Here’s a good thread that discusses seriously the feasibility of reducing the solar influx. Since the panels are built for refracting the sunbeams off the Earth, the panel armada can be tilted to increase the influx if needed. The signature vanilla echoes all my thinking on remedying global warming.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1849&start=1
Could it really be that Nasa has this in mind when they are planning for for a lunar base ?

The connection between global warming and FF can be somewhat hard to make in pledges and fundraising, not to mention the space propellant application..which could be used for launching panels to the Lagrangian point L1

Hi Elling.  Just moved your post from this thread to here.  That thread was more about strategies to leverage weblog topics for awareness. 

A discussion of global warming itself and ways to deal with it fits better in this environment section.

I don

Focus fusion will obviously fight global warming by cutting and eventually eliminating CO2 production from fossil fuels.  But it will also help in another important way.  By dramatically cutting the cost of energy, FF will free up trillions of dollars per year for other purposes. One such purpose is tropical reforestation.  The tropical rainforests act as giant air conditioners for the earth.  The plant life recycles water vapor into the atmosphere something like six times before it finally goes to the sea. In each recycling the water vapor condenses as clouds, radiating part of its heat into space and also shielding the earth from some solar radiation. In addition the energy poured into the atmosphere increases circulation worldwide and contributes to higher rainfall and cloudiness elsewhere.  All of this cools the earth.

Tropical deforestation is a big contributor today to global warming. Reforestation can help reverse that climate change quickly.

And hey fusion powered desalination could definitely help with reforestation and de-desertification. Look at it like this, there are so many ways extremely cheap non-polluting energy could help that I’m sure we all could not even think of them now.

Well my friend, while the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.

Concerning cement manufacturing and CO2 production:

It’s true that you have to burn fuel to produce calcium oxide from calcium carbonate and both the burning of the fuel and the lime itself does produce CO2.

But…. The CO2 driven from the lime is reabsorbed when the cement sets. So you are left with only the fuel burning component as a net positive CO2 event. This was a big problem with that Bio-dome thingy; where several individuals tried to live in a sealed environment for a protracted period of time. Turns out that the cement used in the dome construction had not fully cured, and was still absorbing CO2. Plants couldn’t live without the CO2 -> plants couldn’t produce oxygen -> humans couldn’t breathe. They ultimately had to open the windows for this reason.

Sort of ironic, don’t you think? That the first “greenhouse earth” experiment failed due to an inadequate ammount of CO2 in the air.

JimmyT - 26 May 2008 12:45 PM

Sort of ironic, don’t you think? That the first “greenhouse earth” experiment failed due to an inadequate ammount of CO2 in the air.

Thats really funny :D
Do you have any reference to this experiment - its hard to find something with these keywords “greenhouse earth” ?

Well, if you will accept a Wikipedia reference.

Look up “biosphere 2”

Under the section labeled “first mission”  about paragraph 6

Of course they word it a little bit differently then I do.  But I do believe it would have worked out O.K. if it hadn’t been for the CO2 absorbtion.  The plants would have produced plenty of oxygen if they had had enough CO2.

Sorry, I knew that “greenhouse earth” wasn’t quite the right name, but I was too lazy to look it up at the time.

The other way FF will help is when Global Cooling starts marching the ice sheets down again, or the Maunder Minimum/2 starts (may have begun already).  Then FF plants can be set to producing as much heat as possible, maybe by boiling water/ice from advancing glaciers.  (H2O is the exact equivalent of CO2 for greenhousing, just 20X as abundant in the atmosphere.) 

Or by heating and thereby releasing the frozen methyl hydrate deposits on the ocean floors here and there to dump huge quantities of methane into the upper atmosphere (an excellent greenhouse gas, much more efficient than CO2!) 

Brian H - 23 June 2008 01:43 AM

H2O is the exact equivalent of CO2 for greenhousing

No. It isn’t. CO2 absorbs spectra that H2O doesn’t & vice versa. CO2 has a complete blockout of infrared radiation in a band where H2O doesn’t absorb any, and again - vice versa This is why a positive feedback cycle from an increased CO2 concentration is a crucial concept to understand.

H2O’s long-term atmospheric concentration is based solely on temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron relation) with any deviations quickly resolving away through either evaporation or precipitation. There is no such “quick fix” process for atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is why water vapor is referred to as a passive feedback agent.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

This has been known for over 40 years.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0477312
Report Date : Feb 1962

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

2007’s dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008.

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) needs to drop considerably to be considered the driver of 2007 cooling.

Satellite measurements show no dramatic drop in TSI over the past several years. Instead, the solar cycle is following its usual 11 year cycle, flattening out as it reaches solar minimum.

The moral of the story - don’t use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends.

 
Why are you so desperately clutching at straws to avoid acknowledging repeatedly, independently validated scientific research?

Viking Coder - 23 June 2008 06:53 PM

Brian H - 23 June 2008 01:43 AM

H2O is the exact equivalent of CO2 for greenhousing

No. It isn’t. CO2 absorbs spectra that H2O doesn’t & vice versa. CO2 has a complete blockout of infrared radiation in a band where H2O doesn’t absorb any, and again - vice versa This is why a positive feedback cycle from an increased CO2 concentration is a crucial concept to understand.

H2O’s long-term atmospheric concentration is based solely on temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron relation) with any deviations quickly resolving away through either evaporation or precipitation. There is no such “quick fix” process for atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is why water vapor is referred to as a passive feedback agent.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

This has been known for over 40 years.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0477312
Report Date : Feb 1962

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

2007’s dramatic cooling is driven by La Nina which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature and should recede in mid-2008.

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) needs to drop considerably to be considered the driver of 2007 cooling.

Satellite measurements show no dramatic drop in TSI over the past several years. Instead, the solar cycle is following its usual 11 year cycle, flattening out as it reaches solar minimum.

The moral of the story - don’t use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends.

 

Brian H - 23 June 2008 10:55 PM

It fails the reasonableness test on many, many levels.

Your, possibly willful, lack of understanding does not refute the accumulated scientific knowledge. The theory of evolution through natural selection fails the reasonableness test of creationists on many, many levels.

Brian H - 23 June 2008 10:55 PM

What CO2 emissions caused the warmth in Greenland circa 900 AD when the Vikings named it?

http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

This argument is based on the idea that as climate has changed naturally before, current climate change must be natural also. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the main driver of climate during the Medieval Warm Period (e.g. - solar variations) cannot be causing global warming now.

Brian H - 23 June 2008 10:55 PM

How is it that a vastly more plentiful equivalent molecule, H20, which evaporates into and remains in the atmosphere much more strongly in warm periods, does not overwhelm the quantitatively puny effects of CO2?

I’ve already answered this question for you in two separate threads on this forum. That is the mark of a denier, asking the same question question repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge the answer. Water cycles through the atmosphere relatively quickly, weeks rather than decades.

Brian H - 23 June 2008 10:55 PM

There have been NO declines in CO2 emission over historical times, yet climate swings much wider than anything experienced recently have happened repeatedly.

That is an entirely false statement. The historical temperature swings, which occurred over tens of thousands of years rather than decades, were accompanied in lockstep, offset by a few centuries, by atmospheric CO2 concentration swings and were caused by the Milankovitch Cycles, increasing & decreasing total solar irradiance due to planetary orbital cycles. The CO2 swings were to due decreased & increased oceanic net absorption from the temperature swings and were a passive feedback agent rather than a forcing agent.

Brian H - 23 June 2008 10:55 PM

your beloved

Viking Coder - 24 June 2008 12:37 AM

 

This whole global warming argument certainly reminds me of the hubub over CFC’s and how they were going to ruin the ozone layer.  The “enviromental”  lobby forced their will on US business and US people in the form of legislation which cost consumers billions and billions of dollars. 

  The whole thing is now known to be bad science with wrong conclusions. 

  Who do we see about that?

  I haven’t heard any appoligies from any of the folks who foisted this scam on the public.  They all just walked away “oh never mind”.  They had the best of intentions, you see.

  I think the reason that so many people remain passive about this topic is that they think this argument doesn’t affect them personally.  If only they knew the damage and cost that a wrong conclusion about man made global warming was really going to cost them.  Carbon footprint taxes.  Biofuels using edible grain as feedstock resulting in higher food prices.  Whole forests of palm trees being clear cut for palm oil.  Government telling me what kind of lightbulbs I may and may not use.  What kind of car I can drive, etc, etc.

Brian, this also reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.  If you are not one of the annointed few who understand the problem;  Why you’re just a denier.  Don’t you dare try to argue.

The Emperor is truly naked.

There is a growing body of literature which refutes this notion of man made global warming.   

If you go to Amazon.com and type in global warming.  Most of the first dozen or so books which appear fall into this catagory.
Are all these authors all deniers too?

It’s difficult and dangerous to refer entirely to studies paid for by our tax dollars.  We have been paying researchers to produce papers “proving” global warming for decades. 

And sure enough,  They do.

Perhaps the wise thing to do in this forum would be to avoid this topic entirely.  Both sides want focus fusion to succeed.  Right?

But I am somewhat resistant to self proclaimed experts trying to govern my life.

There is some severe irony in the ‘father of modern chemistry’ being the namesake of a group denying scientific knowledge & theory which is heavily based on chemistry based on nothing more than strength of belief.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Artorius/sci-creat.gif

The difference between The Lavoisier Group and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier is that Lavoisier had quantitative scientific research, that was then independently validated, to support his dismissal of the phlogiston theory which didn’t have supporting scientific research. The Lavoisier Group is attempting to dismiss repeatedly independently validated quantitative scientific research with the same tired partial-truths, outright myths & bluster that their US counterparts are using.

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/Lavoisier0104.html

This body is devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics, discovered by among others, the famous French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.

JimmyT - 24 June 2008 07:26 AM

The whole thing [CFCs] is now known to be bad science with wrong conclusions.

Please reference that claim.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4010-earths-ozone-depletion-is-finally-slowing.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003JD003471.shtml (paper referenced in the article)

Almost 30 years after it was first reported that pollutants were destroying the Earth’s protective ozone layer, there is clear evidence that the global CFC ban has had an impact.

For the first time, it has been shown that the rate of ozone depletion in the upper stratosphere - 35 to 45 kilometres up - is slowing down. “This is the beginning of a recovery of the ozone layer,” says Michael Newchurch, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who led the new research.
...
The role of CFCs in ozone depletion was proved in 1974 - the scientists involved later won the Nobel Prize for chemistry.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/index.html

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995
Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland
“for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone”

JimmyT - 24 June 2008 07:26 AM

If you are not one of the annointed few who understand the problem; Why you