Sir Richard Branson $26m competition...

[john9001]

Originally posted by Major Biggles
the problem with planting trees is that they only really absorb CO2 while they're growing, and they also respire, they don't just draw in CO2, they produce lots of it too.
 

trees absorb the carbon and release the oxygen,

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by john9001
trees absorb the carbon and release the oxygen,

they release O2 during the day while they photosynthesize, but they are organic beings, they respirate to create energy. the photosynthesize while the sun is out, which absorbs CO2 and produces O2, and this produces their food, but to gain energy from their food, they must burn it, just like we burn our food.

we breathe because we need oxygen to turn our food into energy, and plants do the same, they draw in oxygen and release CO2 while they burn their food and turn it into energy. so they produce a reasonable amount of oxygen during the day, which they then re-use to get energy out of the food they created during the day. they respire like this at the same rate all through the day, and only photosynthesize during sunlight hours, although during that time, photosynthesis has more of an effect than respiration.

the net effect is that plants are self sustaining, they don't really get rid of CO2 at all, because they themselves are producing it.

when plants evolved there were no humans, they had no need to over produce, life was in balance, then we came along...

humans cannot leave in harmony with the environment. our success as a race is also our downfall. i personally think that money should not be going into global warming research, as a lot of money is needed for very little effect. the money should be going to space colonisation. humans can't live here on earth indefinitely, our population has passed a critical point, we're wearing the planet out...




anyway, dumb science lesson there for ya, but it's all true, plants don't create masses of oxygen, or absorb CO2, they do that just to burn it all again...

when a plant grows it absorbs far more CO2 and produces more oxygen than it will when it is an adult. when that adult tree dies, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere via decomposition in the form of CO2 and methane/other natural gases.

the whole world is in a perfect balance, and we've tipped it right over.

what's needed is an ingenious way to reconvert these gases into their original forms somehow. and for all those who think global warming is a load of rubbish, you're just being ignorant. just because where you live hasn't warmed up doesn't mean that the world isn't.

[Angus]

"anyway, dumb science lesson there for ya, but it's all true, plants don't create masses of oxygen, or absorb CO2, they do that just to burn it all again...

when a plant grows it absorbs far more CO2 and produces more oxygen than it will when it is an adult. when that adult tree dies, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere via decomposition in the form of CO2 and methane/other natural gases."

The balance is called "soil".
Fossil fuels would also never be around if charbon wasn't being trapped at some time or another.
Lots of charbon and methane is also getting captured in wetland.
Bottom line is that the total impact of plants ties down charbon.

[eagl]

algae blooms in the ocean would do the trick... they'd absorb CO2, release some oxygen, and then take the carbon to the bottom of the ocean when it dies.  There are simple non-toxic chemicals you can spread to get almost immediate blooms, and even better, the blooms stop when you quit seeding them in case it turns out to be a bad idea.

I'll take my $25 mil 50% US currency and 50% gold, thank you very much.

[Ball]

Originally posted by eagl
algae blooms in the ocean would do the trick... they'd absorb CO2, release some oxygen, and then take the carbon to the bottom of the ocean when it dies.  There are simple non-toxic chemicals you can spread to get almost immediate blooms, and even better, the blooms stop when you quit seeding them in case it turns out to be a bad idea.

I'll take my $25 mil 50% US currency and 50% gold, thank you very much.

The fish would eat it, silly.

[chancevought]

it's ok if the fish eat the carbon isn't it?  If you buy Talapia and many other fish it's treated w/ carbon monoxide to preserve the color of the fish.  This way we cut out the middle man, and you'll have the pinkest fish even if it's weeks old and smells like crap.....

[eagl]

Nothing wrong with the fish eating it.  They'd crap the carbon back out and it would still end up safely in the muck at the bottom of the ocean.

Actually, that's also part of the natural carbon cycle that we've messed with.  We've over-fished most oceans so the amount of dead fish falling to the bottom of the ocean taking a big amount of carbon with them has dramatically decreased.

That's one of the biggest problems with the BS global warming movement nowadays... they're focusing on CO2 production without bothering to look at the other natural systems that have been disrupted, which can be trivially altered (algae blooms), or which are totally out of our control (solar output).  Not only are they ignoring natural cycles, they're actively squashing any research that dares to look in those areas by claiming that any research in that direction is an evil plot by the oil companies.

Some simple experimentation in cheap and reversable areas, and a LOT more data gathering is in order, but that's totally non-politically correct.  We need another couple decades of high-fidelity data gathering in conjuction with some experimentation (those algae blooms or something like that) to see what impact we're really having on the climate.  But even suggesting a truly scientific approach to the issue is a good way to get discredited and accused of trying to destroy the world.

[Major Biggles]

yup i'd certainly agree with that, the media hype has everyone talking about CO2 emmisions, when really it's the natural cycle that's been pushed off balance.

i wonder whether photosynthesis is somehow genetically linked? perhaps you could genetically engineer a species of algae to photosynthesize at a higher rate...

it'll probably be a bilogist that solves climate change. the problem is, most of these greenhouse gases are in their most stable forms, it'll take a lot of energy to switch them back, and even then, they'll just turn back into greenhouse gases when they react with anything...

[Roscoroo]

We all get bitten by Vampire's so we dont need heat/ac anymore ...

[lazs2]

filter for the sun...

But..  I have nothing against a huge prize for alternative energy sources and any decrease in pollutants.

I would be a lot more specific and make the prize a lot more juicy.

Offer a billion dollars to the first person to make a 4' x 8' solar panel that is 80% efficient and costs in the neighborhood of $500 to produce...   Two panels would power an average house with all its electrical needs.    charging electric cars would also be helped and not depend on burning fossil fuels.

start with that instead of starting with the premis that we can do anything worth mentioning about global warming..

free, clean electricity would be the hinge for a better cleaner life for every person on the planet.

lazs

[Major Biggles]

Originally posted by lazs2
filter for the sun...

But..  I have nothing against a huge prize for alternative energy sources and any decrease in pollutants.

I would be a lot more specific and make the prize a lot more juicy.

Offer a billion dollars to the first person to make a 4' x 8' solar panel that is 80% efficient and costs in the neighborhood of $500 to produce...   Two panels would power an average house with all its electrical needs.    charging electric cars would also be helped and not depend on burning fossil fuels.

start with that instead of starting with the premis that we can do anything worth mentioning about global warming..

free, clean electricity would be the hinge for a better cleaner life for every person on the planet.

lazs

yup, you're right there lazs, all the money wasted on getting people to use less energy is retarded. the money should be going to research into alternative energy. they've almost got a nuclear fusion reactor going, it produces 10 times the aount of energy that it uses, but it only works for a few seconds...

money should be going to that, clean and very powerful energy, not wasted on trying to get people to use less fossil fuels etc.

i think it's silly to try and force people to use less energy when there is no alternative. use the billions of dollars that people waste on that and use it to come up with a better way that people will want to use over fossil fuels anyway.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Ball
To whoever develops a machine to help solve global warming..

Didn't alpenheimer already do this?

[Angus]

If one thinks about the increasing charbon of all sorts in the atmosphere, there already are thechnical solutions on the way.
Since most of the C we release to the atmosphere is basically due to various sorts of inefficiency (some say 90%) there is a big thing there to work with.
One little gadget is a new kind of carburettor. While being flexible enough to replace most injection systems (for petrol and up to kerosene AFAIK), it offers a reduction in CO (80%), HC+NOx 35%, and lowers fuel consumption 20%.
It's entering the market soon, - was already off the drawing board and being run years ago.
Although a little step, it's significant, and there are many bright ideas working in many places.

[lazs2]

the conservation side is a loser...  it just is a feel good do nothing solution...  in the end, it just makes everyone misserable for nothing as more people end up using the energy that was conserved.

Now..  that is not to say that building energy efficient machines is bad..  they can be very good but... only if they do it without hardship to the user...  if a refrigerator for instance uses less energy in a year and works just as well and is quieter... why not?   If a bulb uses less energy... and costs about the same but lasts longer?  why not?

It has to be a wash or a gain in something before conservation works... if everyone vowed to walk to work one day a week or carpool... that is foolish...  eventualy their method of getting around will eat up the gains and everyone participating will be inconvienenced for nothing.

The guy who invented the little flourecent bulb that replaces the normal ones should have got a prize..   The government didn't "invent" those things.   When the government gets involved with rebates and such it gets all screwed up and the flim flam men wade in.  no one is easier to cheat than the government.. they almost insist you do so..   anyone recall all the old solar water heater panels the government subsidized in the 70's and 80's?   none of that junk left.

lazs

[john9001]

10 hour day, 4 day work week, still get 40 hours and one less commute/week and a three day weekend, everybody wins.

i actually worked that dream job for a wile.