Remember me
▼ Content

Terraforming: Is it possible?



Page 3 of 4<1234>
27-04-2022 02:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
@squeal over, I think we all realize that you are desperate to role-play a really smart person.

I think we all realize that you are desperate for an audience that will "play along" with your fantasy and that will provide you with assurances that you are really, really smart.

I think we all realize that you so desperately want to be the lifeguard of the kiddie pool so that you can claim absolute authority and completely control any and all activity so that nobody do anything unsafe and disrupt your fantasy.

I totally get it.

You simply cannot accomplish this by copy-pasting the stupidest crap the internet has to offer. You need to be posting intelligent material. As long as you are copy-pasting the words of others, make them the words of brilliant people, not the words of those internet posters who will soon be having their life-support pulled.

squeal over 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.

Look, you used the word "capacity." Did you not even read this before you posted or perform some semblance of a sanity check? There is no such thing as any substance that has any sort of limit on how much electromagnetic radiation it can absorb. Regardless of any substance's temperature, it can absorb more and increase in temperature. You nonetheless decided to copy-paste from some author who declared that methane is somehow hamstrung with an "inherent infrared absorption capacity." Aren't you the least bit embarrassed for this poor selection?

In addition, you apparently felt it would be value-added to imply that there is such a thing as a "mean residence time" in the atmosphere. Previously, you held a certain plausibility of having been a chemist at some point. You just threw away all such plausibility. Only a scientifically illiterate nimrod would preach this kind of gibber-babble and insist that they were his own words.

You also referred to this bizarre measure of methane as a variable, not as a constant for methane. How does this value change between methane molecules? Admittedly, you never claimed to be a PhD in math so your mathematical incompetence is entirely forgivable. I just can't figure out why you felt the need to pretend to be an authority in a branch of science that doesn't exist when you fully plan to post brain-dead material under that presumed expertise.

Mind-boggling.

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

Obviously this number was either computed, or the author from whom you lifted this figure simply pulled it out of his azz. So let me ask it this way:

Can you show me how this "about 20x" figure was calculated?

squeal over wrote:In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

In science, there is no "would be." That is the subjunctive and is not used.

In science, there is only "is", i.e. what is in nature.

You do not have a time machine so you cannot verify any speculation about the past. Thus you cannot present any sort of speculation about the past as though it is somehow falsifiable and verified, regardless of from whom you copy-pasted it.

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

Subjunctive. Speculation about the past. Summarily discarded.

squeal over wrote:The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Subjunctive. Speculation about the past. Summarily discarded.

squeal over wrote:Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millennia.

Subjunctive. Summarily discarded.

Also patently incorrect. Methane will "stick around for millennia" if it does not combust regardless of the presence of oxygen. You picked a real bonehead to regurgitate.

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

This statement is presented to support a point that is never stated. Since there is no point for this statement, it is discarded.

... so please let me see the calculations that were used to arrive at the "about 20x" figure.


I'm attaching neat graphics to which your army of followers will gravitate upon arrival. A picture is worth a thousand words!
.
Attached image:

RE: The target audience will correct my error27-04-2022 02:39
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
The target audience will correct my error.

Atmospheric physicists who eventually join the conversation can use my error below as a teachable moment.

Nobody is saying that methane is 10% and carbon dioxide is 90% of what causes global warming.

They do have some pretty good numbers for the relative contributions.

GWP says what the gas entering the atmosphere does over time, not its contribution at a single point in time.

The real point was that at 1.7 ppm, methane is much more of a "trace" gas than carbon dioxide.

In response to the ABSURD assertion that there is a lot more methane than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It would have been simple enough to divide the two numbers and not just say "more than 200 times as much".

But the exact ratio wasn't the point.

The point is that there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more carbon dioxide than methane in the atmosphere.

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

sealover wrote:
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.
27-04-2022 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
squealover wrote:Nobody is saying that methane is 10% and carbon dioxide is 90% of what causes global warming.

You don't find any quantity of fallacies daunting. You can copy-paste one thing, copy-paste the opposite later and then you can pretend to speak for everyone and claim that no one is claiming what you copy-pasted.

You rock!

squealover wrote:They do have some pretty good numbers for the relative contributions.

They don't exist, just like the math that you claim was used to calculate your figures that you deny claiming.

GWP says what the gas entering the atmosphere does over time, not its contribution at a single point in time.

squealover wrote:The real point was that at 1.7 ppm, methane is much more of a "trace" gas than carbon dioxide.

You never made this point. You are pivoting right now.
Attached image:

27-04-2022 17:18
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:

It reminds of pics from the piramids.


27-04-2022 18:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

A gas is not a blanket. If you DID manage to put a blanket around a planet, it would be COLDER, not warmer. Blankets do not warm rocks.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 cannot warm the Earth.
Methane cannot warm the Earth.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot decrease entropy in any way.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Thermal insulation is not heat or thermal energy.


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
27-04-2022 18:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

Why would a young planet be cold?
sealover wrote:
Methanogens, for example, would transform carbon dioxide into methane by combining it with hydrogen. The methane provides a powerful greenhouse gas.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm any planet. You can't create energy out of nothing. You still are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
sealover wrote:
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.

Now you are ignoring Thenevin's law again.
sealover wrote:
Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide as reductant would transform it to sulfate.

Hydrogen sulfide isn't a reductant.
sealover wrote:
This removes a sun blocking gas to counter global dimming and allow warming.

Ignoring Thenevin's law again.
Anoxygenic photosynthesis
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.[/quote]
There is no chemical called 'sulfate'. Carbon isn't organic.
sealover wrote:
Presumably, conditions of the planet and its star would be similar to that of the earth and sun about 4000 million years ago.

You don't know what any planet looked like 4000 million years ago.
sealover wrote:
This would mean the star has significantly lower luminosity than our sun today.

Unit error.
sealover wrote:
It would be a frozen planet with liquid water only on the equator.

Why would it have any water?
sealover wrote:
It would need to have bacteria enhance global warming by adding methane, and diminish global dimming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm any planet, dude. You can't 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
27-04-2022 19:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium. It is in STEADY STATE.

It is neither. It is simply oxygen.
sealover 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.

No chemical reaction is in a closed system. All of them import and export energy. Apparently you have never heard of 'heat of reaction', a basic part of chemistry.
sealover wrote:
The atmosphere is not a closed system. Not at all.

Yes it is, if you choose it to be. In this discussion of yours, you are choosing it to be a closed system.
sealover wrote:
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.

WRONG. Any idiot with an oxygen tank can show otherwise. Just spray said material with the oxygen.
sealover wrote:
This would ultimately consume enough oxygen to bring it back to 21%

Nope. Doesn't spontaneously ignite.
sealover wrote:
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.

WRONG. Any idiot with a carbon dioxide tank can show otherwise. Just spray said material with a bit of CO2.

CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. It displaces oxygen almost completely and lowers the temperature, breaking the fire triangle. It does take a lot of CO2 to do it though.
sealover wrote:
During the Carboniferous Era,

A made up word describing an 'era' that no one knows if it happened at all.
sealover wrote:
oxygen concentrations were significantly higher.

How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Most organic matter was in swamps in those days, with nice wet vegetation year round.

How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
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.

Ah. I see you believe that dinosaurs existed.
sealover wrote:
That was less than 400 million years ago. Very warm in those days.

How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
Things didn't get cold until just a few million years ago when plate tectonics moved Panama to cut off the global ocean current.

What 'global ocean current'???
sealover wrote:
That was when CO2 dropped way way down, to near 350 ppm

How do you know? Were you there?
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. Now you are ignoring statistical math.
sealover wrote:
That was when the cycle of ice ages began.

What cycle? How do you know? Where you there?
sealover wrote:
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.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of any gas.


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
27-04-2022 19:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

You cannot create matter out of nothing. You have no idea what happened 4600 million years ago, or if Earth even existed.
sealover wrote:
Hydrogen is the lightest gas of them all. Most of it floated off into space.

Sorry dude, there is this thing called 'gravity'. Perhaps you've heard of it.
sealover wrote:
This was the irreversible oxidation of the planet's crust that would have happened with or without life.

Hydrogen is not oxygen.
sealover wrote:
On Earth, life added more oxidants to the crust.

Oh...suddenly there's life involved now. No need for an Ark then!
sealover wrote:
In addition to losing the hydrogen reductant, photosynthesis was using photooxidation to generate oxidants.

Hydrogen isn't a reductant. There is no such thing as 'photooxidation'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
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.

Sorry dude, you can't create matter out of nothing. You can't create energy out of nothing either.
sealover wrote:
But we could also terraform a lifeless OLD planet.

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

You are ignoring gravity again.
sealover wrote:
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.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You can't create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
The older the planet we find, the brighter its star will be.

Unit error. Non-sequitur fallacy.
sealover wrote:
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.

A reductant is not energy. Photosynthesis does not create reductants.


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
27-04-2022 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Swan wrote:
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

There is no 'quantum qubit computing'.


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
27-04-2022 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. You can't create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
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.

Math error. Structure used as scalar.
sealover wrote:
In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

A number pulled out of your ass. Argument from randU fallacy. Oh...20 times zero is zero. All gases have ZERO warming potential. You can't create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

Define 'primordial atmosphere'. Is it one without oxygen by definition?
sealover wrote:
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.

'Residence time' is a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

So? It can't warm a planet.
sealover wrote:
Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

Carbon isn't organic.
sealover wrote:
And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs,

Carbon isn't calcium.
sealover wrote:
so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The sea does not remove CO2.
sealover wrote:
So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

CO2 cannot warm a planet.
Methane cannot warm a planet.

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
27-04-2022 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Into the Night wrote:Now you are ignoring Thenevin's law again.

Thank you for making mention of Thevenin's law. This is actually one of my favorite examples of mathematics itself being essentially the sole source/inspiration behind a law of science.

Within the context of Global Warming, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is my usual "go to" example. It is merely [Planck's law integrated over all frequencies, i.e. the law itself was merely calculated.

Thevenin's law is the Mean Value theorem (MVT) applied to linear circuits. It doesn't matter how complex your linear circuit is over X1 <--> X2, Thevenin's law states that there is a "mean" circuit (if you will) of a single voltage (and series resistance) that is equivalent.

The MTV states that it doesn't matter how complex your differentiable function is over X1 <--> X2, there exists a "mean" value which yields the exact same result over X1 <--> X2 as if you were to do all the work of integrating that complex function over that range.

Thevenin noticed that the MTV applies to linear circuits because their functions are differentiable so there must be a "mean" value circuit that renders the same result. Anyone who understands the MTV should be able to see that once it is pointed out.



27-04-2022 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
The target audience will correct my error.

What target audience??? Did you know that talking to imaginary people as if they were real is considered a mental disorder?
sealover wrote:
Atmospheric physicists who eventually join the conversation can use my error below as a teachable moment.

Nobody is saying that methane is 10% and carbon dioxide is 90% of what causes global warming.

They do have some pretty good numbers for the relative contributions.

Irrelevant. Neither gas has the capability to warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
GWP says what the gas entering the atmosphere does over time, not its contribution at a single point in time.

Base rate fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The real point was that at 1.7 ppm, methane is much more of a "trace" gas than carbon dioxide.

I will call this argument 1.
sealover wrote:
In response to the ABSURD assertion that there is a lot more methane than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It would have been simple enough to divide the two numbers and not just say "more than 200 times as much".

But the exact ratio wasn't the point.

I will call this argument 2. Congratulations. You are now locked in paradox. You are being irrational. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

The only way out a paradox is to utterly discard one of the conflicting arguments and to never use it again.
sealover wrote:
The point is that there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more carbon dioxide than methane in the atmosphere.

Paradox. Which is it, 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
27-04-2022 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

It reminds of pics from the piramids.

Now that you mention it, it DOES have the desert mesa like temple look to it. It's not a pyramid though.

People just don't appreciate the beauty that results from fabricating a computer chip. Usually that artwork is locked inside a plastic or ceramic case, where you can't see it.


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
27-04-2022 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Now you are ignoring Thenevin's law again.

Thank you for making mention of Thevenin's law. This is actually one of my favorite examples of mathematics itself being essentially the sole source/inspiration behind a law of science.

Within the context of Global Warming, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is my usual "go to" example. It is merely [Planck's law integrated over all frequencies, i.e. the law itself was merely calculated.

Thevenin's law is the Mean Value theorem (MVT) applied to linear circuits. It doesn't matter how complex your linear circuit is over X1 <--> X2, Thevenin's law states that there is a "mean" circuit (if you will) of a single voltage (and series resistance) that is equivalent.

The MTV states that it doesn't matter how complex your differentiable function is over X1 <--> X2, there exists a "mean" value which yields the exact same result over X1 <--> X2 as if you were to do all the work of integrating that complex function over that range.

Thevenin noticed that the MTV applies to linear circuits because their functions are differentiable so there must be a "mean" value circuit that renders the same result. Anyone who understands the MTV should be able to see that once it is pointed out.




It can also be applied to any series of nodes, not just electronic circuits.

It's the reason you can't just separate the atmosphere from Earth and then haphazardly apply it's affects again, and also the reason why subdividing things down to individual molecules when discussing global temperature is pointless.


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 complex intelligent organism?28-04-2022 04:49
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.

We'll get back to this tomorrow.
28-04-2022 05:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.

We'll get back to this tomorrow.

Babble.


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
28-04-2022 15:48
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
The MTV states...

Did you watch MTV when you were a kid?


i missed all the cool stuff



28-04-2022 15:50
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
Into the Night wrote:

If you blur your eyes it looks like there are 2 people standing in the middle.


28-04-2022 15:51
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
sealover wrote:
What about a complex intelligent organism?

Pandemic - war - pollution - starvation - poverty - not much intelligence here.


28-04-2022 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
GretaGroupie wrote:If you blur your eyes it looks like there are 2 people standing in the middle.

Those are Egyptian hieroglyphics on the chip.

The Cairo Manufacturers Labor Union insisted that all chips produced in Egypt bear their logo.
Attached image:

29-04-2022 17:46
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:


Now that is what I am talking about and it even has the know it all seal of aproval on it so maybe we are on to something?


06-06-2023 23:03
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Terraforming Climatopia - It IS Possible

Let's forget asking WHY we would even want to.

The question is whether or not it is POSSIBLE to terraform climatopia on earth.

The answer is YES.

Applied biogeochemistry CAN do it.

Applied biogeochemistry WILL do it.

Any questions?

Applied biogeochemistry has a LOT of answers.

Terraforming Climatopia - Applied Biogeochemistry. It is the title of the book.

How do we know it's possible?

Because humans have ALREADY terraformed climadystopia.

We have already proved that we DO HAVE THE POWER.


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


quote]Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
06-06-2023 23:04
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
WIN-WIN-WIN Three-in-one terraforming climatopia solution.

What are the three biggest problems associated with Anthropogenic Global Weirding (AGW)?

Global warming from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

Ocean "acidification" from increased CO2, depletion of sea water alkalinity.

Accelerated sea level rise.

What if ONE terraforming approach addressed ALL THREE of these?

Sea water can be pumped out of the sea and into coastal deserts.

Given enough sea water pumping capacity, there is enough area of coastal desert available to:

1. Remove enough sea water from the ocean to counter sea level rise.

2. Sequester enough atmospheric CO2 into wetland organic matter with centuries long residence time to bring atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm.

3. Generate enough alkalinity in runoff and submarine groundwater discharge to restore the ocean's alkalinity and provide enough carbonate ion for shell formation.


Humans are very good at constructing irrigation systems and moving water around.




[quote]Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.
06-06-2023 23:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?

It would likely be somewhat expensive to create the dam, dike, canal and levee structure to transform coastal deserts into saltwater wetlands that continuously drain alkalinity into the sea.

So, what is the cost of NOT doing it?

Consider sea level rise alone.

Without any effective measure to mitigate sea level rise, the cost of protecting coastal cities from rising sea levels and storm surges will be ENORMOUS.

It is entirely possible that the cost of protecting just ONE MAJOR COASTAL CITY against sea level rise would be in the same ball park as the cost of pumping enough sea water into coastal desert to protect ALL COASTAL CITIES.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-06-2023 23:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
"Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not/"

An excellent question for a thread to be dedicated to.

In the context of a climate "debate" (climate-debate.com), the kind of terraforming being discussed would presumably relate in some way to climate.

But the question is clear. "Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level?"

There is no need to justify WHY terraform in order to address this assertion.

In the spirit of genuine climate debate.

Falsifiable hypothesis that terraforming IS possible, with important climate related implications.

Exhibit 1 - Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine discharge.

More than 50 years of environmental engineering experience at literally THOUSANDS of mining operations has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that constructed wetlands can take in water with pH less than 3, and then discharge groundwater with pH nearly 7.

Biogeochemical investigations have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under low oxygen conditions in constructed wetland sediment, sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity.

The falsifiable hypothesis is that the same principles also operate in a constructed wetland receiving sea water input. With 2600 or more ppm sulfate, sea water has sulfate in concentrations comparable to acid mine discharge, where the sulfate comes from sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate).

Oxidation of sulfide in pyrite by bacteria generates the sulfuric acid in the mine discharge.

Reduction of sulfate by bacteria in the wetland generates the acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-06-2023 23:08
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
sealover wrote:
The burden of proof for contrarian assertions.

Contrarian assertions contradict what is widely accepted in the textbooks.

The burden of proof is high for contrarian assertions.

It is not enough to play dumb and say "what sea level rise?"

Or to insist that "sulfate cannot be reduced"

"Sulfate Reduction" has been in the textbooks for more than 100 years.

It requires more than just the contrarian assertion that "sulfate cannot be reduced".

There must be EXTRAORDINARY PROOF for such an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

Your credentials are not impressive enough to ask us to just take your word.

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

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
What would it cost compared to NOT terraforming?

Void question. Buzzword fallacy. There is no cost to a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
It would likely be somewhat expensive to create the dam, dike, canal and levee structure to transform coastal deserts into saltwater wetlands that continuously drain alkalinity into the sea.

The sea is already alkaline. Why do you want to salt the soil?
sealover wrote:
So, what is the cost of NOT doing it?

Consider sea level rise alone.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
Without any effective measure to mitigate sea level rise, the cost of protecting coastal cities from rising sea levels and storm surges will be ENORMOUS.

What rising sea levels? Storm surges are normal with storms.
sealover wrote:
It is entirely possible that the cost of protecting just ONE MAJOR COASTAL CITY against sea level rise would be in the same ball park as the cost of pumping enough sea water into coastal desert to protect ALL COASTAL CITIES.

What sea level rise? Why do you want to salt the desert soil?
06-06-2023 23:09
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
COASTAL Rise versus SEA LEVEL Rise.

Sea level rise is a relative thing.

Coastlines also rise and fall with plate tectonics and the weight of wetlands.

In parts of Indonesia, the coast line is subsiding faster than sea level is rising in areas of drained peatlands.

Many other coastlines are rising faster than the sea, as plate tectonics shoves sea floor up under them.

My favorite such place are the coastal terraces near Mendocino, California.

At the triple junction where three plates converge, this piece of coastline rises straight up for more than a million years now.

Most places get tilted when sea floor gets shoved underneath, and sediment layers are no longer horizontal and easily eroded.

At the triple junction, the wave cut terraces remain flat as they rise up.

The sea level goes up and down with the ice ages.

When sea level goes back down, the newest wave cut terrace is above the water line.

By the time the sea level rises again, coastal uplift has raised that wave cut terrace high enough that it remains above the water line. When sea level falls again, a new wave cut terrace is exposed above the water line.

A series of five terraces remains there.

All formed from the exact same graywacke sandstone parent material.

All in the exact same zone of climate and biotic community colonization.

All in the exact same topographic position of perched water table, flat terrace.

The only difference is the age of the soil. What a difference age makes!

And it is because the COAST IS RISING FASTER THAN THE SEA LEVEL.

Sea level rise is a relative thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------
06-06-2023 23:11
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:

Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.


The cosmic time scale is very long.

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

The earth will not always be able to sustain life.

The sun's luminosity continues to increase.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

This new mass extinction in progress is totally uncool.

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.

But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms. The kind most likely to survive an interstellar journey.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.
06-06-2023 23:12
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.

What kind of seeds should we place on Tony's Ark?

Would could simply use the same ancient archaeobacteria that are still here on earth.

Methanogens could combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane.

Nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., could scavenge for oxidants in the few places where they are available.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis among the archaeobacteria, using hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, reduced iron, arsenite, nitrite, etc., as reductants could certainly find a home.

What if we want to jump start the process.

Cyanobacteria are a lot more complex, and they generate oxygen during photosynthesis.

Among the cyanobacteria are some that can turn off the oxygenic photosystem and engage in anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant. They grow much more productivity using hydrogen.

They could live anywhere, since all they really need for their photosynthesis is water, tearing it apart to make oxygen.

They could thrive best where the hydrogen is present all the time, or following geologic events that release large amounts of hydrogen into the atmosphere.

But compared to archaeobacteria, cyanobacteria are fairly complex organisms, with greater risk of failure to survive such a long journey.

We might just have to start with the most basic and simple ones, trusting that they will eventually evolve into the more complex forms we know on earth today.

We do have surviving relics of that more ancient population to work with.

Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.
06-06-2023 23:13
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]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
06-06-2023 23:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]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 precursor to sun blocking gases to counter global dimming and allow warming.

There are not enough oxidants available in the marine environment to support oxidation of hydrogen sulfide, but anoxygenic photosynthesis oxidizes hydrogen sulfide without 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.
06-06-2023 23:18
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
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.
06-06-2023 23:19
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]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.
06-06-2023 23:21
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
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.
06-06-2023 23:21
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]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.

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.
06-06-2023 23:24
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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.
06-06-2023 23:26
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
sealover wrote:
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:
[quote]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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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.
06-06-2023 23:28
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
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.
06-06-2023 23:31
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
The target audience will correct my error.

Atmospheric physicists who eventually join the conversation can use my error below as a teachable moment.

Nobody is saying that methane is 10% and carbon dioxide is 90% of what causes global warming.

They do have some pretty good numbers for the relative contributions.

GWP says what the gas entering the atmosphere does over time, not its contribution at a single point in time.

The real point was that at 1.7 ppm, methane is much more of a "trace" gas than carbon dioxide.

In response to the ABSURD assertion that there is a lot more methane than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It would have been simple enough to divide the two numbers and not just say "more than 200 times as much".

But the exact ratio wasn't the point.

The point is that there are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more carbon dioxide than methane in the atmosphere.

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

[quote]sealover wrote:
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.
06-06-2023 23:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.

We'll get back to this tomorrow.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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