don't know any better and are thus susceptible to extreme gullibility and Marxist bullying.

Of course, in so doing, you end up being deservedly mocked for saying really stupid crap. But, hey, if religion is your drug, self-medicate as often as you need.





Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.[/quote]
Attached image:

RE: 21% oxygen is NOT at equilbrium. It is in STEADY STATE.25-04-2022 07:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium. It is in STEADY STATE.

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.

The atmosphere is not a closed system. Not at all.

What keeps oxygen at 21%.

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

Combustion or respiration of organic matter are the dominant oxidation reactions.

Given the conditions of the Earth right now, if anything happened to raise oxygen concentrations by even a percent or two, fires would burn with higher intensity. Another percent or two and even WET organic matter burns.

This would ultimately consume enough oxygen to bring it back to 21%

If something happened to suddenly REDUCE oxygen concentration even by a percent or two, fires would burn with far lower intensity. Decrease it by another percent or two and dry organic matter cannot sustain a flame.

During the Carboniferous Era, oxygen concentrations were significantly higher.

Most organic matter was in swamps in those days, with nice wet vegetation year round.

Oxygen concentrations were high enough that very large arthropods could live, with their tracheid system capable of supplying oxygen into deep tissues because its atmospheric concentration was high enough.

That was less than 400 million years ago. Very warm in those days.

Things didn't get cold until just a few million years ago when plate tectonics moved Panama to cut off the global ocean current.

That was when CO2 dropped way way down, to near 350 ppm

That was when the cycle of ice ages began.

CO2 in the open system of the atmosphere is not in equilibrium either. The steady state concentration drastically shifted a few million years ago.

21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium. It is in STEADY STATE.
25-04-2022 07:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
squeal over wrote:21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium.

Don't tell me you aren't simply converting "there is no inflow or outflow of oxygen" into a post filled with techno-gibber.

squeal over wrote: It is in STEADY STATE.

Aawww, crap, it is what you're doing.

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.

You made some more copy-paste errors that you need to fix.

1. Equilibrium calculations calculate equilibrium points, ergo they can be used to predict anything for which there is an inflow (import) and an outflow (export).

2. Where you write "in a CLOSED SYSTEM" you need to write "in either a CLOSED or OPEN SYSTEM."

3. Where you write "where there is no input or export of energy" you need to write "where there is both an input and an export of that which is of concern."

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

You should stop right here. You clearly have no idea what constitutes an open or a closed system.

Don't even try. You are babbling incoherently.

squeal over wrote:What keeps oxygen at 21%.

You already covered this in your opening. There is no inflow or outflow. Hence, it remains the same.

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

This is all internal to earth. You are describing CYCLES. Nothing you have mentioned adds up to any sort of discernible change.

This one's a no-go.
25-04-2022 22:20
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
sqeal rover wrote:
If something happened to suddenly REDUCE oxygen concentration even by a percent or two, fires would burn with far lower intensity.


Nice try on the end around back door dishonest fear mongering. You're such a POS.

Let's see if I have this correct.

1. Slash CO2 emissions immediately.
2. Starve plants of life essential CO2.
3. Fewer plants equals reduced oxygen.
4. Voila! FAR lower intensity wild fires (than they otherwise would be).


I just make shit up- sealover
Edited on 25-04-2022 22:26
25-04-2022 22:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-04-2022 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted talking to yourself spam...
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.

Methane has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Tony's Ark - What about a lifeless OLD planet?25-04-2022 22:56
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
RE: Tony's Ark - Cyanobacteria for Oxygenic Photosynthesis25-04-2022 23:48
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Tony's Ark - Cyanobacteria for Oxygenic Photosynthesis

To seed life on an OLD planet, the first organisms would have to generate their own high energy reductants.

There would not be enough chemical reductants left in the environment to support life through oxidation reactions.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis, using reductants such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, arsenite or even nitrite would not be possible.

Cyanobacteria can use the energy from sunlight to tear water molecules apart and generate hydrogen, a high energy reductant. That hydrogen can reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

At the reaction center for oxygenic photosynthesis a manganese atom is suspended. Photons funneled to the reaction center via the light harvesting apparatus photooxidize the manganese to a high oxidation state. This creates enough voltage to yank an electron off a water molecule causing it to fall apart. Generating hydrogen high energy reductant and oxygen gas oxidant.

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


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.
26-04-2022 01:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.


Indeed you are a terraformer because you grow a few tomato plants on the windowsill of the nuthouse
26-04-2022 02:00
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
All of these biogeoterraforming posts are science fiction. Even if we spent the time,money, and resources. The process would take a very long time, and be forgotten. Long before the project could provide a liveable planet,

As long as the basic needs are available, any organism will survive and thrive. You also need to introduce population controls. Of course, your terraforming bacteria will mutate, but you have no clue what directions those mutants will take, if they ssurvive and compete,
26-04-2022 03:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
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.
26-04-2022 03:15
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.

Quantum teleportation involves two distant, entangled particles in which the state of a third particle instantly "teleports" its state to the two entangled particles. Last year, scientists confirmed that information could be passed between photons on computer chips even when the photons were not physically linked.

When this becomes practical information will travel at 10,000 times light speed. You need not believe as you like your little room with the invisible transistor radio
26-04-2022 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
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.
Attached image:

26-04-2022 05:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
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. You're talking about the fiber-optic bus that has been demonstrated.



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.
RE: Tony's Ark - Multiple Redox Couples to Create Multiple Niches.26-04-2022 06:08
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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.

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

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

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

Anammox bacteria combine ammonium and nitrate to make nitrogen gas.

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.

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.

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.

Humans will almost certainly gone extinct long before that.

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.
26-04-2022 08:23
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
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.
26-04-2022 13:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.
26-04-2022 15:54
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
sealover wrote:
The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

Seelover if climate change is real (if - if - if) then we are all going to die cause no one cares and no one is doing anything about it which means we are really stupid and who greves for a stupid person?


26-04-2022 15:57
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
squeal over wrote:We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

NOTE TO IBM:This sounds like a job for Bible Troll!


26-04-2022 17:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
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.
26-04-2022 20:39
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.


LOL you are confusing optical transfer with quantum entanglement. NASA is doing experiments with the international space station where they will entangle photons. In your brain dead brain there will be wires attaching the Earth to the space station.

As I said this is way above your ability to comprehend, no matter though it also spooked Einstein who called it spooky.

https://www.popsci.com/technology/quantum-entanglement-nasa-demo/
26-04-2022 22:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Swan wrote:LOL you are confusing optical transfer with quantum entanglement.

LOL! LOL! You are believing all sorts of "quantum entanglement" urban legends that are being applied to silicon photonics.

Yawn.

There is no "quantum entanglement." You are gullible and easily manipulated.

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

NASA likes to use the international space station to conduct experiments. However, there is nothing about a space station that facilitates physics violations somehow becoming reality.

Don't expect anything to come from whatever your article pretended to be discussing. I realize that your gullibility has jettisoned your expectations into orbit, but you should abandon the crap and return to earth.
26-04-2022 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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?


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

There is no such thing as a 'mineral reductant'. Carbon isn't organic. Buzzword fallacies.
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.

There is no chemical called 'ammonium'. Buzzword fallacy.
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.

Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer. Hydrogen isn't a reductant.
sealover wrote:
Methanogens combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane and provide a small energy yield.

An endothermic reactions is not an energy yield. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
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.

There is no chemical called 'nitrate' or 'ammonium'.
sealover wrote:
Anammox bacteria combine ammonium and nitrate to make nitrogen gas.

Ammonium nitrate is not nitrogen.
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.

Science fiction buzzword.
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.

You are not going.
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.

So what? You're already dead.
sealover wrote:
Humans will almost certainly gone extinct long before that.

You will be.
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.

Why do you assume that life only exists on Earth?


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

Carbon isn't organic.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of carbon and compounds containing carbon. Don't need a petri dish.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 22:50
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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?
26-04-2022 23:00
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.

How fast is quantum entanglement? around 3-trillion meters per second
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.
26-04-2022 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 26-04-2022 23:08
26-04-2022 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

Please describe how two photons are entangled.
Swan wrote:
How fast is quantum entanglement? around 3-trillion meters per second

You think buzzword really move that fast?
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.

Void reference fallacy. What team? What information was transferred. How do they know it was faster than light? How was this measured?


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

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 23:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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.


Now you are confusing quantum entanglement with quantum qubit computing.

It's ok, after all you are on the government payroll.

Yawn
RE: Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.26-04-2022 23:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
26-04-2022 23:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
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?
RE: Correction: Calcium CARBONATE in reefs.26-04-2022 23:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Correction: Calcium CARBONATE in reefs.

The dyslexia made me do it. It's not really my fault.

Left out the word "carbonate" in calcium carbonate reef.

Reef formation is a MAJOR element in the carbon cycle.

Most carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea ultimately ends up as calcium carbonate in coral reefs.

When those coral reefs are ultimately uplifted or driven up into continental land by plate tectonics, limestone soils can return the alkalinity to the sea in the waters that flow from them.

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

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?
27-04-2022 01:36
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
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.
RE: 1.7 ppm methane, 420 ppm carbon dioxide27-04-2022 02:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
1.7 ppm methane, 420 ppm carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide and methane both qualify as "trace gases" in the atmosphere.

There is more than 200 times as much carbon dioxide as methane in the atmosphere.

With a GWP ratio of abut 20:1, this would make methane responsible for roughly 10% and carbon dioxide around 90% of the greenhouse gas impact between the two of them.

But that is only counting TWO of the many greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is more than just a trace gas.

Water vapor as a greenhouse gas deserves a thread of its own.

===============================================

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.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Terraforming: Is it possible?:

Remember me

▲ 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