h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
So here's the plan - build a big airtight chimney, high enough to get beyond most of the atmosphere, maybe thirty kilometers or so. Pump all the worlds excess CO2 into this chimney and the pressure difference will shoot the stuff into space. The immediate expansion of the gas into vacuum will thin it
out enough so that most of it will not fall back into the atmosphere.
Hopefully, not too much of it will fall back on us the next time we pass that point in our orbit.
And, hopefully also, it doesn't spring a leak and end up venting all of our atmosphere into space.
(?) Carbon levels during last 1000 years.
http://www.ch2bc.or...ecorekeeling440.gif
[daseva, Apr 03 2006]
Another good one.
http://www.mongabay...on_dioxide-ornl.gif
[daseva, Apr 03 2006]
Not just the air.
http://www.cdnn.inf...ience/sc060329.html
Greenhouse warming is just one problem CO2 causes -- it's also acidifying the oceans and damaging sea life/biospheres. [skids, Apr 03 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
bad science, The atmosphere stays on the planet because of gravity. Any chimney will be the same height as the current atmosphere and as such would be equivilent in behavior to the surrounding atmosphere. Nothing would happen if you built this. |
|
| |
//Hopefully, not too much of it will fall back on us the next time we pass that point in our orbit...// Bad orbital dynamics, too. Along with all the other absurdities. |
|
| |
You could build a nozzle, tall enough to be above the atmosphere, and pump the CO2 out at about seven miles per second. Then you'd have something sorta like this idea, but it would be deucedly difficult to do. |
|
| |
For anyone interested, a Google search for "carbon sequestration" turns up some interesting methods of dealing with a problem that may not really exist. |
|
| |
In all fairness, if this were built as [Paddy] has specififed, there would be a pressure differential, and gas would diffuse out into empty space. But, as [bacon] alludes to, it will just fall back onto the atmosphere without the proper escape velocity. |
|
| |
//may not really exist.// |
|
| |
Is this a probe into the chance that CO2 emissions have little to do with human influence? Or that these emissions will not affect the welfare of humans? Or, lastly, perhaps into the essence of a "problem", as something that is only a problem if you percieve it as such? Just curious.. |
|
| |
I was just reading something about how small a fraction of the atmosphere is made up of CO2, and how CO2 levels may not be increasing. I have a carbon sequestration idea that I've been thinking about posting, but can't really find evidence that it is needed. |
|
| |
There are many arguments for both sides. I tend to believe that the stasis of the earth's climate is evident in a few factors: ice coverage, global temp, and possibly CO2 levels usually measured in parts per million (ppm). That's small, yeah. There are others, too. |
|
| |
These carbon levels were rising under a well behaved regime for the last ~700 years as measured by ice cores. The behavior of carbon levels with respect to time has jumped from a dull linear incline during the first millenia and most of the second to a sharp exponential during the last 200 years. This time period also marks the onset of industrial society. Coincidence? Who knows. The graph is disturbing though, and I will look for it now. |
|
| |
//a fraction of the atmosphere is made up of CO2, and how CO2 levels may not be increasing. I have a carbon sequestration idea that I've been thinking about posting, but can't really find evidence that it is needed.// [baconbrain] |
|
| |
//There are many arguments for both sides.//[gumBob] |
|
| |
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that CO2 levels are increasing. You just stick a probe into the air and compare it with older values. NO scientist doubts this any more. What IS doubted is the reasons for it - whether it is part of a natural cycle or not. But even if it IS "natural", it will cause a lot of destruction, and shouldn't we try and stop massive destruction if we can? |
|
| |
Rivers flooding is "natural"; earthquakes are "natural"; huge forest fires are "natural", but I don't see anybody suggesting we should just let THEM happen. |
|
| |
//Rivers flooding is "natural"; earthquakes are "natural"; huge forest fires are "natural", but I don't see anybody suggesting we should just let THEM happen.// |
|
| |
Quite the contrary there is much debate on whether we should be fighting forest fires or levying and damming rivers(New Orleans), and since there is nothing we can do to prevent earthquakes we arent debating it. |
|
| |