The Great Siberian Methane Melt is off and running

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 803

I'm just proposing this solution because it would be effective, and cost effective.

There are many solutions to global warming, but scalability and cost are the main real problems to implementation(excluding political inviability).

It would take a lot of fossil fuels to launch talcum powder into orbit.

While comparatively those same energy resources could be devoted to a deuterium based nuclear warhead and yield a much higher amount of dust without any radioactive fallout.

The reason it would yield zero(or near zero) radioactive fallout is because 2 deuterium atoms make helium with no neutrons left over for long term radioactivity.

A small amount of helium3 and a few neutrons maybe released, but it would insignificant when compared to the benefit of resources that were saved, and the level of global dimming that could be reached.

Remember, we have to assume that in worst case scenario, resources are scarce just as the climate is burning up. This solution solves the problem without requiring insane amounts of resources to accomplish the objective.

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3391

s0cks

Could you not blast, throw, or whatever, the dust into the air that would mimmick the amount from a nuclear warhead? So it may take weeks to do what a hydrogen bomb could do in an instant but hell, it'd be WAY safer. No?

Tanada

Gerben

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3391

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1151

Tambora

Toba

Paint me sceptical.

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1151

Let me add, anything blocking light to earth will reduce biological activity, plausibly increasing CO2 concetrations in the short term. Not to mention methane. Once the light returns it will be hotter.

Adding fertilisers to the sea are liable to simply suck all the oxygene out of the ocean as biological activity shoots up then it will be a race between the CO2 and O2 in the water to see what gives out first, but it will not increase the permiability of the ocean to absorb CO2. As soon as new water moves into the area the 02 will return and any dead matter will decompose releasings its carbon. The only vauguely sensible option would be too maintain very high concentrations in relatively isolated seas like the arcitic or mediteranian, creating a permenant anoxia preventing the decomposition of the biological matter. If you are to indulge in such insanity then there would be an argument for fishing for the most abundant and least edible sealife types to dump them in the anoxic ocean to spead up sequestering of carbon, say for example the krill.

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1472

dorlomin, how dare you suggest there could ever be any unintended consequences from schemes to micromanage the global climate!

//sarcasm off//

I (silly me) think we should stop exacerbating the situation before trying to "fix" it. But I'm 100% sure that as the enormity of the horror comes clear to many people, most will cast around for some such absurd quick fix. And, unfortunately, some of them will almost certainly be attempted, and they will almost certainly make the situation worse, perhaps much worse (consider the havoc already wreaked by various bio-fuel schemes).

Almost no one is saying, "Stop un-sequestering carbon now." But this is the bare minimum first step to even the dismal goal of a "sustainable" future.

Best to all.

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 803

My idea for setting off the deuterium is to use the equivalent of a very small, non-power producing nuclear fusion reactor.

It would be designed solely for the purpose of igniting fusion, and generating a nuclear blast using deuterium only as the fuel.

The way the cost issue could be neutralized is

1. The reactor wouldn't have to be big if power production, and hence efficiency were not an issue.

2. One reactor could set off an unlimited amount of fuel. Once you get the ignition, you can set off as much extra fuel as you want.

I know that this solution sounds horrendous, but what I'm envisioning is that people aren't going to do anyting meaningful until the very last minute. Also, at the same time due to climate changes and social instability, and resource depletion, resources for such projects will become extremely scarce.

Combine this with the fact that if methane and hydrogen sulfide escape in large amounts we're screwed. Game Over.

I can survive with a slightly higher risk of cancer. I can survive on less food. But I can't survive on no food, and very little if any water. I can't survive if clouds of H2S spread across the land.

If sunlight is decreased yes, that may mean less life. But if methane hydrates are released en masse, and H2S is released in massive quantities, I think the amount of life available will drastically decrease, much further.

It's looking at the lesser of two evils.

The ideal situation would have been for us to have started sequestering CO2 for the last 20 years. We should have switched to nuclear power, and begun extracting carbon from the air to produce our gasoline.

But our society didn't. Our society was selfish and ignorant. Controlled by petty greedy warmongers, who wanted nothing more than to extract all of the Earth's wealth for themselves for the few short years they had left on Earth.

What I'm proposing is not an ideal solution. It is a last ditch effort to prevent the end of the world. It is an attempt to undo the sins of several past generations who were uncaring or uninformed of the consequences of their actions.

So that is why I propose what I propose.

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3391

jbrovont · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jun 16, 2006 Posts: 701

I think the author was just extending the reader the kindness of allowing them to believe human's might not get wiped out. In the Earth's past when this happens, about 95% of species go extinct from the food-web collapse. Anatomically, we're a little on the big side to survive that kind of thing. You'de be in a much better way if you were an ant or possibly even a shrew.

Will there be survivable pockets where ecosystems persist? Sure...maybe - but will there be people living there at the time that have the skills, knowledge and tools necessary to survive there? I certainly hope so.

Cid_Yama

but will there be people living there at the time that have the skills, knowledge and tools necessary to survive there? I certainly hope so.

jbrovont,

You Cornucopian! Laughing

_________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues

eric_b

dohboi · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Dec 05, 2005 Posts: 1472

Based on the latest maps over at Cryosphere Today, the Beaufort Sea is now completely free of ice.

[url=]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/]CT[/url]

This is the sea that has enormous quantities of ice-bound methane (clathrates) locked on the ocean floor, but the floor here is relatively shallow.

This is bad.

Most are kept in place mostly by the enormous pressure from the sea above because of the great depth. Here in the Beaufort Sea, the contenental shelf is quite shallow and close to the surface. So the cold of the sea is much more important for keeping the methane in place here. The margin of error, so to speak, seems to be very thin--only a degree or two could trigger the "gun."

Exposing this sea to sun 24/7 for a number of weaks or months as is happenig now may lead to dramatic heating of these clathrates. If anyone has access to any studies going on there now, I would be very interested.