Terraforming Earth

Void · 2021-08-03 15:00:49

I think that this fits in to this topic.

It shows that in previous ages, fire may have changed climate, perhaps with Albedo changes. So, to groom the forest, is in fact the more "Natural" thing to do. This of
course may not sit well with the traditional naturalist tree huggers.

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-indigenou … rsity.html
Quote:

Indigenous fire stewardship promotes global biodiversity

I would really prefer that forest patches be cut down, and replaced with grasses,
particularly in the snow belts for reasons that are said in previous posts.

But of course that then uses fuels, and likely produces CO2. I guess you would have to calculate, cost benefits on that. Maybe some day cutting can be electric.

Done.

louis · 2021-08-03 15:22:22

I like the fact it's roll to roll - a printing process in effect.

With 90% efficiency rooftop solar could probably generate all your electricity.

Thanks Void, I will certainly be keeping an eye on this one! Of course, it's true they do have a long way to go but combine it with iron-air batteries and we probably have the final Holy Grail of green energy.

Void wrote:

I believe that I posted this on the forum some other place but could not find it.
NovaSolix
http://www.novasolix.com/
Quote:
NovaSolix is developing the technology that will generate the cleanest and cheapest form of energy on Earth: rectifying antennas that convert light to electricity from the entire solar spectrum.
NANOSCALE ANTENNAS
NovaSolix’s carbon nanotube (CNT) antennas are small enough to match the nano-scale wavelengths of sunlight. Antennas can convert electromagnetic spectrum much more efficiently than photovoltaic (PV) cells. When perfected, NovaSolix antennas will capture far more energy from the sun, and far more efficiently, achieving near 90% efficiency (versus ~20% for PV).
NANOSCALE DIODES
NovaSolix has successfully manufactured the world's fastest diode – a critical component for energy conversion.
NANOSCALE MANUFACTURING
From the beginning, NovaSolix engineers have developed our products so that they can be manufactured using roll-to-roll advanced manufacturing techniques. At scale, these techniques ensure that NovaSolix’s products will be the cheapest form of energy on Earth.
WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT SOLAR ENERGY
Our solution, manufactured at scale, will enable solar energy to be produced at a cost per kWh less than fossil fuels.
What I have read and listened to indicates that their devices will be non-toxic,
will cost 10% of what existing solar panels cost, and will be 45% efficient, and
then later 90% efficient.
Of course they will need to actually do it.
So, if they achieve the 90% efficiency goal, is my mind correct to think that
some of the 10% will be reflected off, and some converted to heat?
If this topic has been followed by the reader, you know that I am interested in
shading soils, and also cooling the sky.
Solar panels are inclined to heat up, I presume, because they are so inefficient.
A Heliostat mirror should not heat up too much, if it is of high quality.
So, on small installations, it does seem to me that these new devices could be
good in gardens.
Might large installations create country "Cold Islands", and city "Heat Islands"?
Well my computer is bogging down.
Done

tahanson43206 · 2021-08-03 17:33:22

For Void re http://www.novasolix.com/ Many Thanks!

SearchTerm:radio antenna solar power
SearchTerm:nanotechnology applied to solar power
SearchTerm:antenna radio tuned to optical light

While details have yet to be collected and saved in the forum, I would expect that roofing made of sheets of these antenna structures would be more durable than photoelectric cells.

On the other hand, because the antennae must be exposed to incoming light (photons) the arrival of dust articles, rain and various living creatures will (most likely) reduce the efficiency of the devices.

In that respect, Louis' prediction of suitability for Mars is similar to that for photoelectric cells...

Anything that obscures exposure to the sky will reduce the effectiveness of the device, so countermeasures will be required.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-08-03 19:19:25

Grasses in a hay field have when groomed can be sold to local farms for feed but a forest can become the next structures materials at a lower cost to build from...So a careful replanting of some areas with grasses and some with trees makes sense to be doing.

Void · 2021-08-04 07:27:13

Louis, tahanson43206, and Spacenut,

Thanks for your attention.

I think it is good to look at possibilities. It is also good to re-evaluate what proper
grooming for the Earth should be. Fantastic opportunities for energy are just what
we need. I hope investors will help out these notions.

Done.

Terraformer · 2021-08-05 13:20:42

Wood can also be fed to cattle, if processed. Though with grass having the same productive and requiring little processing, it only makes sense to use it on a large scale in an emergency, to keep the herds alive and producing milk.

As far as paraterraforming is concerned, we already do that with polytunnels. I occasionally look at Baffin Island and think about enclosing it in bubblewrap. A lot of soil building will be needed to turn it into pasture for sheep, but...

Void · 2021-08-05 21:01:45

That could happen in some areas. I am mostly thinking of snow belt forests, that could do with fire breaks anyway. Many of these would be rather far north, and it might be desirable to introduce bison and other hardy creatures that do not need as much care, and yes to harvest them for food for people.

If we ever all become Vegan or Vegetarian then we would not do that, but as long as many of us eat farm meat, and fish, then I think moral objections would not qualify for merit.

So, a source of food, fire breaks, and diversity of species, and also reducing the heat of the Earth, by making sure vegetation is under snow, in the snow seasons.

Done.

Void · 2021-10-23 16:48:19

It would be good, if anyone who might comment on this post would seek to study this
Wiki article about brine pools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_pool

I am thinking of using them to benefit humans. Preferentially artificial ones, but
not excluding the possibilty of using a natural one.

In desalinating sea water, I think it is quite possible that humans are creating
artificial brine pools, or that they could.

It has recently become apparant to some that the "Natives" in many places managed
the land, often with fires. So, since we stopped that happen, then the results
we have now, are often regaurded as "Natural" by some so called consirvationists.
The results likely are much larger fires when they do happen. So, responsibility
calls for us to "Manage" the lands. That promotes diversity of life forms, and
reduces the magnitude of fires. I would also mention that grasslands covered in
seasonal snows, will likely reflect light back into space better than a forest
of evergreens that sticks up out of the snow beds. So, the logic of planting
trees to save the environment, is just a feel good gag, if the trees are evergreen.
It is my opinion that we should be converting some parts of evergreen forests to
grasslands.

I am a little less certain, that having pulled so much fish out of the ocean
has robbed it of nutrients, but I think it is rather possible. I read recently
that the organic "Snow" falling to the ocean depths, is about 1/2 of what it used
to be. So, big supprise, you interrupt the oceans food chain, and pull all kinds
of sea food to places where people will eat it, then perhaps less critical nutrients
returned to the sunlit portions. So, I presume less phytoplankton, and then less
zooplankton. And if this is true less fish, and less organic snow falling to the
ocean floors.

If this is true, then we have reduced the utilization of available photons, to
Capture Carbon, and release Oxygen, and produce the base of the food web. And
we have reduced the amount of Carbon interred into the ocean deeps. So, the problem
may not just be the production of CO2 by combustion, but the breaking of the Ocean
biological system.

In order to repair this we might try to use artificial and maybe natural brine pools,
in my opinion.

Brine pools are related to Antartic Dry Valley lakes in some cases, where photosynthesis
occurs under the ice, but further down where greater salted gradients of water,
may be warmer and also Anoxic. A problem for the green life in these lakes, is that
nutrients, have a hard time getting from the low layers to the upper layers.

So, I am proposing that two sorts of polution be combined. It is only polution if
it does not produce the results you want. I think that I have already established
that human activities have already likely made the oceans less biologically productive.

So, anyway the two types of polution to combine are output of brine from desalination
processes, and organic waste. That would include sewage from humans and animals.
Also, perhaps some types of garbage, but not plastics that are a problem.

The briny sewage, would quickly become depleated of Oxygen. So you dump it into a
brine pool. There it can remain as anoxic as is desired, and also as in a septic
tank, we interupt possible paracites that could infect fish and humans in some
paracitic cycles. The brine is likely to kill most of them, and the Anoxic
conditions will tend to also kill them.

We do want to entomb most of the organic matter, but we do not want to entomb the
nutrients. We want to try to get the nutrients out and into the higher laywers of
the oceans to promote phytoplankton.

Methane should be naturally occuring from this reservoir of slowly decaying organic
matter. A bit like fermenting such materials to give a source of Methane to
run a sewage treatment plant, or a fermenter in places like India. I would not be
worried much about the production of Methane. Almost certainly it will be consumed
by microbes with access to Oxygen. That would be in the more upper layers of the seas.

But there are a couple of other manipulations we could do.
1) Add some Oxygen to the brine pool, to encourage microbes to consume the organic
materials to the degree that in their process, the extract nutrients from the mateials.
This might happen in the upper layers of the organic matter. As more is added, lower
layers would be increasingly anoxic, and so the return of CO2 to the Oceans would be
inhibited to a controllable degree.
2) Heat the brine. It may be possible to heat it to up to 170-180 degF, as in a
solar pond. However it would be wise to only heat it to an optimal temperature to
encourage micobes which would leach nutrients out of the interred organic matter.

Although the heated brine, will tend to stay in place due to a heavy salt gradient,
it might be possible to put heat exchangers into this warm/hot brine, and extract
heat from it. Fresh water would certainly rise up pipes by natural convection.
Solar Salt Pond:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond

And you could have giant heliostats floating in the sea to produce the original heat,
or you might use scrap electricity from wind and solar. The Heliostats could be
built that they could be submerged in the presence of a really bad storm.

So, now you may have a septic tank to treat sewage and other organic matter, and
a thermal storage device.

So, then how about a altered version of OTEC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_the … conversion
I believe that it produces electric power, and also fresh water, and consequently
brine, I expect.

So, if you produce brine and then heat it up, and then add sewage, you could drop
that into the brine pool, and although I mentioned fresh water, I do believe that
you could run regular sea water into the heat exchangers in the brine pools, and
have the heat easily come up to where cooler layers of water existed.

A problem for the existing OTEC, is that you have to lift cold water from down
below, and that takes energy to pump it up. This would be quite different.

Most people live on the coasts, so most sewage must be there. Many costal people
need desalinated water, and that produces brine. I believe I have indicated a
use for it.

Another thing, if Methane were produced in the brine pool, then it may be possible
to degas it out of the brine and have a source of Methane. Maybe for rockets.

People on the coasts are the ones who have the most to loose, if it is true the Oceans will rise.

What do you think?

I will come back and try to clean up the spelling later, for now, I need a break.

Done.

I don't regretta this.

Void · 2021-10-24 09:18:51

Well this seems mostly good to me.

Reduced CO2 Steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdX5Hhk9r0

I frankly don't like the use of "Green". That is a color of Fascism. I prefer Red, White, and Blue.

Green also suggests people who figure a de-industrialized world, will allow them to rule over peasant classes. They can be gentlemen farmers. Those quite likely not people of eyes and hands, but of mouth and ear. Their cravings will be to get power with words by manipulating servant peoples. I am not so fond of them.

But OK, someone is manipulating objects instead of people, and perhaps producing steel that is less a harmful process. Good.

While "Not, Plunder the Earth" is mentioned in the video that is not quite what I want. This approaches the notion of eliminating industrial capabilities on which the health of the human societies has and will rely.

I say instead, that the load has to be redistributed to the Oceans and Space, and yes wherever possible replace an industrial practice with something which is less
destructive.

In the previous post I suggested something like a method that puts more of the
load to certain parts of the Sea's. I also mentioned Heliostats in the seas. It is pretty obvious that you could put heliostats on ships, and they can pivot to the sun. And you might manufacture Hydrogen or even better Methane with them or
heat a brine pool below, to have a more steady type of OTEC power system.

Anyway, the video was very interesting. One thing is sure, certain peoples in this world are highly inventive and capable in industry. Others seem not so much.

Who should we listen to? The ones who want to rule and cut down on your wealth, or the ones who serve and produce?

Oh, I guess I didn't mention the notion of solar propulsion for ships. That would be solar thermal. Of course wind and combustion method could also be included.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-24 09:32:27)

Void · 2021-10-31 13:03:15

In my opinion, this does apply to Earth,

This may apply to Mars some day.

Just have a think, (Solar film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGQAOeSnErs

Just putting this here, as it seems worth a look, and I want to comment on the notion
of playing "Binary Sports Games", with technology. Binary competition probably only
belongs in sports, or war. When dealing with technology, in my opinion, it is stupid
to choose a winner, and then chose to suppress other options.

An example would be Solar vs Nuclear Fission for Mars. You should have pilot programs
at least for each, when it can be afforded, as we can expect the answer for the question
"Which is the best", to continuously change, as technology updates in each. In order
for technology to update for each, they must be actively used technologies.

And of course others will possibly show up. Orbital Solar, (Various kinds), Geothermal,
Fusion. Since we cannot predict which will advance technologically very well, then
we just stub our toes, if we let specialist experts, who have trouble seeing the big
picture, have their hand on the direction things might be encouraged to go.

This also feeds into how to handle environmentalists/luddites.

I am very much in favor of improving the methods of production so that they are more
favorable to a good outcome for the world we live on and the worlds that humans should
also live on.

I am supportive of the notion of Jeff Bezos, where he thinks that the greater the
human population, the more creative individuals there can be. Many people are simply
Copy Cats. That is not necessarily wrong. We send people to training so that they
might copy, what has been produced as useful method. If those people are not so
creative, then it is best to encourage them to copy success. It is a benefit to
everyone.

I believe that Elon Musk, and others see the opportunity to expose humans to new
living situations, and that necessity is the mother of invention.

I think that things that are wrong about the "Stay at homers", is they would make
us miss out on what could be provided by exploration and expansion. Inventions
anywhere in many cases could cross over between worlds, and also trigger the making
of new versions of those inventions.

The Stay at homers, seem to have a wrong notion that they can tell us what to do, and
we will then do it. They can speak for themselves, and we might listen to such
opinions, but we are entirely correct in dismissing their cake eating desires if we
want to.

I think it very likely that those "Cake Eaters", are technologically challenged, and
linguistically gifted, (To a fault). They are used to telling other people to do things
that advantage them. To them life is a beautiful circle, everything is blessed by words.

Hierarchy to them is a blessing as well. Far beyond the needed amount for a linked
managed society. Having brought white skin to Europe from the Middle east, they were
very proficient at agriculture and words, very good at alpha male procreation, and
while they have quite a lot that is good to have, in many cases, in my opinion they
brought on dark ages.

For instance a conquering empire capturing nations, may be prosperous due to linking
various cultures, eventually alpha male breeding from the conquering people, eliminates
the human potentials that the other nations had. It is an alpha male jealousy. If they
see wealth, then they struggle to take it. Thus Multiplying their overrepresented genes.
In a similar fashion females in such a society stop having children. The societies
eventually start relying on foreign labor.

Greece, Rome, and now perhaps us down the line a ways.

The alpha male would often have the following qualities: Good verbal skills, good murder
skills, (Although that can be done in a hidden way), Pretty boys. (Actually stone age
attributes.

So the selection of stone age males, then breeds the nation back into the stone age.
A beautiful circle of life.

It is typically in more wild and less organized areas where other types of people can
persist. Civilization as seen in textbooks, should really be thought of as organized
cruelty. I am not anarchist. I simply say I would rather force civilization to higher
levels, and not allow the pretty boys, and their minions draw us downward.

You can look at a map of the world, and what I have said, is evident, at least to me.

Those places where talkers of violence rule, produce very little creative wealth, but
are glad to mimic killing methods of technology. Classic Alpha Male.

Not Smart, not Dumb.

But we could do better.

Done.

My spelling? It will irritate English teachers And I am lazy and need to go to
the gym anyway.

All right I cleaned it up a bit for (th)

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-31 13:11:41)

louis · 2021-10-31 17:26:13

Yes I recall you posting about this before. It does sound a very promising technology. Thanks for the reminder about it. Definitely one to watch.

Void wrote:

I believe that I posted this on the forum some other place but could not find it.
NovaSolix
http://www.novasolix.com/
Quote:
NovaSolix is developing the technology that will generate the cleanest and cheapest form of energy on Earth: rectifying antennas that convert light to electricity from the entire solar spectrum.
NANOSCALE ANTENNAS
NovaSolix’s carbon nanotube (CNT) antennas are small enough to match the nano-scale wavelengths of sunlight. Antennas can convert electromagnetic spectrum much more efficiently than photovoltaic (PV) cells. When perfected, NovaSolix antennas will capture far more energy from the sun, and far more efficiently, achieving near 90% efficiency (versus ~20% for PV).
NANOSCALE DIODES
NovaSolix has successfully manufactured the world's fastest diode – a critical component for energy conversion.
NANOSCALE MANUFACTURING
From the beginning, NovaSolix engineers have developed our products so that they can be manufactured using roll-to-roll advanced manufacturing techniques. At scale, these techniques ensure that NovaSolix’s products will be the cheapest form of energy on Earth.
WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT SOLAR ENERGY
Our solution, manufactured at scale, will enable solar energy to be produced at a cost per kWh less than fossil fuels.
What I have read and listened to indicates that their devices will be non-toxic,
will cost 10% of what existing solar panels cost, and will be 45% efficient, and
then later 90% efficient.
Of course they will need to actually do it.
So, if they achieve the 90% efficiency goal, is my mind correct to think that
some of the 10% will be reflected off, and some converted to heat?
If this topic has been followed by the reader, you know that I am interested in
shading soils, and also cooling the sky.
Solar panels are inclined to heat up, I presume, because they are so inefficient.
A Heliostat mirror should not heat up too much, if it is of high quality.
So, on small installations, it does seem to me that these new devices could be
good in gardens.
Might large installations create country "Cold Islands", and city "Heat Islands"?
Well my computer is bogging down.
Done

Void · 2021-11-01 11:44:29

Louis,

Yes.

We really don't know what types of farming will be the best in the times beyond now, as new technology will likely show up. But not so much if we choose only one path, and do not exercise the others.

Hydroponics, Aeroponics, soil farming?

Sunlight for Plants, or LED's.

I feel that the proper thing is to make sure to do something of each. Try them with different crops.

If something currently works the best for a crop, then do a lot of that, but do not drop research on the other options unless you must due to dire consequences of lack of resources.

If a 90% solar > electric shows up, then that will tilt towards LED's.

And of course that applies to any other breakthrough.

Done.

Void · 2021-11-16 14:12:36

You say you have a greenhouse gas problem? Climate Change?

Well, there is a solar energy method that might help with that. It is called Photosynthesis.

You have large tracts of ocean where the total amount of photons are not utilized to convert CO2 to organic matter and Oxygen, because there is not enough nutrition for the phytoplankton.

Maybe you most important solar panels would be ocean that you fertilized.

As for Methane, there is much evidence that microbes consume it, and produce CO2.

So, problem solvable without killing 6 out of 8 billion people, provided that it is possible for "Greens" to become rational.

Funny, they don't want green in the Oceans. Why not?

Done.

louis · 2021-11-16 15:51:18

Yes Void, I was very taken with this technology. 45% efficiency is just what we need! Will be transformative if it can be developed.

Remember that in many parts of the world, PV panels are already producing electricity much more cheaply than fossil fuels so not sure exactly what their claim is about cost.

I guess if you are taking the energy of the sun before it hits the ground you are creating a cold island. Presumably that effect would be observed with ordinary PV panel installations as well.

Void wrote:

I believe that I posted this on the forum some other place but could not find it.
NovaSolix
http://www.novasolix.com/
Quote:
NovaSolix is developing the technology that will generate the cleanest and cheapest form of energy on Earth: rectifying antennas that convert light to electricity from the entire solar spectrum.
NANOSCALE ANTENNAS
NovaSolix’s carbon nanotube (CNT) antennas are small enough to match the nano-scale wavelengths of sunlight. Antennas can convert electromagnetic spectrum much more efficiently than photovoltaic (PV) cells. When perfected, NovaSolix antennas will capture far more energy from the sun, and far more efficiently, achieving near 90% efficiency (versus ~20% for PV).
NANOSCALE DIODES
NovaSolix has successfully manufactured the world's fastest diode – a critical component for energy conversion.
NANOSCALE MANUFACTURING
From the beginning, NovaSolix engineers have developed our products so that they can be manufactured using roll-to-roll advanced manufacturing techniques. At scale, these techniques ensure that NovaSolix’s products will be the cheapest form of energy on Earth.
WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT SOLAR ENERGY
Our solution, manufactured at scale, will enable solar energy to be produced at a cost per kWh less than fossil fuels.
What I have read and listened to indicates that their devices will be non-toxic,
will cost 10% of what existing solar panels cost, and will be 45% efficient, and
then later 90% efficient.
Of course they will need to actually do it.
So, if they achieve the 90% efficiency goal, is my mind correct to think that
some of the 10% will be reflected off, and some converted to heat?
If this topic has been followed by the reader, you know that I am interested in
shading soils, and also cooling the sky.
Solar panels are inclined to heat up, I presume, because they are so inefficient.
A Heliostat mirror should not heat up too much, if it is of high quality.
So, on small installations, it does seem to me that these new devices could be
good in gardens.
Might large installations create country "Cold Islands", and city "Heat Islands"?
Well my computer is bogging down.
Done

SpaceNut · 2021-11-16 17:53:06

Thanks my brain came up with a combination idea from your post void. Sounds like a business to me.

Why not make floating islands where the purpose of the greenhouse is to process co2 from the ocean waters to supply the plants in a sealed unit made with the solar energy from thermal and PV panels to control positioning and access into the chamber. This would supply desalinated water for the plants and possibly a salt source to those wanting it.
There can be a variety of Biomes that can be made from farmed sea life to mass lands.

Void · 2021-11-17 12:43:38

That's pretty good Spacenut. Some places, it could be done.

However, I am thinking also about Open Ocean Aquiculture.

If you query for "Ocean Deserts", in my case, I get about two things.

1) Deep water anoxic situations.
2) Areas of the surface waters where relatively little life exists.

#1, could be considered God's gift, or Gia, if you are that way, or God's curse, or a Natural process. Anyway these things probably take Carbon out of the water and atmosphere, and entomb them into the sea bottoms.

By the way the bottom of the Black sea would be a nice place for European poop.

For #2, we are talking about places missing needed nutrients, and so not totally utilizing the full amount of photons available to fix CO2 into organic matter and Oxygen.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled … -70631104/

It is quite possible that CO2 could be abated using the addition of nutrients to places in the Oceans/Seas.

Experiments have shown that the addition of certain types of Iron Compounds can do it. You can read a book by none other than Dr. Zubrin. I forget which book. But Native Americans caused the experiment to happen. It did work. Naturalists stopped it. Jerks!

You need to be concerned that protest groups too often will align themselves with powers that don't have the interests of our peoples in mind, and so they get used to cause a lack of ability for our societies.

Judas Goats.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled … -70631104/

Know your Goats!

The objective of enemy powers is to make us weak so we can be ripe for rape.

Don't allow it.

The Sahara Desert with it's dust storms naturally assists fertility in the Atlantic Ocean.

https://earthsky.org/earth/iron-from-th … tic-ocean/
Quote:

Iron from Sahara dust helps fertilize Atlantic Ocean

So, it's natural? Well the goats that the inhabitants use to graze the flora, increase the desert. That's humans and their goats!

It's Goats, I tell you! :0

Point is, it is time to manage the oceans. We only now take nutrient out of the Oceans, and then we poop them into rivers, which creates anoxic deep Oxygen deprived deserts.

Believe that you are being messed with. They may not be doing it on purpose or they may, but they are getting in the way of rational solutions.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-17 13:01:50)

Void · 2021-11-17 17:49:34

Spacenut and others,

This is a very good read. Rather than to address phytoplankton, or land crops on the oceans, seaweed. Excellent. Peter Zeihan tweeted about it today.

https://ardwatalab.net/news-headlines/s … e-citizens
Quote:

Surf and Turf: How Seaweed Helps Cows Become Better Climate Citizens

As cattle feed, it will reduce methane emissions from cow burps and cow (OldFart1939).

It adds calories to the potential human diet, and produces Oxygen, removes CO2, and so on.

I have an ability to remember important facts from decades ago. I recall that growing things under about 6 feet of water works very well.
I think it filters out some of the harsh nature of sunlight.

So seaweeds planted on a frame, and kept underwater might work out even in the deep ocean. During storms this could be moved deeper.

This is much better than land crops as those would be hard to protect from storms and birds.
This is much better than phytoplankton>, as that then is eaten by zooplankton>, then small fish>, then fish the size humans might eat.
So four steps of calorie loss is worse than 2. Seaweed>Cows/Cattle.
Some Seaweed might be directly consumable by humans.

Also, it might be possible to farm https://phys.org/news/2017-10-inroads-f … acles.html.
Quote:

Study makes inroads toward farming gooseneck barnacles

I suppose they could be on the frame for the seaweeds. Need moving water though.

If the frame had floats then perhaps waves might provide the motion for moving water.

The Ecotopians will have to be bypassed to allow it and to allow the addition of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer
Quote:

Fertilizer

This would also be good news for Mars, the Moon and other such places, as I would anticipate that crops will be discovered or created that could be of use along with the techniques created for it.

So, basically our enemies desire to trick us into destroying our industry can be avoided, and greenhouse gasses can be sucked out of the sea and the atmosphere, or prevented from entering it.

Ecotopia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia

Done.

Also actually a way to help address world hunger.

The stupid way is to take money from the rich, and then inflate the food prices, and then line the pockets of politicians and even more slimy types.

The only way to produce more food would be to use the money to farm more marginal lands, and thus damage the soils and the wildlife.

Here, there are many places in the Ocean that do not utilize all the photons that enter the water.

So, Yes, Sanders, and the like have it all wrong.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-17 18:12:25)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-17 19:47:02

Many of those areas are the dead zones filled with plastics and trash of all types, Cleaning them will only fix one part of the problem as you still need to remove the toxicity of the water for life to come back. That harvesting of co2 and the water for fresh will do both things as its going to allow that that toxicity level to drop. As you indicated iron oxide would work to cause the acidic level to change as well.
This topic seems like a good business opportunity for those liking to the sea..

Void · 2021-11-18 13:38:32

Spacenut said:

Many of those areas are the dead zones filled with plastics and trash of all types, Cleaning them will only fix one part of the problem as you still need to remove the toxicity of the water for life to come back. That harvesting of co2 and the water for fresh will do both things as its going to allow that that toxicity level to drop. As you indicated iron oxide would work to cause the acidic level to change as well.
This topic seems like a good business opportunity for those liking to the sea.

I wish to seek to make more clean the statements above.
We might have:
1) Deep down anoxic dead places.
2) Plastics in the ocean were most of the estimated 80 million tons of plastics sink to the bottom. It is a form of pollution. How toxic the floating portion is could be up for debate. It is not a thing I am aware of that the floating plastics can strongly inhibit photosynthesis.
3) Places in the deep oceans where nutrients are in short supply. Therefor as Carbon sink that could be run by solar power is not fully activated.
4) The same as #3, but where nutrients needed, in many cases some forms of Iron, can more greatly activate a Carbon sink, if we were to add the missing nutrients.

* 1-4 may at time be adjacent, but I think it is the minority of times.

#4 is a way to dispose of excess CO2 by solar power, and to provide more food to humans.

It is necessary to keep in mind that the hive mind wants a problem that cannot be solved without making common people it's servants. That is not what they say, but that is what they want. To take away our ability to ignore them. And therefore to elevate themselves, in
the hive mind structure. This is mostly done verbally by those who have very little vision.

The oceans can really be good Carbon sinks, as you first have the phytoplankton. Then typically something eats that and then again and again, in a chain, or if you like a pyramid.

The light is towards the surface, but the eaters are deeper and deeper down. That means that if they consume something and exhale CO2, they put the CO2 further and further down in the water column.

This is not so true of what goes on on land.

And some of the detritus sinks all the way to the ocean bottom. The point is if a creature consumes food from above, that was created by a food chain in the sunlight, then much of the CO2 released by metabolism, will tend to be put into deeper layers of water.

That then in many cases may stay there for hundreds or thousands of years. The detritus, that falls to the bottom may in some cases stay there for an eternity.

------

I do think that by fishing the oceans and not putting the nutrients back in, we have been shutting down a Carbon sink, and that very likely
has contributed to the rising levels of CO2.

So, for those who think they live in a natural world with natural oceans, of course they are wrong. It is our responsibility to restore the nutrient balances of the Oceans, or even increase them, if that is necessary to preserve the Earth's habitability.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-18 13:54:50)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-18 14:53:20

The co2 sink works best when the ocean temperatures are not rising and in order to fix that we do need to remove some of its current co2 level in those zones as well as the rubbish that does block the light going deeper than 33 feet.

Void · 2021-11-19 11:52:29

Perhaps your comments were intended to prompt my thinking. They have. I find your post to be easily pushed aside. And truth is what we need. So.....

Quote

The co2 sink works best when the ocean temperatures are not rising and in order to fix that we do need to remove some of its current co2 level in those zones as well as the rubbish that does block the light going deeper than 33 feet.

This may take time, but you can be assured that I will respond in full.

To me what you have said is not sensible. We may remove CO2 from warm surface water, by adding nutrients so that photo-organisms will take the Carbon and release the O2.

On average, the floating garbage plastic does not shade the water that much.

------
It is not my fault that 3rd and 2nd world economies release so much plastics to the Ocean. Don't you dare to try to incriminate me for that!

It though being a fact, then we must consider it to be a real environmental situation at this point.

As I have previously said, I will likely spout many posts for this as I tire, and there is so much to consider.

-----

Ocean Gyres:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxserp=0

So, these do tend to collect plastic garbage. Much of the plastic garbage sinks. The plastic garbage apparently generates microplastics, and some toxic chemicals, that tend to reduce fertility, possibly a mimic of female hormones.

Nano plastics are an unknown.

However, microplastics are consumed by some organisms which cannot digest them and it can cause problems. Many Bacteria, including those in cows can at least partially handle them, digest them.

Darwinism may suggest that a new food source will cause life to adapt to consume it.

Anyway the shade from the amount of garbage to prohibit the entry of light into the Oceans is rather small on the large scales.

So, indeed, since it seems likely that cows can digest microplastics, and ocean garbage does not block light that much, what I have previously proposed can be considered.

I am not done at all. I don't like being given the bums rush on these things when the bullies don't even have any basic power of understanding. I will continue, trust me.

Done for now.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-19 12:05:44)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-19 13:36:26

Compared to the CO2 level in the air, below about 17°C the seawater CO2 decreases with increasing temperature, at a rate of about -2 ppmv per °C. Above about 17°C, however, the seawater CO2 content relative to the air increases fairly rapidly with temperature, at about +4 ppmv per °C.

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/ge … eb-l23.pdf

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html

dead zones oxygen deprived, I got it...

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/li … buted.html

Light in the ocean decreases with depth, with minimal light penetrating between 200-1,000 meters (656-3,280 feet) and depths below 1,000 meters receiving no light from the surface.

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/curr … ction5.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_zone

Void · 2021-11-19 18:31:23

Thank you for your patience Spacenut, thank you for the previous post. I did review it as much as my attention span allowed.

It seems to me and I presume to others that there is a difference between how land, which sort of includes rivers, and how Oceans handle things put on or into them.

This can be true for both plastic waste, and CO2.

Plastic Waste:

On land, I guess it still produces microplastics which are a concern to some. In advanced countries we hope that mostly this stuff is handled appropriately.

In some undeveloped countries, however it appears that plastic waste flows down rivers into the Oceans. Also some activities on the Oceans also produce plastic waste.

If plastic waste sinks which most of it does, then if it falls to a continental shelf, it may end up back on the shore in some cases. If it sinks into the deep ocean, it probably never shows up again, at least in the next hundreds or thousands of years.

Some floating materials eventually sink as well.

If plastic objects shed microplastic particles into the upper water column, then it is possible that Zooplankton which rises to the surface to feed at night will consume some of it even if they cannot digest it. Particularly if something is growing on it.

Now also dealing with CO2:

Zooplankton hides deep down in the day and rises in the night.

Images of Zooplankton:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=zooplankt … 0166159498

Wiki about Zooplankton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooplankton

Day/Night cycle:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 … %201989%29.
Quote:

In the most common form, zooplankton organisms actively feed in the productive euphotic zone during the night and migrate down to a few hundred meters depth during the day to mainly hide from visual predation (Lampert, 1989).

So, you see just with this, if the waters were induced by iron and other nutrients, to grow more Phytoplankton, then the Zooplankton will come up at night to eat those, and will hide down below during the day. While they are hiding down below digesting the previous nights meal, they will then exhale CO2 into the deeper layers of water, which are colder, and under more pressure, and so can better hold it.

I do realize that this trick could only be used to a limit, as too much CO2 anywhere with may make the waters more challenging for life.
Still for places which lack nutrients, it is unlikely that the CO2 in lower layers will be saturated.

It is likely that some Zooplankton that may have eaten micro plastic, will be eaten by fish and other creatures that hang around in lower layers of water.

So, in the Ocean we have a plastics and CO2 flow Top>Bottom.

And so, to some degree this scheme will store Carbon into fish waste that may be deep, deep in the ocean and may not even be again consumed. But also by this scheme, we then sequester CO2 into the lower layers of the Oceans, and that buys us time.

We already know that Hydrocarbons are going to become more expensive, or unavailable. We also know that China is not likely to stop burning coal, (They do not have the luxury of our shale oil and gas), and the Russians and Saudi's, are going to keep selling Oil and Gas.

Nobody wants to live in a shack with dirt floors, etc. So, if given an option they will burn Hydrocarbons. They will excuse themselves by saying that someone else created the problem.

So, we have some options:
1) We can hire Greta, to ask people to stop what they are doing, (And that might really damage their life style, if they did it).
2) We can invent new, better sources of energy.
3) We can utilize the excess photons in the oceans to grow food, and to sequester CO2 also in the lower parts of the Ocean. Some of that can be tolerated, until the human race gets Fusion/Fission, better solar, Space energy.

I will see if I have more to say later.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-19 19:00:14)

Void · 2021-11-26 13:41:03

Well, here we go, sort of what I said, but even better!

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2021 … on-neutral
Quote:

Is seaweed the future of flying?

A difference is that they submerge the seaweed at night and it absorbs nutrients from the lower cold water. Then they raise it to the sunlight in the day and "It grows 4 times as fast?".

Also this process would allow the protection of the gear from rough storms, by submergence, and also the Seaweed, may release CO2 into the water that is cold and lower down below, and in many places that water will not be rising back to the surface for a long time. So, that may be another way to reduce atmospheric CO2.

I have been thinking that SpaceX should not manufacture CH4 from water and CO2 on Earth, unless it wants the practice for Mars.

It makes more sense to get the CH4 from Natural Gas, and then to do green aquafarming similar to what is in this article. That may consume less energy.

If they want to deploy solar panels, then make that available to power grids.

------

For Mars, can we think to do this kind of farming?

Edible Kelp:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-kelp#1

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-26 13:45:02)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-26 14:17:59

Yes We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?

Scientists have found microplastics in 114 aquatic species, and more than half of those end up on our dinner plates. Now they are trying to determine what that means for human health. So far science lacks evidence that microplastics—pieces smaller than one-fifth of an inch—are affecting fish at the population level.

but for mars we will not have this issue.

For mars kelp farm raising the kelp into the sunlight we will need to mist the kelp to keep it from drying out while getting that extra sunlight.

edit
whats floating your oceans

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2021-08-03 15:00:49

Re: Terraforming Earth

#27 2021-08-03 15:22:22

Re: Terraforming Earth

#28 2021-08-03 17:33:22

Re: Terraforming Earth

#29 2021-08-03 19:19:25

Re: Terraforming Earth

#30 2021-08-04 07:27:13

Re: Terraforming Earth

#31 2021-08-05 13:20:42

Re: Terraforming Earth

#32 2021-08-05 21:01:45

Re: Terraforming Earth

#33 2021-10-23 16:48:19

Re: Terraforming Earth

#34 2021-10-24 09:18:51

Re: Terraforming Earth

#35 2021-10-31 13:03:15

Re: Terraforming Earth

#36 2021-10-31 17:26:13

Re: Terraforming Earth

#37 2021-11-01 11:44:29

Re: Terraforming Earth

#38 2021-11-16 14:12:36

Re: Terraforming Earth

#39 2021-11-16 15:51:18

Re: Terraforming Earth

#40 2021-11-16 17:53:06

Re: Terraforming Earth

#41 2021-11-17 12:43:38

Re: Terraforming Earth

#42 2021-11-17 17:49:34

Re: Terraforming Earth

#43 2021-11-17 19:47:02

Re: Terraforming Earth

#44 2021-11-18 13:38:32

Re: Terraforming Earth

#45 2021-11-18 14:53:20

Re: Terraforming Earth

#46 2021-11-19 11:52:29

Re: Terraforming Earth

#47 2021-11-19 13:36:26

Re: Terraforming Earth

#48 2021-11-19 18:31:23

Re: Terraforming Earth

#49 2021-11-26 13:41:03

Re: Terraforming Earth

#50 2021-11-26 14:17:59

Re: Terraforming Earth

Board footer