Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

Dook · 2016-04-18 17:33:42

We could place a thin and wide cloud of CO2 gas in between the sun and the earth to reduce our overall global temperature.

One lb of CO2 is 8.7 cu ft of gas. The Space Launch System (SLS) block 2 will be able to put 143 tons (286,000 lbs) into space. That comes out to 2.48 million cu ft.

Now, we don't really want a one foot thick wall of CO2 gas. We would rather have a thin and wide cloud instead of a thick and small cloud. The discharge nozzles on the front of the rocket would be rather small, maybe 1/8", so that it would discharge a thin layer of gas.

So, if we convert 2.4 million cu ft to cubic inches (multiply by 1728) we get 4.1 billion cu in, or an area that is 64,000" x 64,000" x 1" from one SLS launch. That's a cloud that is 5,333 ft x 5,333 ft x 1" thick, or about 1.1 mile x 1.1 mile, maybe 1" thick.

Now, I'll admit, a one mile by one mile expanding cloud of CO2 isn't much. I don't know the solar radiation calculations so I don't know how much it would reduce our global temperature. In five years, 10 total launches, we would have a CO2 cloud that is 11 miles by 11 miles and 1" thick.

I would keep the same schedule we've had with the space shuttle to keep it within NASA's current budget. If we could get Russia, the Europeans, and China to match us rocket for rocket it would help.

Someone check my math.

Last edited by Dook (2016-04-18 17:34:45)

SpaceNut · 2016-04-18 19:54:51

Welcome back its only been since 2006-06-21 when you last posted.....

Not sure the altitude above earth is but if its to high the soar winds would tend to blow it away slowly....

Dook · 2016-04-18 20:31:40

In between the Sun and Earth. Not in Earth's atmosphere, in space.

The rocket would be moving toward the sun so, initially, the CO2 cloud would be expelled from the rocket and continue on a course toward the sun. The solar wind would probably stop it and send it back toward the earth but it would take years to make it back to the earth. And, that would be a good thing.

We don't want it to be permanent.

Last edited by Dook (2016-04-18 20:32:39)

RobertDyck · 2016-04-18 22:30:54

Before you go nuts, realize Global Warming is often exaggerated. Advocates tend to take one extreme or the other: On one side deny global climate change all together, or at best claim it's all due to nature. Or the other side claims the sky is falling. I've heard "climate warriors" claim the planet is dying. Of course reality is in the middle. We have to do something, but not extremes that "climate warriors" would have you believe.

First, we're in an interglacial period. The planet has a "soft" oscillation between "minor" ice age and interglacial. The last major ice age ended the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. However, every 125,000 years or so there's a "minor" ice age. I put quotes around that because the "minor" ice age produced an ice sheet 10km thick (between 6 and 7 miles thick) over North America. During winter the north Atlantic froze, 30 metres thick, extending to the Straight of Gibraltar to the coast of North America.

Glaciers have been melting since the ice age ended. The planet is warming. Ice cores from Vostok Antarctica have been analyzed, global temperatures reconstructed. Between 1550 and 1855 the planet's temperature was slowly but steadily rising. The Industrial Revolution started 1855, since then the planet's temperature dropped. There were two spikes of global warming during World War 1 & 2, but it dropped until 1970. In the 1960s and '70s scientists were worried we were seeing the start of the next ice age, they seriously suggested dropping big thermonuclear bombs on polar ice caps to stop it. Then in 1979 one scientist published a paper talking about global warming. Scientists at the time thought he was nuts! They just spent two decades worrying about global cooling, but he talked of global warming? But they checked their data, and sure enough, the planet was warming since 1970. Industry burnt coal before 1970, with no scrubbers. All that soot and smoke blocked sunlight, causing cooling. During the mid-20th century people got concerned about the soot. At first factories built higher smoke stacks, but it just sent soot farther away. So people down wind who now got the soot complained. So engineers designed smoke stacks to create an up-draft, to draw smoke and soot into clouds. It worked, but that meant soot got into the stratosphere. That took a long time to settle out. Rapid global warming during the last 3 decades of the 20th century just recovered from 115 years of global cooling. If you look at the trend from 1550 to 1855, in year 2000 the planet's temperature matched what it would have been if humans hadn't messed with it.

The goal is not to return to the artificially frigid temperatures of the 1960s. That was the result of more than a century of man-made global cooling. And global warming slowed after year 2000. That means nature was pushing back against man-made global cooling. Once the temperature was back where it should be, nature stopped pushing back. That's what caused global warming to slow. But it didn't stop, and has sped up again.

Our planet is dynamic. Climate always changes, it's never static. We are in a warming period, recovering from an ice age. If you look at what past interglacial periods did, at its peak the global temperature will be between 4° and 6°C above the pre-industrial temperature. Last interglacial saw a peak of 6°C. So when politicians get together at a conference to debate whether to limit global warming to 1.5° or 2° above the pre-industrial temperature, I have to laugh! They don't know what they're talking about. Nature will not permit that. If you succeed in stopping global warming entirely, you will start the next ice age. Climate cannot ever be static, if it isn't warming then it's cooling. The goal should be to slow climate change, not try to stop it. If nature had it's way, the peak of 6°C above the pre-industrial temperature would take a couple millennia (thousands of years).

Another thing "climate warriors" like to talk about is CO2 levels. During every ice age it drops to 180 to 200 ppm. During interglacial periods, especially the beginning when most warming occurs like now, CO2 level rises to about 300 ppm. The problem is the last couple years it hit 400 ppm. That is high, but don't try to compare to 180. It's only 180 at the depth of an ice age. At this point nature would have it at 300 ppm. So it's a little high, and is a concern, but not as bad as some would have you believe.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-04-20 13:22:25)

Dook · 2016-04-19 13:43:21

I know all that. I was a science major in college but I'm a bit out of the loop now days. Whether it's natural or man-made is not the argument here. If the planet is going to continue to increase it's average temperature and we can do something about it, well, then we should.

A thin CO2 space "cloud" should work. CO2 deflects infrared. The real questions are:

How big of a cloud do we need to reduce the average global temperature 1 degree?

How long would the space cloud last?

Can we get other countries to help?

It's like you're saying "planet destroying comets are normal, just accept it and don't try to do anything about it. Don't worry. Be happy."

SpaceNut · 2016-04-19 18:48:26

I also think that the Ozone hole has a bit to do with the over heating as well as the UV is allowed in at a higher level which accelerates the melting granted not as fast as Infrared would be we are talking about the tipping point which we are trying to moderate.

I think for the amount of Co2 we would be hard pressed to get it from Earth but then again is it even possible to get whats needed from venus....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-20 12:18:24

RobertDyck wrote:

Before you go nuts, realize Global Warming is often exaggerated. Advocates tend to take one extreme or the other: On one side deny global climate change all together, or at best claim it's all due to nature. Or the other side claims the sky is falling. I've heard "climate warriors" claim the planet is dying. Of course reality is in the middle. We have to do something, but not extremes that "climate warriors" would have you believe.
First, we're in an interglacial period. The planet has a "soft" oscillation between "minor" ice age and interglacial. The last major ice age ended the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. However, every 125,000 years or so there's a "minor" ice age. I put quotes around that because the "minor" ice age produced an ice sheet 10km thick (between 6 and 7 miles thick) over North America. During winter the north Atlantic froze, 30 metres thick, extending to the Straight of Gibraltar to the coast of North America.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/images/m … ations.gif http://www.backyardnature.net/g/glaciers.gif
Glaciers have been melting since the ice age ended. The planet is warming. Ice cores from Vostok Antarctica have been analyzed, global temperatures reconstructed. Between 1550 and 1855 the planet's temperature was slowly but steadily rising. The Industrial Revolution started 1855, since then the planet's temperature dropped. There were two spikes of global warming during World War 1 & 2, but it dropped until 1970. In the 1960s and '70s Scientists were worried we were seeing the start of the next ice age, they seriously suggested dropping big thermonuclear bombs on polar ice caps to stop it. Then in 1979 one scientist published a paper talking about global warming. Scientists at the time thought he was nuts! They just spent two decades worrying about global cooling, but he talked of global warming? But they checked there data, and sure enough, the planet was warming since 1970. Industry burnt coal before 1970, with no scrubbers. All that soot and smoke blocked sunlight, causing cooling. During the mid-20th century people got concerned about the soot. At first factories built higher smoke stacks, but it just sent soot farther away. So people down wind who now got the soot complained. So engineers designed smoke stacks to create an up-draft, to draw smoke and soot into clouds. It worked, but that meant soot got into the stratosphere. That took a long time to settle out. Rapid global warming during the last 3 decades of the 20th century just recovered from 115 years of global cooling. If you look at the trend from 1550 to 1855, in year 2000 the planet's temperature matched what it would have been if humans hadn't messed with it.
The goal is not to return to the artificially frigid temperatures of the 1960s. That was the result of more than a century of man-made global cooling. And global warming slowed after year 2000. That means nature was pushing back against man-made global cooling. Once the temperature was back where it should be, nature stopped pushing back. That's what caused global warming to slow. But it didn't stop, and has sped up again.
Our planet is dynamic. Climate always changes, it's never static. We are in a warming period, recovering from an ice age. If you look at what past interglacial periods did, at its peak the global temperature will be between 4° and 6°C above the pre-industrial temperature. Last interglacial saw a peak of 6°C. So when politicians get together at a conference to debate whether to limit global warming to 1.5° or 2° above the pre-industrial temperature, I have to laugh! They don't know what they're talking about. Nature will not permit that. If you succeed in stopping global warming entirely, you will start the next ice age. Climate cannot ever be static, if it isn't warming then it's cooling. The goal should be to slow climate change, not try to stop it. If nature had it's way, the peak of 6°C above the pre-industrial temperature would take a couple millennia (thousands of years).
Another thing "climate warriors" like to talk about is CO2 levels. During every ice age it drops to 180 to 200 ppm. During interglacial periods, especially the beginning when most warming occurs like now, CO2 level rises to about 300 ppm. The problem is the last couple years it hit 400 ppm. That is high, but don't try to compare to 180. It's only 180 at the depth of an ice age. At this point nature would have it at 300 ppm. So it's a little high, and is a concern, but not as bad as some would have you believe.

It would appear that the next ice age is a threat to Canada, and the only way to save Canada would be through global warming to counter the next Ice Age. Otherwise its going to be buried under an ice sheet that is miles thick!

SpaceNut · 2016-04-20 17:14:29

Yes history can repeats its self. We also know that a runaway climate will cause canada to warm but with that the Sahara will grow in size and the Amazon rainforest to shrink....the ice caps will disapear and the sea water levels will rise....with all this some spicies will migrate while others will die out....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-04-18 17:33:42

Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#2 2016-04-18 19:54:51

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#3 2016-04-18 20:31:40

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#4 2016-04-18 22:30:54

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#5 2016-04-19 13:43:21

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#6 2016-04-19 18:48:26

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#7 2016-04-20 12:18:24

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

#8 2016-04-20 17:14:29

Re: Space Carbon Dioxide Cloud to Reduce Global Warming

Board footer