PDA

View Full Version : Why not Terraform Earth?



coliver
2007-Sep-02, 02:26 AM
Were looking at Mars and other Exoplanets with the intentions of possibly Terraforming the planet to Earths atmosphere. Why not Terraform Earth to alleviate Global Warming? Is it possible yet? Do we have the technology now?

Neverfly
2007-Sep-02, 02:28 AM
There's a difference between a dead planet and one teeming with billions of species and ecosystems.

hhEb09'1
2007-Sep-02, 02:31 AM
Why not Terraform Earth to alleviate Global Warming? Is it possible yet? Do we have the technology now?We're not sure. Some people think the Kyoto Protocol would work, others disagree. We haven't really tried all the possibilities yet.

Ken G
2007-Sep-02, 03:04 AM
Another way to put it is, many believe global warming is a form of unintentional terraforming already. So we already have the power and technology to terraform, the question is, should we add intelligence to the process? In that light, any decision made that factors in the impact on the environment is a version of terraforming.

Ronald Brak
2007-Sep-02, 05:18 AM
If you take terraform to mean to change to better suit our purposes than literaly to make earthlike, then humans have already terraformed vast areas of the earth's land surface. If you look at a satellite pictures of the earth it's easy to see how. Mind you, we've also made large areas worse suited for our purposes.

coliver
2007-Sep-02, 06:02 AM
We just had one of the worst lightning storms Ive seen in over 12 years in California. From what Ive read, the storms will get more intense as the C02 rises. Im from Texas and Ive seen some doosy storms but not in Central California. I also read something about co2 scrubbers, but not sure if they are just on paper or already functional?

Chuck
2007-Sep-02, 06:45 AM
As it turns out, the most efficient way to make the earth hospitable to human life would be to kill all the humans on it.

Neverfly
2007-Sep-02, 07:04 AM
We just had one of the worst lightning storms Ive seen in over 12 years in California. From what Ive read, the storms will get more intense as the C02 rises. Im from Texas and Ive seen some doosy storms but not in Central California. I also read something about co2 scrubbers, but not sure if they are just on paper or already functional?

Funny. I'm in Texas, but I'm from California.

Ronald Brak
2007-Sep-02, 09:28 AM
CO2 scrubbers are being tested in some coal burning plants. At the moment it's not clear how economical capturing CO2 from coal plants will be. Other forms of power that don't produce so much CO2 might be cheaper.

EvilEye
2007-Sep-02, 10:58 AM
Why not just dump all our extra (and heavy) CO2 on Mars, along with some microbes and fauna, and equalize BOTH planets!

Of course... plants actually eat oxygen at night (and give it off during the day), so they would have to be in a place where it was more day than night.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-02, 11:06 AM
Given the speed with which humanity is transforming the earth into an inhospitable place, we had better figure out how to transform it back into an hospitable place PDQ.

mugaliens
2007-Sep-02, 12:54 PM
As it turns out, the most efficient way to make the earth hospitable to human life would be to kill all the humans on it.

:lol:

mugaliens
2007-Sep-02, 12:55 PM
CO2 scrubbers are being tested in some coal burning plants. At the moment it's not clear how economical capturing CO2 from coal plants will be. Other forms of power that don't produce so much CO2 might be cheaper.

Didn't they achieve this by creating the smoke stakes filled with thousands of tiny nooked crevaces filled with moist dirt and moss...

:whistle:

JohnBStone
2007-Sep-02, 09:02 PM
Were looking at Mars and other Exoplanets with the intentions of possibly Terraforming the planet to Earths atmosphere. Why not Terraform Earth to alleviate Global Warming? Is it possible yet? Do we have the technology now?
See wikipedia Geoengineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering) and related links.

The thinking appears to be that this might have to be done, though not yet certain. There is still some slim hope that we wont have to. Though there is certainly some research going on into possible fixes.

There is much concern that we don't know enough about what to do and we don't know what not to do. We could easily make it worse. Earth will likely be our experimental testing ground for multiple prototype Geoengineering technologies. It would be a shame if one of the prototypes crashed and burned.:eek:

There is much intelligent discussion of the issues online, for example http://www.openthefuture.com/2007/02/open_source_terraforming.html

coliver
2007-Sep-02, 09:46 PM
Good link JohnB,

Some people have suggested Phytoplankton as an absorption tool. I had thought of that too but wondered about possible side effects, with sea life etc..?

http://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.htmlhttp://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.html

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-02, 10:09 PM
Good link JohnB,

Some people have suggested Phytoplankton as an absorption tool. I had thought of that too but wondered about possible side effects, with sea life etc..?

http://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.htmlhttp://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.html

If it's absorption of CO2 you are referring to, the problem with that scenario is that many phytoplankton species die under high pCO2 conditions, as the surface waters of oceans become too acidic or warm for them to survive. Various strategies have been tried to augment phytoplankton growth, but none have succeeded in a meaningful way, AFAIK.

Robert Tulip
2007-Sep-03, 06:15 AM
Terraforming of earth is starting, and it will be a large scale enterprise. www.virginearth.com/ is a $25m prize from Sir Richard Branson for "whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate." I believe the best option is a form of terraforming through building large scale floating factories in the ocean to turn algae into diesel. Some info is at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html, and a short fiction story I wrote on related matters is at http://www.ascm.org.au/jgOnline/jg2007Autumn.pdf.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-03, 08:19 AM
Terraforming of earth is starting, and it will be a large scale enterprise. www.virginearth.com/ is a $25m prize from Sir Richard Branson for "whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate." I believe the best option is a form of terraforming through building large scale floating factories in the ocean to turn algae into diesel. Some info is at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html, and a short fiction story I wrote on related matters is at http://www.ascm.org.au/jgOnline/jg2007Autumn.pdf.

Sorry, but how the hell would turning marine algae into biodiesel help remove anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere?? :confused:

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-03, 08:35 AM
Sorry, but how the hell would turning marine algae into biodiesel help remove anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere?? :confused:

If you were to sequester the biodiesel, that would remove CO2. Also, if you were to replace fossil fuel with biofuel, than less CO2 would go into the atmosphere in the first place.

coliver
2007-Sep-03, 10:10 AM
Funny. I'm in Texas, but I'm from California.

Thats a weird coincidence huh Neverfly:) If the Hurricanes keep dumping rain on Texas like they have been you may have to take a boat back to CA:) If your near Central Texas where Im from or the Houston area, I hear its been pretty wet to say the least? The whole Midwest is getting drenched and over here on the West Coast everythings a dry matchstick. Couple that with increased lightning and we could see a lot if fires this season, further raising the CO2 I might add? I think something needs to happen pretty quickly. By the time we figure out what to do life might get a bit unbearable?

eburacum45
2007-Sep-03, 11:01 AM
Greg Benford discusses a number of geoengineering techniques here (http://www.reason.com/news/show/30433.html). I like the idea of increasing the Earth's albedo; a manufactured increase in the cloud cover in the tropics could cool the Earth considerably.

Ultimately we could geo-engineer the Earth to have a much larger life support capacity- that big blue desert, the Pacific, for example, could be covered in millions of floating islands supporting agriculture and a large population. The continental shelf of each continent could be mined to produce artificial lands off shore, in the process lowering ocean levels. Hey- there are vast deserts and mountain ranges and icy wastes which would be much easier to colonise than Mars or the Moon; such colonisation of the Earth might happen long before those worlds hold substantial populations.

Currently a tiny fraction of our planet is inhabited; it should be possible to increase that fraction at least tenfold.

Whether it would be desirable to do that is another matter. Colonising the underpopulated regions of the world would cause the loss of innumerable habitats and biomes; to exploit the Earth fully would eliminate a vast range of species on our planet. I am pretty sure we don't have that right.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-03, 03:48 PM
From eburacum45's link:


The answer may lie not in the tropics but in the polar oceans, where huge reserves of key ingredients for plant growth--nitrates and phosphates--drift unused. The problem is not weak sunlight or bitter cold, but lack of iron. Electrons move readily in its presence, playing a leading role in trapping sunlight.

A radical fix would be to seed these oceans with dissolved iron dust. This may have been the trigger that caused the big carbon dioxide drop in the ice ages: The continents dried, so more dust blew into the oceans, carrying iron and stimulating plankton to absorb carbon dioxide. Mother Nature can be subtle.

That's been tried on a small scale (Buesseler et al., 2004); it didn't work in that the group who did the experiment did not demonstrate enhanced carbon sequestration in deeper layers of the ocean to the extent needed to compensate for all of the CO2 humanity is pouring into the atmosphere.


Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid, which reflects light more effectively. Sulfate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity. This could then be a local cooling, easier to monitor than carbon dioxide's global warming. We could perform such small, controllable experiments now. The amount of droplets or dust needed is a hundredth of the amount already blown into the atmosphere by natural processes, so we would not be venturing big dislocations. And we would get some spectacular sunsets in the bargain.

That's suicide. That sulfuric acid will not stay in the upper atmosphere; it will come down as acid rain, destroying all the carbon-capturing trees on land and acidifying lakes, streams, and possibly even oceans. Acidified oceans don't capture and sequester carbon very well.

Some of the solutions proposed are reasonable (re-forestation (to the extent that one is not introducing the added problem of depleting ground water); increasing albedo in cities and paved areas; even orbiting parasols). Some, like the two I mentioned above, are just plain foolhardy. I saw no mention of artificial trees in that article, and that is the most promising carbon-sequestration scheme I've seen yet.

I agree that the GW problem has gotten severe enough that humanity must actively intervene in the climate at this point. However, we must also ensure that these 'solutions' observe the environmental version of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm.

Argos
2007-Sep-03, 03:58 PM
In theory we could terraform Earth. But given that we don´t know all parameters and their relationships, any intervention would have unpredictable results.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-03, 04:01 PM
As I said, we may have no choice at this point. :(

Delvo
2007-Sep-03, 04:04 PM
Carbon sequestration in the form of growing more plants won't be particularly helpful; anything in live organisms just goes back into circulation anyway. The sequestration I'd like to see would be big blocks of stable solid/liquid carbon. That keeps the carbon out of the atmosphere.

hhEb09'1
2007-Sep-03, 04:08 PM
Carbon sequestration in the form of growing more plants won't be particularly helpful; anything in live organisms just goes back into circulation anyway. The sequestration I'd like to see would be big blocks of stable solid/liquid carbon. That keeps the carbon out of the atmosphere.Since we're all evolving to the paperless office, we'll have a lot of pencils stacked up, right?

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-03, 05:05 PM
At the office, I print out more stuff than ever, as it is free for me to do so (the fed govt buys the paper and pays for the ink and copy machine) and I don't have dual monitors. However, when I work at home, I print nothing out and use minimal paper to make notes, as I have no copy machine or printer and don't want to buy the machines or the paper to feed them. I also use less electricity, as I have to pay for it and don't need to waste electricity on lights as my desk at home is near a window. Thus an appropriate solution to the paper-wasting/energy wasting problem would be to have everyone work from home 100% of the time, thus cutting down on paper and electricity use. :D

coliver
2007-Sep-03, 10:39 PM
I think one of the main issues would be stopping the polar ice caps from melting wouldnt it? What worries me is the political reasons for letting it melt, like natural gas and oil reserves:think:

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-03, 10:58 PM
From eburacum45's link:

That's been tried on a small scale (Buesseler et al., 2004); it didn't work in that the group who did the experiment did not demonstrate enhanced carbon sequestration in deeper layers of the ocean to the extent needed to compensate for all of the CO2 humanity is pouring into the atmosphere.


Of course, growing algae and hoping for natural sequestration is different from growing algae and mechanically sequestering it.



I agree that the GW problem has gotten severe enough that humanity must actively intervene in the climate at this point. However, we must also ensure that these 'solutions' observe the environmental version of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm.

I'm not convinced it is. However, I do think we should be looking into research on active climate modification.

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-03, 11:10 PM
Ultimately we could geo-engineer the Earth to have a much larger life support capacity- that big blue desert, the Pacific, for example, could be covered in millions of floating islands supporting agriculture and a large population. The continental shelf of each continent could be mined to produce artificial lands off shore, in the process lowering ocean levels.


Years ago, there were also experiments growing kelp in deep ocean. One idea was to combine OTEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion) power generation (which can lift deep, cold, and nutrient rich water) to the surface to promote growth and generate electricity at the same time. It could work, but it wasn't time for it yet. The kelp would be part of a real, sustainable, ocean farming system. We don't need to cover the oceans, but there is a lot of empty ocean out there. I think it is time to start using some of it for sustainable farming, rather than our current and problematic hunting.



Whether it would be desirable to do that is another matter. Colonising the underpopulated regions of the world would cause the loss of innumerable habitats and biomes; to exploit the Earth fully would eliminate a vast range of species on our planet. I am pretty sure we don't have that right.

I agree that it wouldn't be desirable to fully exploit the Earth, but I don't see where rights come into it. Ultimately, it comes down to what we can and choose to do.

Robert Tulip
2007-Sep-04, 12:23 AM
On the attached map, floating islands made of fresh water at each pictured site would each have capacity to sequester one gigatonne of carbon per year, while also cooling ocean temperatures. All the sites pictured could together be enough to remove all anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, preferably by replacing existing fossil fuels for electricity and transport. Fresh water ocean dams can be used as platforms to grow high yield biofuel crops such as elephant grass. Use of algae could increase output more than ten fold, especially by bringing nutrient-rich deep ocean water to the surface as proposed at http://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.html. This is all do-able with simple technology and would have major positive environmental impact.

eburacum45
2007-Sep-04, 01:17 AM
I am very interested in this proposal, Mr Tulip; but I can't seem to get the link to work.

Incidentally there are quite a few options in geoengineering which use relatively simple technology; but they are generally expensive, and both energy and labour intensive.

GOURDHEAD
2007-Sep-04, 02:56 AM
I agree that the GW problem has gotten severe enough that humanity must actively intervene in the climate at this point. However, we must also ensure that these 'solutions' observe the environmental version of the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. A valuable and powerful observation. How are we to be convinced that a proposed course of action will do no net harm? How shall we determine that the net effect is free of harm and over what time intervals. I remain convinced we don't understand the problem and have an even weaker understanding of its solution. Many are lemmings; others have been seduced by the pied pipers of AGW.

Dennis Dorgan
2007-Sep-04, 03:12 AM
Were looking at Mars and other Exoplanets with the intentions of possibly Terraforming the planet to Earths atmosphere. Why not Terraform Earth to alleviate Global Warming? Is it possible yet? Do we have the technology now?


it is very possible.

What we will eventually do, You can bet on it.. We will eventually divert the water from the missisippi river, west, into the deserts, and fill death vally once again with fresh water.

We will also, divert the nile, by turing the egyption length of the nile into resvoirs and long canals with locks, with the bulk of the water, going into the deserts of ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt.

in this way, river boat traffic can remain in the canals, and the saved water is diverted yearly inland into aquafers of natural or man made design.


the deserts of both Africa and America will blossom.

The rest of the world will begin using solar powered pump systems using those ceramics filters, to clean sea water.

And global warming will be a thing of the past.

It is my view, that global warming is not caused by mans machines.

It is caused by desertification, and the destruction of forests all across the globe.

And, of course, its to late, and its not going to stop, therefore the ONLY solution is to make up for the loss by planting new forests and literally watering the deserts, and literally, establishing the means to water the planet.

Nothing other than that, can save mankind, nothing.

Especially, since we will need most of those new plants and forests too be edible as food and fruit trees.

danscope
2007-Sep-04, 03:12 AM
On the attached map, floating islands made of fresh water at each pictured site would each have capacity to sequester one gigatonne of carbon per year, while also cooling ocean temperatures. All the sites pictured could together be enough to remove all anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere, preferably by replacing existing fossil fuels for electricity and transport. Fresh water ocean dams can be used as platforms to grow high yield biofuel crops such as elephant grass. Use of algae could increase output more than ten fold, especially by bringing nutrient-rich deep ocean water to the surface as proposed at http://theshancreekgang.com/carbon.html. This is all do-able with simple technology and would have major positive environmental impact.

Hi, It is an interesting concept. However, I have visited and dwelled upon the Pacific ocean. At times it is like a mill pond at 2 am. And then.......
I have seen 50 foot waves. Yes siree Bob! That will get your attention but quick. There are no atheist in the trenches...or in a Typhoon.
This is ...to say... have you inquired as to a method of holding these floating islands together and perhaps in place?
We are dealing with unlimited weight /mass in fluid motion for extraordinary lengths of time.
Just a thought.
Best regards, Dan

coliver
2007-Sep-04, 03:41 AM
It is my view, that global warming is not caused by mans machines.

It is caused by desertification, and the destruction of forests all across the globe.

I would agree thats definitely a factor, most likely a combination of the two? I think that whatever methods we use will have to be carefully measured and tested to their overall effects before massive implementation? Too much or not enough might be an issue?

Dennis Dorgan
2007-Sep-04, 03:59 AM
Well... the problem is, we need fuel, and we will be generating heat to get it, use it, and transport it.

The co2, wouldnt be a problem, and we could use a diesel based carbon cycle, if our planet was terraformed as you suggested, and watered.

because we can use the bulk of excess organic trash, to make diesel fuel to drive the machines, if we eliminated all deserts by watering them.

in This, of course, we would be limited to a maximum population, but it is a number much larger then the one we are at.. 6 billion i think it is.

by watering the planet, we could have alot more time to work on the problem of collonising the planets and stars.

if we dont water the planet...

alot of people will be hungry.

Robert Tulip
2007-Sep-04, 04:53 AM
Hi, It is an interesting concept. However, I have visited and dwelled upon the Pacific ocean. At times it is like a mill pond at 2 am. And then....... I have seen 50 foot waves. Yes siree Bob! That will get your attention but quick. There are no atheist in the trenches...or in a Typhoon. This is ...to say... have you inquired as to a method of holding these floating islands together and perhaps in place? We are dealing with unlimited weight /mass in fluid motion for extraordinary lengths of time. Just a thought. Best regards, Dan

Thanks Dan. I have been giving this quite a bit of thought but have not tested or shared the concepts. I started on it through my association with a company www.waterbag.com which has used the principle that fresh water floats on salt water to patent technology for fresh water transport and storage in the ocean. Extensive work on suitable fabrics has been done in this connection. I believe that carbon pricing and the security issues around global warming will make this proposal economically viable.
A large ocean dam of one teralitre/one cubic kilometre in cubic form would sit 25 metres above ocean level due to the 2.5% lower density of fresh than salt water. An option to stabilise such a structure might be to build it out of suitable fabric, surrounded by a reinforced concrete ring at the surface. Associated wave power devices (eg http://www.inri.us/pages/2/index.htm?gen_time=10839492079940) would reduce swell, and produce power to pump deep rich water from below the thermocline and to power the whole structure. Another option is a set of shallow modular dams without barrier walls, turning algae into diesel, and able to sink below the surface in a storm. Such fabric structures would become part of the ocean swell in normal conditions.
With the concrete barrier approach, the barrier would rise and fall with the ocean swell, but there would be little up and down movement of the dam itself except with the tide. As a result, the top of the dam could be used as a stable foundation for construction of airports, factories, farms, housing, seaports, offices and sewerage works. Shallow auxiliary dams could support purposes such as irrigated agricultural production, CO2 and methane capture, urban and industrial construction and sewage treatment. Dams as shallow as twenty metres could grow biofuel and other crops, either by algae or with a layer of soil on top about one metre deep. The weight of the soil on the water would provide enough pressure for natural irrigation of the crops via standpipes distributed through the fields tapping the reservoir.
A test site might be the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia, a shallow warm sea in politically stable territory close to major suitable industrial resources and finance. An interesting test would be to float a large waterbag from New Zealand around Antarctica on the circum polar current to Perth in Australia.
Rivers such as the Amazon send vast quantities of water and silt out to sea. Pipelines could take dirty water from these rivers into ocean based water treatment works, dividing the raw water into drinking water, dam water and soil for the agricultural dams. My reading indicates that the Amazon has annual flow of 5000 teralitres, providing one quarter of total world river flows, and that the Congo, Orinoco and Yangtze are next with 13% between them, followed by another thirty rivers each flowing at a rate of more than one hundred teralitres per year. 1% of the Amazon’s flow captured in big pipes at the river mouth would create a new cubic kilometre dam every week.
C02 in the atmosphere is now 385 parts per million, or 800 gigatonnes. Ocean dam technologies could reduce it to the historic norm of 284 ppm within fifty years by fixing four gigatonnes per year more than the current anthropogenic output of about 20 gigatonnes. This would require building dams up to thousands of square kilometres, mainly located in the stable areas at the centre of the big oceans.
Thinking in teralitres – cubic kilometers or trillions of litres – is a massive scale compared to the old land based water supply technologies. Even a teralitre is still tiny against the mighty size of the world oceans. 115 million square kilometres of planet earth is covered by water, at an average depth of 3.8 kilometres. The oceans occupy more than 71% of the planet’s surface, containing roughly 437 million cubic kilometres of water in total. At the rate of one teralitre of ocean dam per day, it would take 100 years to cover about 3% of the ocean, an area of 4 million square kilometres, with a fresh water hydrosphere to ten metre depth.

Homer, The Odyssey, Book 10: “Next we reached Aeolia, a floating island, where Aeolus lived, son of Hippotas, whom immortal gods hold dear. Around it runs an impenetrable wall of bronze, and cliffs rise up in a sheer face of rock.”

coliver
2007-Sep-04, 06:09 AM
by watering the planet, we could have alot more time to work on the problem of collonising the planets and stars.

if we dont water the planet...

alot of people will be hungry.

The exact opposite will be true as the fires created by the increased dryness and lightning cause more areas void of vegetation, so perhaps watering would be a good start? Im just wondering if any negatives could come from overterraforming, like weather patterns etc? Im pretty sure we could solve the Energy issues and Global Warming simultaneously as long as it is very carefully planned and measured. Im just a little concerned that with so many great ideas for various fixes, that perhaps some constraints and oversight will be needed. Like Gourdhead said, we are just learning of the problem and must be careful of the solution?

Dennis Dorgan
2007-Sep-04, 07:04 AM
The way I see it...

The problem is we chopped down the forests and burnt alot of the wood, and are burning alot of older forest wood, collected long ago as oil. and coal.

The solution is to bring balance.

we need carbon sinks, and we need them to be proftable.

The ideall solution is artifical forests for wood production, and the filling of every underground aquafer on the planet...

water we will need as we expand farming to feed our doubling populations.

danscope
2007-Sep-04, 01:45 PM
Thanks Dan. I have been giving this quite a bit of thought but have not tested or shared the concepts. I started on it through my association with a company www.waterbag.com which has used the principle that fresh water floats on salt water to patent technology for fresh water transport and storage in the ocean. Extensive work on suitable fabrics has been done in this connection. I believe that carbon pricing and the security issues around global warming will make this proposal economically viable.
A large ocean dam of one teralitre/one cubic kilometre in cubic form would sit 25 metres above ocean level due to the 2.5% lower density of fresh than salt water. An option to stabilise such a structure might be to build it out of suitable fabric, surrounded by a reinforced concrete ring at the surface. Associated wave power devices (eg http://www.inri.us/pages/2/index.htm?gen_time=10839492079940) would reduce swell, and produce power to pump deep rich water from below the thermocline and to power the whole structure. Another option is a set of shallow modular dams without barrier walls, turning algae into diesel, and able to sink below the surface in a storm. Such fabric structures would become part of the ocean swell in normal conditions.
With the concrete barrier approach, the barrier would rise and fall with the ocean swell, but there would be little up and down movement of the dam itself except with the tide. As a result, the top of the dam could be used as a stable foundation for construction of airports, factories, farms, housing, seaports, offices and sewerage works. Shallow auxiliary dams could support purposes such as irrigated agricultural production, CO2 and methane capture, urban and industrial construction and sewage treatment. Dams as shallow as twenty metres could grow biofuel and other crops, either by algae or with a layer of soil on top about one metre deep. The weight of the soil on the water would provide enough pressure for natural irrigation of the crops via standpipes distributed through the fields tapping the reservoir.
A test site might be the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia, a shallow warm sea in politically stable territory close to major suitable industrial resources and finance. An interesting test would be to float a large waterbag from New Zealand around Antarctica on the circum polar current to Perth in Australia.
Rivers such as the Amazon send vast quantities of water and silt out to sea. Pipelines could take dirty water from these rivers into ocean based water treatment works, dividing the raw water into drinking water, dam water and soil for the agricultural dams. My reading indicates that the Amazon has annual flow of 5000 teralitres, providing one quarter of total world river flows, and that the Congo, Orinoco and Yangtze are next with 13% between them, followed by another thirty rivers each flowing at a rate of more than one hundred teralitres per year. 1% of the Amazon’s flow captured in big pipes at the river mouth would create a new cubic kilometre dam every week.
C02 in the atmosphere is now 385 parts per million, or 800 gigatonnes. Ocean dam technologies could reduce it to the historic norm of 284 ppm within fifty years by fixing four gigatonnes per year more than the current anthropogenic output of about 20 gigatonnes. This would require building dams up to thousands of square kilometres, mainly located in the stable areas at the centre of the big oceans.
Thinking in teralitres – cubic kilometers or trillions of litres – is a massive scale compared to the old land based water supply technologies. Even a teralitre is still tiny against the mighty size of the world oceans. 115 million square kilometres of planet earth is covered by water, at an average depth of 3.8 kilometres. The oceans occupy more than 71% of the planet’s surface, containing roughly 437 million cubic kilometres of water in total. At the rate of one teralitre of ocean dam per day, it would take 100 years to cover about 3% of the ocean, an area of 4 million square kilometres, with a fresh water hydrosphere to ten metre depth.

Homer, The Odyssey, Book 10: “Next we reached Aeolia, a floating island, where Aeolus lived, son of Hippotas, whom immortal gods hold dear. Around it runs an impenetrable wall of bronze, and cliffs rise up in a sheer face of rock.”


Hi Rob, Thank you for the reply. That is a remarkable essay.
I should think that instead of concrete, you might employ recycled tires;
reground and reformed in the designs you laid out. They are flexible over a wide range of time and temperature, and they float.
Best regards, Dan

John Mendenhall
2007-Sep-04, 02:53 PM
As it turns out, the most efficient way to make the earth hospitable to human life would be to kill all the humans on it.

You are proposing population reduction, which is the real problem. Why no one wants to tackle this problem, without mass deaths, is beyond me. So far only the Chinese are doing anything, with their one child program, and it is very unpopular. Not without some good reasons, mind you; they have done it with their usual overboard Charley approach to social change.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-04, 02:59 PM
Any kind of population reduction policy imposed on the population from above would be met with hostility, no matter how well-reasoned and equitable that policy would be.

eburacum45
2007-Sep-04, 09:53 PM
I'm just wondering if any negatives could come from overterraforming, like weather patterns etc? Im pretty sure we could solve the Energy issues and Global Warming simultaneously as long as it is very carefully planned and measured. Im just a little concerned that with so many great ideas for various fixes, that perhaps some constraints and oversight will be needed. Like Gourdhead said, we are just learning of the problem and must be careful of the solution?I'm sure that some forms of geoengineering will have uncomfortable effects. If we increase irrigation in the tropical deserts, the water vapour content of the atmosphere will go up; this will cause a certain increase in the cloud cover in the tropical areas, exactly where the albedo increase would have the most cooling effect; but also water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, so the net effect could in fact be more warming.

Increasing cloud cover in the tropics would change global weather patterns to a large extent as well- you'd need some very good climate models to predict these climate shifts, which could result in drastic changes to the climates of heavily populated areas.

Robert Tulip
2007-Sep-05, 01:35 AM
Hi Rob, Thank you for the reply. That is a remarkable essay. I should think that instead of concrete, you might employ recycled tires; reground and reformed in the designs you laid out. They are flexible over a wide range of time and temperature, and they float. Best regards, Dan

Hi Dan, glad you find it remarkable, wish others did too. I thought about the tires option, but I suspect obtaining needed volumes would be hard. A whole range of options could be considered and tested. I think of this idea as like a new Cambrian explosion, with dozens of new phyla. Fabric used for the undersea dam container might be recycled as part of the solid dam walls when it became encrusted with barnacles, and the solid concrete walls could be made hollow as an inverted U shape in order to float.

greenfeather
2007-Sep-05, 02:05 AM
You are proposing population reduction, which is the real problem. Why no one wants to tackle this problem, without mass deaths, is beyond me.

The person is correct who hints that "too many humans" is the root of the problem!!! Yet nobody dares to say this... it is political & social suicide. People will trot out the "H" word (Hitler) and all manner of unpleasantries.

greenfeather
2007-Sep-05, 02:08 AM
Couple that with increased lightning

I live near Philly /east coast. Strangely enough, this summer I have seen almost NO THUNDERSTORMS. I notice this because I enjoy watching them. I wondered what's going on?? Did you guys in the west steal our thunder?
:D

coliver
2007-Sep-05, 10:08 AM
I live near Philly /east coast. Strangely enough, this summer I have seen almost NO THUNDERSTORMS. I notice this because I enjoy watching them. I wondered what's going on?? Did you guys in the west steal our thunder?

I think the weather gods are confused and swapping weather patterns everywhere?:) We definitely got the lightning, not much rain though. Mostly electrical storms.


The person is correct who hints that "too many humans" is the root of the problem!!! Yet nobody dares to say this... it is political & social suicide. People will trot out the "H" word (Hitler) and all manner of unpleasantries.

A few well placed nuclear bombs could probably take care of the over population problem:) But the reality is that we all live on an increasing smaller planet with an ever increasing amount of humans, and we not only need to save our real estate but also feed the growing population with shrinking resources. To Alien life forms humans would probably be considered parasites since we consume every resource to extinction.

Ronald Brak
2007-Sep-06, 06:44 AM
Well we could kill off millions of people and turn the world into a charnel house, a planetary Golgotha if you will. Or we could make SUVs more environmentally friendly. Which seems the most reasonable course of action?

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-06, 06:49 AM
but also water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, so the net effect could in fact be more warming.

Water vapor is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, in fact. Thank you Eburacum45 for bringing that point up!

coliver
2007-Sep-06, 08:29 PM
Isnt CO2 the same thing thats in fire extinguishers? Just wondering if it could be sequestered somehow to fight fires?

EvilEye
2007-Sep-07, 04:29 AM
Killing every human on the planet Earth would have far more devastating effects.... because we have screwed up nature so far already, they would have a hard time adjusting to our absence.

What would dogs do?

What about the whales that have adjusted to our low frequency radios?

What about all the "fixing" we've tried to do?

What about all the things we have brought - either on purpose, or by accident - into places they shouldn't be, but we keep them under control?

neilzero
2007-Sep-07, 09:51 PM
We do not have a consensis on what the improvements should be.
We could capture some carbon dioxide leaking out of the ground and pump it into old mines, wells and natural caverns far below the surface. This is likely less costly than capturing man made carbon dioxide or a crash program to perfect alternative energies. A big plus is we can release the carbon dioxide from the wells etc if we get new ice age instead of, or shortly after green house warming.
We could also free fly a billion large hot air balloons reflective on the top 1/3 to reflect sun light back into space. This is also quickly revesable if we get new ice age instead of, or shortly after green house warming, by painting the balloons black. Neil

coliver
2007-Sep-28, 06:46 PM
I just recently visited this website for Carbon Offsets. I wasnt even aware that they existed. This could be a way to QUICKLY solve the problem? If every person that drives a vehicle had to buy at least the amount of Carbon they were releasing each year it would end up with 0 emissions?
Im not one for new taxes, but I would gladly add the amount to my DMV bill to solve the problem?
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=270

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-28, 07:25 PM
This could be a way to QUICKLY solve the problem? If every person that drives a vehicle had to buy at least the amount of Carbon they were releasing each year it would end up with 0 emissions?
Im not one for new taxes, but I would gladly add the amount to my DMV bill to solve the problem?
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=270


Biggest scam ever--just a way to make people feel good about buying polluting, inefficient vehicles. There is no way that the carbon offset salesmen can assure buyers that they will actually be buying those 10 tons, 20 tons of carbon offsets. Coliver, there are no quick and easy solutions to GW that I've seen. All proposed solutions (aside from immediate, stringent reductions in carbon emissions) have very large scientific caveats attached to them and could make things worse.

Besides, there does not seem to be consensus on BAUT (there is in the climate science community, but never mind that--everybody knows that the IPCC report is 'just as good a source as Wikipedia', don't they?? :rolleyes:) or in the minds of a large fraction of the general public that: 1) GW is occurring, and 2) GW is due to CO2 emissions. If the climate is not changing for the worse, why terraform? If CO2 emissions have nothing to do with GW, why buy carbon offsets?

Why terraform/try to offset carbon emissions if: 1) GW is not occurring; 2) CO2 has no effect on climate; 2) GW is occurring and is due to rising levels of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the atmosphere, but man-made CO2 is only a tiny portion of 'natural pollution/greenhouse gases'; CH4 emission from those bad, bad trees is to blame; 3) GW is occurring and it is due to anthropogenic CO2, but, not to worry, the world will be a far better place for it--less snow to shovel, the ability to run around in shorts and halter-top all year, etc.; 4) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are warming the earth, which is hazardous, but we have far more important issues to work out, such as, well, gay marriage, stopping hypothetical biological/chemical/nuclear weapons from entering our ports, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the war on poverty, health care for all, drug abuse (just say no), feeding the starving children of Africa, AIDS education and prevention, preserving the flag, preserving 'family values', etc.; or 5) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are warming the earth, which is hazardous, but, not to worry, we can all just hop off-world and go live in all those space colonies that we've built/will build in a jiffy.

I have heard all of the above in several guises, both here AND elsewhere. Yes, there is a bit of satire in how I have phrased them but not very much; the kernal of each idea listed above is as I have seen it stated by others.

From my observations, getting scientific consensus on the subject of AGW has already happened. Getting public consensus on the subject, however, is like herding cats. We have to get a consensus that there is a problem with the climate AND get consensus as to the cause of the problem before proposing and implementing solutions. There are many good ideas for solutions on this thread, and I'm glad you started this thread, coliver. However, society will not foot the very large bill for solutions to a problem that it does not believe exists or does not believe to be severe or urgent enough to warrant large expenditures of taxpayer dollars.

BTW, Coliver, please don't take the snark in this post as being directed at you. It isn't directed at you or anyone else in particular; it is just an expression of my extreme frustration with this issue.

neilzero
2007-Sep-28, 08:22 PM
The iron fillings part was demonstrated more than 10 years ago. Why not fund the idea and see what happens. The extra fish harvest might pay the entire cost. Why should we expect horrible side effects from this? I have seen little worry over high definition TV horrible side effects and not nearly enough panic over federal health care micro managing private health care. Neil

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-28, 08:28 PM
The worry isn't that the iron filings themselves would be polluting. The worry is that the increased uptake of carbon by the algal blooms would be temporary, as transport of carbon (via dead algae) to lower levels of the ocean for burial has not been demonstrated. This would be a particular difficulty as ocean temps rise, as ocean waters become more stratified and less mixing occurs.

korjik
2007-Sep-28, 08:33 PM
The worry isn't that the iron filings themselves would be polluting. The worry is that the increased uptake of carbon by the algal blooms would be temporary, as transport of carbon (via dead algae) to lower levels of the ocean for burial has not been demonstrated. This would be a particular difficulty as ocean temps rise, as ocean waters become more stratified and less mixing occurs.

Then what the heck is limestone?

korjik
2007-Sep-28, 08:47 PM
Biggest scam ever--just a way to make people feel good about buying polluting, inefficient vehicles. There is no way that the carbon offset salesmen can assure buyers that they will actually be buying those 10 tons, 20 tons of carbon offsets. Coliver, there are no quick and easy solutions to GW that I've seen. All proposed solutions (aside from immediate, stringent reductions in carbon emissions) have very large scientific caveats attached to them and could make things worse.

Besides, there does not seem to be consensus on BAUT (there is in the climate science community, but never mind that--everybody knows that the IPCC report is 'just as good a source as Wikipedia', don't they?? :rolleyes:) or in the minds of a large fraction of the general public that: 1) GW is occurring, and 2) GW is due to CO2 emissions. If the climate is not changing for the worse, why terraform? If CO2 emissions have nothing to do with GW, why buy carbon offsets?

Why terraform/try to offset carbon emissions if: 1) GW is not occurring; 2) CO2 has no effect on climate; 2) GW is occurring and is due to rising levels of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the atmosphere, but man-made CO2 is only a tiny portion of 'natural pollution/greenhouse gases'; CH4 emission from those bad, bad trees is to blame; 3) GW is occurring and it is due to anthropogenic CO2, but, not to worry, the world will be a far better place for it--less snow to shovel, the ability to run around in shorts and halter-top all year, etc.; 4) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are warming the earth, which is hazardous, but we have far more important issues to work out, such as, well, gay marriage, stopping hypothetical biological/chemical/nuclear weapons from entering our ports, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the war on poverty, health care for all, drug abuse (just say no), feeding the starving children of Africa, AIDS education and prevention, preserving the flag, preserving 'family values', etc.; or 5) anthropogenic CO2 emissions are warming the earth, which is hazardous, but, not to worry, we can all just hop off-world and go live in all those space colonies that we've built/will build in a jiffy.

I have heard all of the above in several guises, both here AND elsewhere. Yes, there is a bit of satire in how I have phrased them but not very much; the kernal of each idea listed above is as I have seen it stated by others.

From my observations, getting scientific consensus on the subject of AGW has already happened. Getting public consensus on the subject, however, is like herding cats. We have to get a consensus that there is a problem with the climate AND get consensus as to the cause of the problem before proposing and implementing solutions. There are many good ideas for solutions on this thread, and I'm glad you started this thread, coliver. However, society will not foot the very large bill for solutions to a problem that it does not believe exists or does not believe to be severe or urgent enough to warrant large expenditures of taxpayer dollars.

BTW, Coliver, please don't take the snark in this post as being directed at you. It isn't directed at you or anyone else in particular; it is just an expression of my extreme frustration with this issue.

I am working on a PhD in space physics. What is your professional background that allows you to question my judgment on crappy science done by the most corrupt political agency on the planet?

For everyone else, I am the one she is quoting with the rolleyes above, and I am probably the no one in particular also.

Paracelsus, all you have done in your rant after the first paragraph (which is a very good point on carbon offsets) is really give more evidence to those in the 'all global warming is politics' thread that they are correct that GW should be banished from this board.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-28, 08:49 PM
Marine limestone (or calcium carbonate) is primarily formed from the calcite-containing shells of marine micro-organisms. These micro-organisms tend to have a much harder time forming these shells under acidic conditions--which occur when there is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the seawater--which occurs when there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Supersaturation of surface ocean layers with dissolved CO2, which can occur when atmospheric CO2 levels are very high, can lead to inorganic CO2 deposits, as is seen in the marine sedimentary rocks at the P/T boundary.

Limestone has nothing to do with the success or failure of iron filings, however.

Moreover, there is an additional danger that, in the absence of adequate mixing to continually distribute O2 throughout the ocean, the increased accumulation of dead algae at the bottom of the ocean can produce anoxic conditions in deep ocean water. This process is similar to the eutrophication that occurs in streams and lakes polluted by excess nitrogen and/or phosphorus from fertilizer run-off. The excess nutrients induce algal blooms, which then sink to the bottom and decay. The enhanced rate of O2 utilization by microorganisms that decompose the dead algae depletes the water of O2, which, in turn, effectively suffocates the organisms (such as benthic invertebrates and fish) that live in the affected water.

Deep ocean anoxia is one of the hypothesized proximal causes for the mass extinction at the P/T boundary.

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-28, 09:08 PM
I am working on a PhD in space physics. What is your professional background that allows you to question my judgment on crappy science done by the most corrupt political agency on the planet?

For everyone else, I am the one she is quoting with the rolleyes above, and I am probably the no one in particular also.

Paracelsus, all you have done in your rant after the first paragraph (which is a very good point on carbon offsets) is really give more evidence to those in the 'all global warming is politics' thread that they are correct that GW should be banished from this board.

Bachelors and Master's in physics. PhD in toxicology. Extensive reading on the subject.

Good for you in working on you PhD in space physics, although I'd appreciate it if you were to clarify what 'space physics' means (astrophysics, planetary science, cosmology, nuclear physics, plasma physics??). This does not make you an expert in climatology, atmospheric chemistry, marine chemistry, meteorology, or even atmospheric physics, all of which would provide you with relevant expertise.

You have never cited any examples of the 'crappy science' you are talking about to back up your claims, and your opinion is directly contrary to the considered opinion of >90% of the world authorities in the areas of expertise I have listed above. Should you possess evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate it if you would specifically cite this evidence on this thread or elsewhere instead of claiming infallibility due to being a grad student in 'space physics'.

As for my pointing out your comment, well, if you smelt it, you must have dealt it. If you are embarrassed that I pointed out what you said, whose fault is it: mine for pointing it out, or yours for saying it in the first place?

I will agree that NASA is pretty corrupt at the moment, but you cannot make that claim about the Hadley Centre or all of the other centers of climate research in aggregate.


Edit: No, you are NOT the 'no one in particular' I am talking about. I was making a general statement of frustration and aggravation, not trying to point fingers at you. I say what I mean.

Van Rijn
2007-Sep-28, 09:16 PM
From my observations, getting scientific consensus on the subject of AGW has already happened.


I think that depends on what you mean by "scientific consensus." I think there is general agreement that the climate is currently warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there is less agreement about the extent of CO2's effect, and how well we can predict future climate change. I don't see this as a discussion where there are absolute, black and white positions, but one where there are shades of gray, and where there are ATM arguments at both extremes.

But regardless of AGW, we do know that the climate can change, and that change can be detrimental to us. For that reason, I think there should be research into active climate modification.



Getting public consensus on the subject, however, is like herding cats. We have to get a consensus that there is a problem with the climate AND get consensus as to the cause of the problem before proposing and implementing solutions. There are many good ideas for solutions on this thread, and I'm glad you started this thread, coliver. However, society will not foot the very large bill for solutions to a problem that it does not believe exists or does not believe to be severe or urgent enough to warrant large expenditures of taxpayer dollars.


There are excellent arguments for moving to non fossil energy sources regardless of the CO2 issues: Fossil fuels are dirty, and they will only last so long. I'm very much for promoting nuclear assisted by solar and wind, with heavy research into advanced conventional nuclear, fusion, advanced solar, energy efficiency, advanced portable energy storage, etc. I'm not so impressed with Draconian laws intended to modify behavior, especially if it is recommended in place of non fossil energy sources. That, I think, is where we see politics intruding the most into this subject.

danscope
2007-Sep-28, 09:19 PM
Hi, To Paraclesus, I enjoyed that post about limestone. Thank you. Dan

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-28, 09:29 PM
Thanks, Dan. :)

My husband is watching Dexter, which is grossing me out.

You know, guys, I have a life outside of this forum, as does everybody else. Sometimes it is easier to be objective, even-tempered, and patient than others.

This is one of those times when it is not easy.

Korjik, I still vociferously disagree with you on GW, but I didn't mean to crawl up your butt. I apologize.

neilzero
2007-Sep-28, 11:45 PM
Hi Korjik: Both you and Paraclesus have more formal education than I do.
Limestone creatures need sunlight, so coral grows typically in less than 10 meters of water in tropical and semi tropical locations. The ocean averages 3 miles deep.
Even if 1/2 of the algae releases the carbon dioxide far below the surface in a year or less, the pilot program is well worth doing. A million humans are deficient in protein which the extra fish can provide.
The iron filings and/or water brought up from below the surface, likely needs to be supplemented with sediment dredged up from harbors to get long-term growth of algae and photoplankton, some of which should be harvested to make biofuel. Did you read the link? It worked for me.
Numerous organizations are competing with NASA for the title of crapiest science. I think it is conceited to think we KNOW any subject with accuracy.
If we drop enough harbor silt, it will bury the dead algae before it removes a lot of the deep water oxygen. Anyone have an idea for a low cost way to raise the ph at coral reefs? Calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide perhaps? How about forcing oxygen to depths of 2 plus miles at reasonable cost? OTEC will do that if the pumps that bring up the water from the depths are powered by oxygen rich water but that increases the cost of bringing up the 4 degree c water from near the bottom, plus there is no major funding for OTEC. Neil

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-29, 12:38 AM
You know, guys, I have a life outside of this forum, as does everybody else. Sometimes it is easier to be objective, even-tempered, and patient than others.
Of course you do. Anyone who cares about Antartic Exploration must have a great life! :-)

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-29, 12:42 AM
Of course you do. Anyone who cares about Antartic Exploration must have a great life! :-)

Or too much time on her hands! :lol:

Paracelsus
2007-Sep-29, 12:45 AM
Hi Korjik: Both you and Paraclesus have more formal education than I do.
Limestone creatures need sunlight, so coral grows typically in less than 10 meters of water in tropical and semi tropical locations. The ocean averages 3 miles deep.
Even if 1/2 of the algae releases the carbon dioxide far below the surface in a year or less, the pilot program is well worth doing. A million humans are deficient in protein which the extra fish can provide.
The iron filings and/or water brought up from below the surface, likely needs to be supplemented with sediment dredged up from harbors to get long-term growth of algae and photoplankton, some of which should be harvested to make biofuel. Did you read the link? It worked for me.
Numerous organizations are competing with NASA for the title of crapiest science. I think it is conceited to think we KNOW any subject with accuracy.
If we drop enough harbor silt, it will bury the dead algae before it removes a lot of the deep water oxygen. Anyone have an idea for a low cost way to raise the ph at coral reefs? Calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide perhaps? How about forcing oxygen to depths of 2 plus miles at reasonable cost? OTEC will do that if the pumps that bring up the water from the depths are powered by oxygen rich water but that increases the cost of bringing up the 4 degree c water from near the bottom, plus there is no major funding for OTEC. Neil

James Lovelock (the originator of the Gaia hypothesis) has a few ideas along these lines, but I've had way too much Cava tonight to discuss it intelligently at the moment. ;)

coliver
2007-Sep-29, 10:45 AM
Everyone in this forum probbaly has more education than me:) (I left that misspelled on purpose)..:) What worries me is the very frustration that Paracelsus mentions. The scientific community is I think pretty much unanimous that GW is happening. But with politics and alternate solutions, views etc.. Im afraid by the time we come to a concensus that much damage will be done? One of the biggest changes I can see its pretty obvious that the warmimg effect is allowing Bacteria and organisms that would normally die off to live and even flourish and create new species. I just read another article in the headlines today about the Amoebas killing 6 people at Lake Havasu. That is very rare and to have six people attacked at once? I fear the micro world much more than Nuclear Bombs or Terrorists right now? Not to mention the effects warming may have on our food supply. I also read that they are creating a kind of library of all seeds on Earth in caves with permafrost, or something to that effect. I mean we are just beginning to see the secondary effects on animal life, food supplies, species etc...

I just think we need to move quickly to do something but like everyone else, Im not sure what that something is? We do need to focus efforts on containing the growth of dangerous microorganisms and thats something that could be done now with perhaps more monitoring or government involvement? Back in 2001 I contracted a fungal infection called Sporotrichosis which attacks the lymphatic system, or a Staph infection, still not sure which. It got on my dogs fur from the dirt and when I bathed him it got into a cut I suppose? It took me 6 years to fight it off and the local Drs and hospitals did nothing to detect or treat it. I thought our government was looking out for stuff like that after 9/11 and they would identify it at the hospital, but surprisingly they are only trained for Trauma and cant even treat you!! With more organisms on the rise what does that say for how we are prepared?

And of course noone wants to give up driving their cars or SUVs and I dont think we really have to? From the little research that I have done, it seems that Coal Plants are the leading polluters and the deforestation has had an impact. So fixing those two areas should help a lot? At least for future emissions. The world is not going to stop selling Gasoline until its gone period! There is too much Big Money riding on it. So in the mean time if we can at least stop some of the future problem and at least plant some new trees etc.. wouldnt that at least buy us a little time?

KaiYeves
2007-Sep-29, 06:17 PM
Or too much time on her hands!
Better to spend our spare time reading Endurance than looking for "secret pictures" in Mars photos like Certain People Who Shall Not Be Named.