Western Antarctica Melting

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Teraforming Mars would be a lot easier that giving it an artificial magnetic field. All you really need to do is mobilise the subsurface gases, and/or bombard it with diverted Kuiper Belt objects. Read Zubrin!

or the Liberal party environment policy

Didn't say that......, didn't say that

[noeyedeer (Matt)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

or the Liberal party environment policy

Didn't say that......, didn't say that

hahaha .. only if corporate business survive :/

matt

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Teraforming Mars would be a lot easier that giving it an artificial magnetic field. All you really need to do is mobilise the subsurface gases, and/or bombard it with diverted Kuiper Belt objects. Read Zubrin!

I remember reading somewhere that in order to terraform Mars properly, one of the things that would have to be done is to build huge factories manufacturing Chloro Fluoro Carbons and pumping them straight into the atmosphere since, unlike the dud CO2 that blankets Mars, CFCs are superb greenhouse gases.

Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see who colonises Mars first. The Project Orion nuclear rocket technology from the 1950s will be employed one day by someone, and that makes the whole exercise feasible. While people fiddle around with chemical rockets, it's just pie in the sky stuff.
Regards,
Renato

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Project Orion was for interstellar travel. A fission-powered electric thrust engine would be sufficient for Mars travel.

Not sure what you mean about CO2 being a dud GHG. Venus says otherwise...

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Renato1

unlike the dud CO2 that blankets Mars, CFCs are superb greenhouse gasses

Renato, I would advise caution wrt to the greenhouse efficacy value statements pertaining to CO2 implicit in your sentence above. Whilst it is true that there are gases with far higher opacity to infra red radiation than CO2 (Methane is 20x more effective for example) It does not logically follow that atmospheric CO2 has zero effect on a planet's heat holding capacity. It can actually have a disastrous impact if you intend to live there ... Venus is an example.
As a slight tangent to validate CO2's ability to absorb infra red light, consider this; Once upon a time I was employed as a process analyser technician, one of the process analysers I was responsible for was used to measure the concentration of CO2. The opto-mechanical device used to measure CO2 basically employed an infra red light source and complimentary detector referenced against a sealed chamber (purged of CO2)
Implicit in this is that CO2 has a capacity to absorb infra red radiation that is so well understood that the petrochemical industry trusts it to the extent that they rely upon it as a calibration reference standard.

[casstony]

Regardless of which side of the GW argument one is on, does it hurt to play it safe and adopt renewable technologies, just in case we're wrecking the planet for our kids?

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Renato, I would advise caution wrt to the greenhouse efficacy value statements pertaining to CO2 implicit in your sentence above. Whilst it is true that there are gases with far higher opacity to infra red radiation than CO2 (Methane is 20x more effective for example) It does not logically follow that atmospheric CO2 has zero effect on a planet's heat holding capacity. It can actually have a disastrous impact if you intend to live there ... Venus is an example.
As a slight tangent to validate CO2's ability to absorb infra red light, consider this; Once upon a time I was employed as a process analyser technician, one of the process analysers I was responsible for was used to measure the concentration of CO2. The opto-mechanical device used to measure CO2 basically employed an infra red light source and complimentary detector referenced against a sealed chamber (purged of CO2)
Implicit in this is that CO2 has a capacity to absorb infra red radiation that is so well understood that the petrochemical industry trusts it to the extent that they rely upon it as a calibration reference standard.

CO2 absorbs a tiny part of the infra red spectrum, other gases absorb in different and more energetic parts of the spectrum. I don't think I'm saying anything unknown about relative efficiency of greenhouse gasses.

Mars has ridiculously more CO2 on it than earth does. But when illuminated by what is effectively earth twilight light on it - if you want earth like conditions there - you need a much better greenhouse gas there.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Project Orion was for interstellar travel. A fission-powered electric thrust engine would be sufficient for Mars travel.

Not sure what you mean about CO2 being a dud GHG. Venus says otherwise...

Hi Barry,
In those more innocent times, when they were mucking around with the nuclear devices - they had plans for making nuclear spaceships to take off from the earth and do a quick trip to Saturn and back - punching right through directly to it, no need for all the mucking around picking up energy from looping around planets.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. - I just remembered, the original intent of Project Orion wasn't to discover a means of space travel off the earth and to the stars, that was just a happy by-product. The original purpose was to develop a launch platform that flew to over the USSR to deliver 5000 nuclear weapons in one hit. One has to admire mankind's ingenuity.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Regardless of which side of the GW argument one is on, does it hurt to play it safe and adopt renewable technologies, just in case we're wrecking the planet for our kids?

I think that would be an issue for a separate thread.
Regards,
Renato

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Mars has ridiculously more CO2 on it than earth does. But when illuminated by what is effectively earth twilight light on it - if you want earth like conditions there - you need a much better greenhouse gas there.
Cheers,
Renato

I think terra forming Mars is completely unrealistic within a time frame and technology base that is conceivably relevant.
Taking that as a priori (which is optional) the argument then reduces to how best to manage the life holding capacity of the planet we are on. De-Terra forming it whilst there is no alternative (by significantly altering the atmosphere) would seem to be a somewhat less than ideal use of our remaining collective resources.

But I suppose to accept that argument it would require accepting the premise that we face an unprecedented existential crisis. Clearly, not everyone agrees upon this or even the methodology appropriate to determine whether it is the case or not... The default position (business as usual) will no doubt continue until the natural limits of our environment are reached. In an economy predicated on continuous exponential growth in a finite system, the question reduces to that of 'when' as opposed to 'if' it will happen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the preservation of modern society... I will not shed a tear for its passing, that is not to say that some elements are not worth preserving. I just don't believe that what (or who) survives the coming conflagration will be determined on merit. ... which is sad.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

I think terra forming Mars is completely unrealistic within a time frame and technology base that is conceivably relevant.
Taking that as a priori (which is optional) the argument then reduces to how best to manage the life holding capacity of the planet we are on. De-Terra forming it whilst there is no alternative (by significantly altering the atmosphere) would seem to be a somewhat less than ideal use of our remaining collective resources.

But I suppose to accept that argument it would require accepting the premise that we face an unprecedented existential crisis. Clearly, not everyone agrees upon this or even the methodology appropriate to determine whether it is the case or not... The default position (business as usual) will no doubt continue until the natural limits of our environment are reached. In an economy predicated on continuous exponential growth in a finite system, the question reduces to that of 'when' as opposed to 'if' it will happen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the preservation of modern society... I will not shed a tear for its passing, that is not to say that some elements are not worth preserving. I just don't believe that what (or who) survives the coming conflagration will be determined on merit. ... which is sad.

Hi Clive,
In a mere 500 million years, some say possibly only 250 million, the sun will make the earth uninhabitable. It will be case of go to Mars or die.

Possibly they won't be as touchy about using nuclear rockets in the future when it's a life or death scenario.
Regards,
Renato

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Hi Clive,
In a mere 500 million years, some say possibly only 250 million, the sun will make the earth uninhabitable. It will be case of go to Mars or die.

Possibly they won't be as touchy about using nuclear rockets in the future when it's a life or death scenario.
Regards,
Renato

Are you really that certain that the Human Race will be around then
I won't even give it another hundred years.
Cheers

[andyc (Andy)]

Whoopee, another Renato vs science thread

In this episode, Renato conflates two unrelated research papers in order to cast doubt on the mechanisms within one of them, confusing deep (25-40km) magmatic activity in a small area with no present-day active eruptions, with actual volcanic eruptions. Eruptions apparently large enough to accelerate the flow of a whole ice sheet, not in the area relevant to the paper, only happening recently and somehow completely unobserved! Presumably in Renato's world, volcanoes are accelerating glacier melt everywhere in the world, including Greenland? Though you said it was the Sun last time... Of course in the other paper, it couldn't possibly be the observed ocean warming increasing the flow of ice towards the sea!

Then Renato appears to think that CO2 is an unimportant greenhouse gas, which is a real mystery to all atmospheric physicists since the late 19th Century! As the most important non-condensing greenhouse gas, we fiddle with this temperature control at our peril (what if we remove CO2, Lacis et al 2011) (CO2 control knob, Alley 2009)

It is once again, Renato vs every relevant science academy on the planet. The answer's simply ABC... Anything But CO2

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Hi Clive,
In a mere 500 million years, some say possibly only 250 million, the sun will make the earth uninhabitable. It will be case of go to Mars or die.

Possibly they won't be as touchy about using nuclear rockets in the future when it's a life or death scenario.
Regards,
Renato

Complete twaddle. If we were around in 250million years, which is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, the species and, in deed, the planet as a whole, would be so different as to make this statement meaningless.

Lets try just one fact. Humans got airborne about 100 years back. In 250 million years technology would hopefully have progressed far enough to make nuclear rockets unthinkably primitive. Hell, I for one would beam outta here in my TARDIS!

I'd also suggest that moving another couple of dozen million kms further out would be an exercise in Numnut thinking.... Outta the fire and back into the frying pan..... REALLY??????

If Tonys comment:

Originally Posted by casstony

Regardless of which side of the GW argument one is on, does it hurt to play it safe and adopt renewable technologies, just in case we're wrecking the planet for our kids?

....needs to be the topic of another thread, according to Rennto, then this load of fiction needs to be on another forum like "Lets talk Scientology"

[clive milne]

Come on guys... being inflammatory is the quickest way to get a thread closed and your point not heard.

[Astro_Bot]

It might be useful to share this ...

Some years ago, at some mining promotion/recruitment/PR event, I struck up a conversation with one chap who, through no subterfuge of mine, mistakenly thought I was a mining PR rep. He was in such a role (I don't know which company) and he mentioned how difficult it was to "sell" mining to the public, especially in Sydney. What he then said, obviously after having had a beer or three, was that selling the anti-climate change message was even harder - he'd never been given a harder task, he said. He said it didn't matter how many bloggers you hired, or how many radio jocks you bought, it seemed people were generally going to believe that climate change was real. He asked me how tough I was finding it, at which point, since I couldn't think of anything to say, I made my excuses and mingled.

At another event (nothing to do with mining), I was engaged in conversation by a chap who said he was sometimes an event speaker/presenter - his main job was career transition advice - he wasn't speaking at this event, just advising. Now this chap introduced the subject of climate change early in the discussion and, suspecting something was up, I played dumb. He spent a good five minutes mis-quoting pretty much every major scientific finding and inserting a few outright fabrications - in an offhand manner - finishing off with, "So you see, global warming is just a fad. It'll disappear in a year or two. Why should we sacrifice industry or jobs for some fad?" That's bad enough, but when I asked why he'd gone to the trouble of explaining these "facts" to me, he said it was what he did as part of his event presentations. This happened in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election.

I've never forgotten these events: there really are people who are paid to spread disinformation about climate change, and they may do so in unexpected places.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

That "Islands in the Sky" book has an interesting speculative piece on how far-future 'humanity' (or whatever are distant descendants look are called) might deal with increased insolation from an aging Sun - varying from something as simple as sun shields (actually already proposed as a geoengineering 'solution' to global warming) through to nudging the Earth outward in its orbit. Fun stuff!

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

It might be useful to share this ...

I've never forgotten these events: there really are people who are paid to spread disinformation about climate change, and they may do so in unexpected places.

Precisely, The act of pretending that the science is dubious, inconsistent, in dispute or any other thing you might insert is precisely why this kind of twaddle continues to be aired.

THE ONLY Point worth debating here is whether you are prepared to risk the planet YOUR children will inherit, and what are you going to say to them when they asked why YOU didn't look after it?

The Science community is in no doubt its happening and anyone who hasn't got their head wedged in a dark place can see it happening NOW

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

I've never forgotten these events: there really are people who are paid to spread disinformation about climate change, and they may do so in unexpected places.

Including public forums....

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Tell you what .... let's all kiss and make up .....

Col ......