From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 21:27:13 MST
> Did they not wait around for the US to
> point out that the emperor was naked as a boiled egg?
'Gene wrote:
>Aargh. Don't you see the big chances redicing the CO2 emission is
>giving us? Spike, think solar satellites. Think beaming power from the
>Moon.
Beaming power from the moon would cause
more global warming than elevated CO2, bud.
>Think hydrogen economy, cheap photovoltaics, pipelines, storage,
>hydrogen as synthetic agent, fuel cell cars, artificial photosynthesis,
>and scooby dooby do. This is tech waiting to be developed, and be
>exported for los muchos dineros.
Oh, well, if you put it *that* way... {8^D
My contention is that reducing emissions is perhaps
one solution to increased CO2, but not necessarily
the best, and that increased CO2 is not necessarily
the problem to start with. The Kyoto agreement is
just a bad idea any way I read it.
> spike wrote:
>
>>Of course it is an ambitious project, but there
>>is no hurry. We do not need to have it finished
>>before the singularity. It can be a 300 year
>>project, eh? Or 3000. spike
>
>Robert J. Bradbury wrote:...Spike's
> mass-balance analysis thus far only deals with the C and
> doesn't deal with the H.
True, the H comes from photosynthetic decomposition of water.
The assumption is there is plenty of water on the planet to
supply a couple H atoms for each C. Keep in mind however
that most of the water used by a plant is not decomposed
but rather reenters the atmosphere to fall as rain elsewhere.
> As he points out we don't do
> a heck of a lot to sustainably regulate water distribution
> currently. But if in order to supply the H2O for maximal
> growth to the area he decribes it is necessary to install
> and maintain drip irrigation for all the trees then it is
> quite a different scale project than simply planting the
> number of trees he suggests.
Well, a drip irrigation system is a bit more sophisticated
than I had in mind. If the ground is minimally shaped to
retain moisture, the piping system required is not so
daunting. Consider for instance the fact that much of
the currently unused land will support little if any
life because steep slopes do not hold moisture. It looks
to me like the steep land could be effectively terraced
so that the snowmelt would not drain uselessly to the
sea but would be trapped for trees to use, with minimal
attention required from scarce humans. Humans are scarce
for two reasons: 1) they are expensive, and 2) the planet
doesnt have nearly enough of them. Get with it extropians,
breed more.
> I question the 300/3000 year time frame -- by then one may
> have destroyed many island habitats.
Wait, we are not out of tricks. We can sequester water
as well as carbon. We have mentioned overfilling inland seas
and perhaps creating new inland seas. Another idea would
be to sequester water on the Antarctic continent. Antarctica
is the dryest continent, however my intuition tells me that
there must be rivers somewhere under all that snow and ice.
Could we not build dams there and divert the water inland,
into some basin, in which the water would freeze? Almost no
animals would be slain thus, for almost nothing lives down
there. Surely we could spare a few polar bears and penguins,
eh? Transplant em to the arctic or something.
The Sahara is another great place to sequester water
and start a new forest. There is practically nothing
useful there now. There is a water source available:
build a covered canal the width of Africa, east-west,
and divert the Nile into that. Take water out of the
canal to water the new forest. The soil isnt great
out there but we can work with it. The jobs created
would pump money into African economies that desperately
need it.
> Spike needs to make
> a strong assertion that it is morally reasonable that driving
> that big truck of his may flood some island paradise (e.g.
> the Mauritius).
OK, I strongly assert that it is morally reasonable. {8-]
Keep in mind a few important facts. 1) we could
maintain the sea level by sequestering water for a long
time, 2) we could build floating islands and anchor them
to submerged landmasses, then take lifeforms from the
existing tropical paradises, and 3) I like my truck.
Robert, much of the naysaying by the greens assumes
we cannot do a lot of the things that we really can
do, without great difficulty. It assumes we cannot
transplant species and cannot risk extinction of
even one species. But of course we can transplant
species, and some will become extinct regardless of
what we do. We might as well make the most of it.
Or not: we can save a lot of species on floating
artificial tropical islands.
The greens are merely nattering nabobs of negativity.
> This may touch upon the recent thread
> by J. Hughes on Singer's "One World" perspective.
> The "tragedy of the commons" is going global.
Singer's One World perspective demonstrates a
deplorable lack of imagination. Consider:
[Singer's] "One World'' opens with an
analogy between terrorists who fly
planes into skyscrapers and drivers
of sport utility vehicles who engage
in less deliberate killing by contributing
to global warming.
Well fer crying out loud. I suppose Singer would then
be forced to argue that the planet had *less* life
during the Jurassic, when there was no ice, more water,
more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures.
I firmly believe otherwise.
Global warming would help melt back some of that
useless ice, create *more* land for animals
to live on, *more* plant life for them to devour,
warmer temperatures to support *more* life, not
less.
Singer shamelessly picks on well-meaning SUV drivers,
who selflessly sacrifice and contribute more of
their paychecks at the gas pump in order to set that
carbon free, providing more CO2 for plants to
breathe, which supports wildlife everywhere, and
life in general.
And besides, they like their trucks, evolution bless em.
> It is unclear
> to me how much the impact of rising sea levels/temperatures
> and increased storm frequency will be.
If humans did their water control correctly, storms
would really be very little problem. Think of them
as a cheap and fast way to get water inland, where
it can be useful.
> I'm moderately certain that there are perhaps two ways to
> solve this. The first would involve solar ponds designed
> to produce methane, which in turn can be converted to
> hydrogen in reformers, that can be supplied with salt water
> to grow engineered phytoplankton over much of the rangeland
> of the U.S. southwest.
That is a possibility, however I still like the tree
idea, because it is easily reversible. If we find
it isn't such a good idea to draw down CO2, if we
find the atmosphere hasn't enough of it, then we can
put a torch to the trees. Or burn them to generate
power.
I suspect we will learn that the planet is healthier
if we have the same or higher CO2 level than it had
during the good old dinosaur days.
> These paths are *not* going to make the environmentalists
> happy. But I am reasonably certain they will solve the problem
> of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
That assumes increased CO2 is a problem. Im not
convinced. Sounds like a solution to me. I guess
I can live with a bunch of unhappy environmentalists.
Hey Im an environmentalist too. I just think we can
improve on the one we have.
> No offense is intended towards Spike by these comments
> (I presume he knows that coming from me). Robert
Robert I would never suspect you of intentional
offense. I find it encouraging you would think
these things thru and write that cool paper. {8-]
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:32 MST