Jump to content
Science Forums

The solutions to Global Warming include. . .


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

What plant life is best for removing CO2 from the atmosphere? If I wanted to create a garden to offset my carbon footprint, what would be best to plant? How much would I need planted to eliminate a ton of carbon? I was thinking of starting an anti-carbon farm where guilty people could pay for offset by the ton. I was wondering what would be the most cost effective way of actually doing this.

 

Bill

 

I checked into this a few months ago regarding trees. Broadleaf trees use the most CO2 and this varied by region. Longer growing season, more net uptake. The article I read did not break it down into specie or avg per day type numbers.

 

This article indicates a tomato plant uses 200 mg per day, per plant under normal conditions. Increased sunlight increases avg. daily uptake. The study did not expand into the full growth cycle of the plant.

 

From this point on you gotta do the math. :eek2:

 

http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/80/3/711.pdf

 

There is also the nutrient factor. The plants will be using this from the soil. You could plan for compensation ahead of time by composting, or hitting a local compost area and taking out others yard trimings.

 

A bit of research into what clippings add what nutrients. For example, I have ALOT of oak in my yard and their leaves tend to be acidic. That is good for most fruits. Grasses tend to produce alot of nitrogen (if I remember right) so by having groups of compost materials, (grasses for green growth, acidics for fruiting) you could potentially provide nutrients with this feature.

 

Tree barks are excellent compost material for strawberrys. IIRC, oak tree bark composts differently than their leaves (meaning the nutrients are more balanced).

 

Ok thats enough thinking for a mind that is still on its first cup of coffee...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What plant life is best for removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
Coming back to Bill's question as to which plants to plant, I guess the quickest-growing plants would be your best bet! Something like bamboo, or even hectares of sunflowers!
An algaefarm could grow ~200 ton/ha per year of biomass. They can double their mass overnight.
I think Boerseun and silverslith are on the right track suggesting plants with the highest rate in dry mass increase. All dry plant and algae mass, from agar to grass to wood, is made mostly of cellulose, which, with a unit molecule of C6H10O5, (or, more generally, polysaccharide, Cn(H2O)n-1) are about 44% carbon by mass, so the more plant mass produced, the more CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

 

Converting CO2 into C6H10O5, though, is only the first step in an effective atmospheric change technique. The next and last step is assuring it isn’t converted back until you want it. In short, the cellulose must be put away someplace, not allowed to burn or decay into hydrocarbons that are burned, or are worse greenhouse gasses than CO2, such as methane (CH4). It can’t be used as a food for humans or other animals, as animals are fast and efficient CO2 and CH4 factories.

 

An additional complication is that cellulose has value, much of it as a fuel or fuel precursor for burning. As silverslith point out, interest in algae farming is largely due to it’s ability to produce a precursor that can be made into fuels such as diesel and ethanol. Used this way, it has little sustained effect upon atmospheric CO2, the burning of its fuels releasing about as much as the algae that produce them absorb – though it’s better than the burning of long-trapped fuels, such as petroleum-based ones, which substantially increase atmospheric CO2.

 

As several people have noted, growing plants on land requires care to avoid depleting the soil in a way that reduces its ability to grow plants. It would be an appalling irony if a large-scale effort to reduce global warming unexpectedly succeeded by creating a huge dust bowl, collapsing the US and world economy so that per-capita energy consumption plummeted to 19th century levels!

 

There seems to me to be a lot of potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 by growing plants in the ocean, or rather, promoting the growth of the plants already established there. There’s evidence that much of the removed carbon falls to the ocean floor to stay there for a very long time, be sedimented into the ocean floor crust, or, if it falls near a subduction zone, be carried all the way down to the mantle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

things i do to reduce my energy use. >>

 

besides changing the majority of bulbs to compact fluorescents, I don't put bulbs in all sockets of multi-socket fixtures. then, i don't turn on any lights unless absolutely necessary. i never use the bathroom light, the hall light, the porch light, my room light (took the bulbs all out of that :rant_red2:).

 

after i make coffee, i pour it in a carafe & shut off the pot; did you know the heating element is 800watts in there!!!??? i use manual appliances in the kitchen such as can-opener, knife (electric knife!!! good grief! :rant_red2:), cookie press, etcetera.)

 

more to come...:rant_red2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

things i do to reduce my energy use. >>

 

besides changing the majority of bulbs to compact fluorescents, turtle:

I have done this but am disappointed with the Chinese made LEDs which do not last long.

 

I would like an invention that tells me when I have left lights on unintentionally- especially my 150W outside light which I sometimes leave on for days!:rolleyes2:

 

And why are our cities still lit up like Christmas Trees?

Do execs. these days really work THAT long a day ?

How many lights does the cleaner need?

 

As for plants and trees, the research seems to support Tropical forests only as the ones that cut down most on CO2. (pardon the unintentional pun).

Of course these are those we are cutting down the quickest- as in Indonesia.

Some research is being done on temperate forests and trees and CO2 at the Uni of Western Sydney and other places, but I have not seen results yet.

 

Apart from algae you would think there would be a super-absorbent/adsorbent CO2 organism (animal vegetable or mineral) out there somewhere??!!

Surely someone on hypography would know??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done this but am disappointed with the Chinese made LEDs which do not last long.

 

I would like an invention that tells me when I have left lights on unintentionally- especially my 150W outside light which I sometimes leave on for days!;)

 

And why are our cities still lit up like Christmas Trees?

Do execs. these days really work THAT long a day ?

How many lights does the cleaner need?

 

Did you mean LED, or compact fluorescent on the 'made in China'? LED lights are more efficient than compact fluorescent by around a factor of 10, and compact fluorescent more efficient that incandescent by a factor of 5. I haven't tried the LED; don't know where this company gets theirs, but they are expensive. LED Light Bulbs I hear LED's are also extremely long-lived.

 

Also available widely, compact fluorescents to replace your 150 watt outdoor flood (or spot) that use around 23 watts. If the flood is for security, consider changing to a motion activated sensor fixture.

 

Reading between the lines, I gather my going 'round in the dark is more of a sacrifice than anyone cares to make; oui, no? :ohdear: i carry always a small pocket penlight(nickel metal hydride rechargeables), and use it when there is a need for a light.

 

More that I do: i don't wash clothes just because i wore them once, and when i do wash i use cold water. i don't shower jus because another day has passed, and when i do shower i wet down, turn off the water, soap up & scrub, and then turn the water on & rinse.

 

waste not, want not...that's a wrap. :rolleyes2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The solutions to global warming include...

 

shutting down some of the estimated 5,000 underwater volcanoes might help. ;)

 

Underwater - Submarine Volcanoes

...Currently there are over five thousand active volcanoes underwater varying from ones larger than any on the surface to cones no larger than an automobile. The net reslut of this action is thermal heating of the oceans, at key positions, which in turn reaches the surfaceto be carried aloft into the atmosphere to become part of our surface weather pattern system. As the oceans are heated winds of a high velocity are created and driven over the land areas due to temperature differential.

...

 

or...

 

[Many underwater volcanoes erupting simultaneously all over the world - are we ["DOOMED!"] ?

When in America Mount St. Helen recently erupted, many thought it was just an isolated normal case of volcanic eruption. But now it is becoming clear that hundreds of underwater volcanoes are erupting all around the world especially around the Pacific Ring of Fire.

 

The tectonic plate movements especially under the oceans have gone up by many times. Andaman Nicobar Island now is experiencing under water volcanoes in Indian ocean and Bay of Bengal. In America North West is experiencing unprecedented level of small earthquakes and under water volcanoes. Seattle and Oregon are experiencing heavy levels of tectonic disturbance.

 

just in passing, we had 2, 4.7 quakes off the Oregon coast yesterday that occured within minutes of each other.

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program » Magnitude 4.7 - OFF THE COAST OF OREGON

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program » Magnitude 4.7 - OFF THE COAST OF OREGON

 

granted, kinda hard to estimate the output of something you don't know is there. no doubt that if there really are more underwater volcanoes, people are to blame for them. Maybe we can just pour water on them. :eek2: :D :confused:

 

PS Web Results 1 - 10 of about 386,000 for "how many underwater volcanoes are there?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is about solutions to global warming. I suggest posters do not let themselves get derailed by baseless arguments, and if you care to discuss other topics (agriculture, vegetarianism, fertilizer, etc.) you start a new thread or PM one another.

 

Global warming... hmmm... solutions.... hmm....

 

:idea:

 

Do away with money. While this would have other ramifications (not relevant to this thread) that would likely be difficult, really the only thing stopping us from making immediate improvement to the climate is the bottom line. Too many people and businesses place a greater good on profit than on ecology.

 

Take money out of the equation. ;)

You've already been told about how agriculture contributes to global warming. I'll just add my favourite stats: it takes up to 10 units of oil energy to produce 1 unit of food energy (chemical fertilizers are made directly from natural gas). We are literally eating oil.

Not only that, but most food in North America travels between 1500 and 2500 miles from farm to plate.

SOLUTION: Grow your own food, or buy local or buy organic (in that order).

 

Yes! Take money out of the equation. Or failing that..... make energy efficiency and sustainablity and conservation more profitable.

Solutions: voting with our consumption. Buy local, buy long-lasting, buy recycled/used, buy low-packaging or don't buy at all! (Boycott Christmas :doh:)

Support sustainable energy producers.

Got stocks in oil companies? Go to shareholder meetings and tell them to smarten up! Ditto for other stocks. Know where your investments are.

Ask politicians hard questions about their solutions to global warming. (Go Governor Arnie!) Vote. Write letters to politicians. (There are a bunch of government solutions too. Mainly changing who gets subsidies.)

Don't fly. Drive as little as possible. Walk.

Live simply and conserve energy of all forms. Turn down the heat and put on a sweater in winter. Turn off the air conditioner and drink lots of water in summer. (No bottled water though.... it's just tap water in a disposable plastic bottle.)

TALK to people about it! Word of mouth is amazing. Share solutions.

Technical fixes are more likely to backfire than solve the problem. We live in a relatively small, finely-tuned, biosphere. We have yet to create a successful, self-sustaining, artificial biosphere. Let's not tinker with the earth anymore than we already have.

Reduce, reduce some more, reuse, reuse again, recycle.

The plant to grow.... hemp: fiber surpaces and replaces clear-cutting for pulp-paper, also replaces cotton for cloth. Seeds have food and fuel value. Cultivation requires little fertilizer or pest control.

Oh yeah, stay home and grow your own food!

It's a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solutions to global warming include...

 

shutting down some of the estimated 5,000 underwater volcanoes might help. ;)

 

Since we know how to reduce the carbon we put into the air, and don't know how to shut down underwater volcanoes, I would suggest it will be easier to control our own industrial carbon output. But you get on a solution to the volcanoe issue and get back to us;):doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we know how to reduce the carbon we put into the air, and don't know how to shut down underwater volcanoes, I would suggest it will be easier to control our own industrial carbon output. But you get on a solution to the volcanoe issue and get back to us;):idea:

 

Mmmm...knowing and doing are two different things. Everyone knows it's wrong to steal, and yet we have as many thieves per capita as ever. No end of similar examples, but this one puts the idea across. Moreover, the pollution from burning oil is predominately from automobiles, so it's as much individuals (if not more) than industry that could make the greatest reduction. I dare say the only thing slowing most folks driving is the cost of gas and not their concern for the environment.

 

It is no stretch either to say individuals have a responsibility for all the coal fired power plants and their pollution as it is the public (in the US) that has complained nuclear power plants almost out of existence. I think it's China these days building the most coal-fired plants.

 

So again, just knowing something is little help unless it is coupled with doing.

 

Now to the volcanoes, you know my comment on shutting them down is facetious. The issue of how many there are and how much CO2 and other gasses they are emitting is however an important one. Particularly so that we can have a valid comparison between human output and Nature's other contributions. I think our resources are as well if not better spent adapting to a warmer world rather than having the cheek to think we can reverse the warming we aren't fully knowing the cause of.

 

Lunawolf's solutions make sense, but they hinge on the human factor of people acting responsibly and we know how well that has worked out over recorded history. Taking some liberty with Ambrose Bierce, an environmentally sensitive person is one who believes that personal environmental responsibility is admirably suited to the needs of his neighbor. :doh: ;)

 

PS http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/7734-gas-ocean-floor-may-drive-global.html

Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Particularly so that we can have a valid comparison between human output and Nature's other contributions. I think our resources are as well if not better spent adapting to a warmer world rather than having the cheek to think we can reverse the warming we aren't fully knowing the cause of.

Cannot both be done in parallel? Why stop with an incomplete solution? I'd presume you agree here, so I'm more just calling the issue out to other readers.

 

Your comment regarding cost is also very true. If we immediately made renewable energy prractically free, and energy derived from fossil fuel impossibly expensive, you're darn tootin some real change would occur. :thumbs_up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Maybe this doo-hicky can help reduce global warming? :wave:

 

How this 12inch miracle tube could halve heating bills | the Daily Mail

...The system - developed by scientists at a firm called Ecowatts in a nondescript laboratory on an industrial estate at Lancing, West Sussex - involves passing an electrical current through a mixture of water, potassium carbonate (otherwise known as potash) and a secret liquid catalyst, based on chrome. ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ugly houses"? Please, these "Ugly houses" are all for function. A lot are totally self efficient. solar panels, many big windows and sliding doors. Those weird roofs that have a purpose that i forget.....

 

If you own a big business and want to put in a wind (what are they called again? they look like big fans) the government or the town or city you are in will help pay for construction and such. cold air vents should be in ceilings and hot air vents should be in floors.

 

Plant more trees, don't waste fuel. don't burn leaves. if your looking for a new car, see if you have enough to but a fuel efficiently or hybrid, or even just a car that have a high MPG rate. like 60 MPG is good, but don't buy hummers and such, The only hummer that is efficient is the H2H and they only made 15 of those i think. try only get those big vehicles if you need the room or if you actually USE the off-roading or towing capabilities. Dont smoke, and don't make unnecessary fires. At this gun club my friend goes to they burn the trash almost every time they are there cause the trash bin fills up a lot. try not to use spray aerosol cans.

all that stuff.

if you have solar panels on your house, if you have more than enough u can sell the extra electricity back to the town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this doo-hicky can help reduce global warming? :cup:

 

How this 12inch miracle tube could halve heating bills | the Daily Mail

I skeptical of the article’s implied claim that scientists are puzzled by the “12 inch miracle tube”. It contains water and potassium carbonate. According to the wikipedia article “Mixed with water it [[ce]K2CO3[/ce]] causes an exothermic reaction that results in a temperature change, producing heat.” Electricity and catalysts aren’t even required.

 

Once the [ce]K2CO3[/ce] is uniformly dissolved, however, the device should no longer generate excess heat. To continue working, it should need to have its solution replenished. [ce]K2CO3[/ce] doesn’t occur in practical quantities naturally, but must be

produced from naturally occurring, stable compounds, through the input of energy, such as the electrolysis of and carbonation of [ce]KCl[/ce]. The energy to manufacture the [ce]K2CO3[/ce] isn’t free, and would be more efficiently used to just heat the water the “miracle tube” is intended to heat.

 

I’ve not worked out the details, but I’m confident this device is neither a perpetual motion machine (as any true over-unity heat generator could be made into), nor that it “taps into a previously unrecognised source of energy, stored at a sub-atomic level within the hydrogen atoms in water”.

 

EcoWatts device appears to be yet another “free energy” scam. I’m not the first by at least a few days to reach this conclusion – see “EcoWatts: another "free energy" company touts their scam *ahem* invention”.

 

There seem to be a lot of claims of this kind recently, originating from superficially legitimate-seeming companies in the UK. Remember our 8075 discussing Steorn's “Orbo”, a device promising to provide “Free, clean, and unlimited energy”, which, despite considerable hype, has yet to be explained of successfully demonstrated in public?

 

Unlike the Orbo, I expect the “12 inch wonder tube” will actually work – but only for a little while.

 

These devices appear to me not to be the result of well-intentioned efforts to reduce global warming, but scams to get money from the scientifically poorly educated and practically gullible. :thumbs_do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there really are more underwater volcanoes, people are to blame for them. Maybe we can just pour water on them. :esmoking: :ebomb: :banghead:

"

LOL A solution my Irish mother would approve of ( She never 'got' Irish Jokes).

 

Are these mainly in N Hemisphere? because one of the reasons we will have no great barrier reef soon is that the waters in the southern oceans are colder and so dissolve MORE CO2. (Dosn't 'sit' intuitively does it?). So says the scientists on ABC's "Catalyst" week before last. This makes the water more acid? alkaline? and dissolves the coral.

 

So if you put out all these little underwater bar heaters, killing all the unique life evolved around them you enable more CO2 to be dissolved in the sea.

God only knows what you would do to the movement of tectonic plates.

 

Tim Flannery (The Weather Makers) says that the Greenland Ice Sheet is moving due to melt waters lubricating the base of the ice sheet. Often this results in very frequent tremors of 3-4.5. he said if the whole thing moves, we will hear it in Australia.

 

But to get off the theory and back to the practical I would like someone to invent something that would turn off lights I have stupidly left on all night and day (generally a particular outside light.) after some set period an hour or so.

 

Another practical solution for cow farmers so hamburgers, and farting, buping cows are not all bad

Horny beetles have small testes. The bigger the horn the smaller the balls

News in Science - Horny beetles have tiny testes - 17/10/2006

BUT

farmers can breed them and they may help climate change!

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

Dung beetle climate change solution - 18/06/2007

 

Flys are good too!?

The larvae of some flies are of course maggots.

As unattractive as they may seem they play a vital role in assisting the decomposition of dung and dead and decaying matter, whether plant or animal.

The voracious appetite of maggots for all things decaying has and occasionally still is used to clean the flesh on wounds.

The intricate world of flies- February 2006 - Scribbly Gum - ABC Science Online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 So much for recycling:

  • Burials in America deposit 827,060 gallons of embalming fluid—formaldehyde, methanol, and ethanol—into the soil each year.
     
  • Cremation pumps dioxins, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide into the air.

:angryfire:

8 Alternatively . . . A Swedish company, Promessa, will freeze-dry your body in liquid nitrogen, pulverize it with high-frequency vibrations, and seal the resulting powder in a cornstarch coffin.

:popcorntub:

:dust:

They claim this "ecological burial" will decompose in 6 to 12 months.

20 Things You Didn't Know About... Death | Aging | DISCOVER Magazine

:earth:

Why is embalming fluid necessary? We are not worshipers of the Old Egyptian god Ra are we?

 

We could always get buried vertically (less land needed) and a tree planted on top.

Of course there is Terra preta pyrolysis? But how would you collect the carbon credits?

:tree:

:hal_skeleton:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...