How to save earth from hot earth theory and I don’t mean stop global warming.

[Christoph]

In X amount of years but sooner than we expect due to natural and human altered global warming that to a degree we ctan’t stop the earth is going to get real hot. Once the temperature reaches a certain point huge pockets of methane under the oceans and land masses will be released in a chain reaction that will cause earth to go runaway Venus, the methane will release other pockets of methane and earth will be uninhabitable. Now besides bio domes on the moon, mars, or upper atmosphere of Venus there’s one way humanity can stall or stop this effect. A theoretical weapon a satellite type of device that stores massive tungsten rods that are created in space and targeted and dropped to earth creating an asteroid type impact. If we make the rods big enough we can drop them and create a mass amount of dust in the atmosphere and create an ice age which is way more survivable that hot earth and we drop a tungsten rod whenever the effect starts to were off. Also this will give us time to habit-ate other planets as well as technological advances to safely mine and harvest the methane pockets as energy.

 

[billvon]

You are overestimating what a few satellites can do. Every single joule in those impactors you discuss has to come from the fuel used to launch the rockets. (And - funny coincidence - burning enough rocket fuel to actually make a difference will cause the very problem you seek to prevent.)

Far better, IMO, to avoid all that burning to begin with. Reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere back to 1850 levels and that will give us another few billion years, at least until the Sun runs out of hydrogen and starts to expand.

 

[Christoph]

You are overestimating what a few satellites can do. Every single joule in those impactors you discuss has to come from the fuel used to launch the rockets. (And - funny coincidence - burning enough rocket fuel to actually make a difference will cause the very problem you seek to prevent.)

Far better, IMO, to avoid all that burning to begin with. Reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere back to 1850 levels and that will give us another few billion years, at least until the Sun runs out of hydrogen and starts to expand.

We can use a space elevator or build it in pieces because reversal is far past possible plus hurts developing nations and the powers will never stop anyway

 

[billvon]

We can use a space elevator or build it in pieces because reversal is far past possible . . . .

I think it's amusing that you think it's impossible to stop emitting CO2, but it would not be hard to build a space elevator and loft millions of tons of orbit-to-earth missiles.

If you can build a space elevator, you can build orbiting power satellites that provide all our power much more easily than you can build all those impactors.

plus hurts developing nations

I suspect getting hit by millions of tons of impactors would hurt more than using solar power satellites.

 

[Christoph]

I think it's amusing that you think it's impossible to stop emitting CO2, but it would not be hard to build a space elevator and loft millions of tons of orbit-to-earth missiles.

If you can build a space elevator, you can build orbiting power satellites that provide all our power much more easily than you can build all those impactors.

I suspect getting hit by millions of tons of impactors would hurt more than using solar power satellites.

A space elevator may be necessary but the problem is the snowball effect no pun of greenhouse gasses is way past the point of no return as well as the fact that the powerful nations won’t stop and cutting cO2 hurts developed countries from industrializing themselves

 

[Quantum Quack]

but the problem is the snowball effect no pun of greenhouse gasses is way past the point of no return as well as the fact that the powerful nations won’t stop and cutting cO2 hurts developed countries from industrializing themselves

Welcome to sciforums.
You're right... agree... the horse has already bolted.
Unfortunately the only way this world is going to get it's act together and salvage what it can is by way of a major climate change catastrophe probably killing millions and proving beyond question that this world of people either works together or dies together.

"People only change when they know, not just believe, they need to" ~anon

We can only hope I guess that there will be enough time after such an event to actually do something about saving what we can. It will take governments and populations working together regardless of cost ( money won't be worth anything any how) as individuals can not do it alone or in small groups.
But it will take a massive and extremely damaging/lethal climate change event to get us there...IMO

 

[sculptor]

Nature can help take care of nature
from
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
Abstract
Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services 1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. .....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nature can help take care of nature
from
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
Abstract
Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services 1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. .....

You do know that it isn't the CO2 that is our biggest problem don't you?
Water Vapor is by far the greatest green house "gas".

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds"
"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a "positive feedback" that amplifies the original warming."
wiki
​

Once this positive feedback loop is fully established what do you think will happen?

 

[iceaura]

Nature can help take care of nature

Not really, with this stuff.

None of that, for example, is going to help much, if at all - the CO2 fertilization effect is apparently short term, at least in the lab, and in the tropics will not actually sequester the carbon past the lifespan of the plant material anyway.

The tropical rain forests have become net carbon sources, starting this year, apparently.

In the temperate zone some carbon may be taken out of circulation into the dirt, but not enough to matter - and most of that is already booked in the models.

In the Arctic we'll be lucky to avoid the methane bomb.

 

[iceaura]

Once this positive feedback loop is fully established what do you think will happen?

Water vapor is supported by CO2 - without the CO2 it cannot sustain its own concentration. It rains out, condenses out, etc. The dangerous feedback loop is the methane.

 

[billvon]

A space elevator may be necessary but the problem is the snowball effect no pun of greenhouse gasses is way past the point of no return

?? There are plenty of technological solutions, and they are all far easier than millions of space launches and/or a space elevator. Carbon sequestration. Reforesting. Solar power. Wind power. Albedo modifications. EV's. Orbiting heliostats. Thorium reactors. CANDU reactors. All of these have been done already on small scales (some on large scales.)

as well as the fact that the powerful nations won’t stop and cutting cO2 hurts developed countries from industrializing themselves

Again, you are postulating a world where they could cooperate so well as to produce a space elevator, but not cooperate to stop burning coal and oil.

Either the world works towards a common goal or it doesn't. Your scenario where an anti-science, anti-collaboration coal-burning society bands together to build a space elevator is pretty much science fiction.

 

[billvon]

Nature can help take care of nature

It absolutely can. We stop messing with it as hard as we can by dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, and it will be able to rebalance the carbon cycle eventually.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

 

[sculptor]

our biggest problem

Therein lies our major disagreement

 

[Quantum Quack]

Water vapor is supported by CO2 - without the CO2 it cannot sustain its own concentration. It rains out, condenses out, etc. The dangerous feedback loop is the methane.

It's sort of funny...
I would propose something slightly different.

• Initial warming is supported by increased CO2. ( hence the focus on keeping CO2 in the atmosphere down to prevent this initial warming)
• Increased water vapor is supported by increased ocean / land / atmosphere temperatures. ( water vapor as a major green house gas, preventing cooling)
• Ultimate Global mean temperature determined by cloud cover and Albedo effect. (not CO2)

Of course additional CH4 ( methane ) will be released further exasperating the situation.

The point though, that I wanted to make is that it appears to me, ( as unqualified as I am) that once a certain water vapor atmosphere content is established globally there is only one way the temperatures can go and that is up. ( night time cooling becomes impossible)

There is a significant chance that Global mean temperatures will start to "accelerate" and cause rapid increases in global mean temps, with out any relief until the Albedo effect reaches maximum. In other words the entire world will eventually enter ever increasing heat wave conditions with out respite.
The real time concern is that this point has already been passed and we are in the early stages of this acceleration. The global mean can rise very fast ( over the next 2-3 years) perhaps reaching a 3-4 deg c increase well ahead of the predictions in the IPCC report.
CO2 reduction will not significantly effect this as temperature is being retained due primarily to water vapor.
CO2 is only a climate change trigger so to speak.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Therein lies our major disagreement

Here in Australia we are still in our Spring and we are later this week about to experience preseason heat wave conditions around the nation. The atmosphere, ground and oceans have significant retained heat meaning that our starting temp for summer is already way too high.
see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...s-early-season-records-set-to-tumble/10448782

CO2 fertilizing will not reduce this temperature and only minimize the rate of increase in CO2 that has triggered this warming. In other words "too little too late"

 

[sculptor]

Here in Australia ...

Darned chilly here in Iowa, we had our high temperatures over 80 years ago('30s) during the extended '30s drought

 

[Seattle]

If Man creates changes that ultimately eliminate Man, so be it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Darned chilly here in Iowa, we had our high temperatures over 80 years ago('30s) during the extended '30s drought

Research suggests otherwise:
Example:
"Late June in east-central Iowa felt more like August. Temperatures ran into the 90s with heat indices over 100. The high humidity soaks everything. Flood warnings speckle weather maps: Swaths of Iowa received 8 to 10-plus inches of rain in recent weeks, about one-fourth of the normal Iowa yearly average. In places, intense storms have dumped nearly that much rain in a few hours. The oppressive weather feels relentless."

I suppose for some 90 -100 is chilly.

Iowa mean temp increase by 1 deg since 1910 most of which since 1980....

"More humidity, more rain. Iowa's annual precipitation has gone up about 5 inches, from a statewide average of 31 or 32 inches at the beginning of the 20th century to around 36 inches today. Most of that increase has occurred since 2000, and (like humidity) higher rainfall is concentrated in the spring months of April, May and June."
Src: press-citizen.com

Maybe just gossip, perhaps?

 

[Musika]

?? There are plenty of technological solutions, and they are all far easier than millions of space launches and/or a space elevator. Carbon sequestration. Reforesting. Solar power. Wind power. Albedo modifications. EV's. Orbiting heliostats. Thorium reactors. CANDU reactors. All of these have been done already on small scales (some on large scales.)


Again, you are postulating a world where they could cooperate so well as to produce a space elevator, but not cooperate to stop burning coal and oil.

Either the world works towards a common goal or it doesn't. Your scenario where an anti-science, anti-collaboration coal-burning society bands together to build a space elevator is pretty much science fiction.

Actually I would argue it is not so much an issue of anti-science but pro-greed. It's not so much a world conspiracy against science but a world caught under the grip of egoistic fulfillment and willfulness. Science (or anything else) that finds such utility is given a green light.

In fact you can even say that it is science that is employed in the service of greed et al that has landed us in this royal mess.