REVERSING global warming with technology?

Question

I have a really wacky idea to help scale back global warming and I want to know if it's possible or not.
What about genetically engineered bacteria or plants or something that would eat the CO2 in the air? I know we could just replant a lot of normal plants, but that might take time we don't have. Instead, what about Super-Trees that suck up 10 times more CO2?
Another even crazier sounding idea I had is this: What about giant air purifiers the size of buildings?

Answer 1

The term for the type of schemes you mention is geoengineering and whilst you might think you're ideas are wacky and crazy they're not as far fetched as you might think.

Geoengineering within climatology is one of my key areas and I've studied perhaps 10 or 12 schemes, 2 in particular.

Interestingly, one of the calculations I did earleir today was to work out the number of trees that would need to be planted to offset carbon emissions. There's lots of variables such as the type of tree and where they're planted but the average number would be 189 for every person on the planet - far too many to be practical.

'Super-trees' aren't really feasible, genetic modifications could be implemented to enhance the CO2 sequestering capabilities of some trees but this would be achieved primarily by making certain species grow bigger and faster. Ultimately there would be no net gain compared to simply planting a few more conventional trees.

The idea you mentioned about plants that 'eat' CO2 has already been considered and trialed, the plant in question being phytoplankton but algae could work just as well.

Phytoplankton are microscopic marine plants, invisible to the naked eye but visible from space as blooms of green ocean. Like all plants they photosynthesise - taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Increasing the quantity of phytoplankton will result in more carbon dioxide being absorbed and when the plants die they sink to the ocean floor taking the carbon with them. Professor Ian Jones of Sydney University advocates that by using nitrogen rich urea to enrich parts of the oceans low in phytoplankton their numbers can be significantly increased.

Giant air purifiers have also been considered and are being researched and small scale trials conducted. These carbon scrubbing devices are often referred to as synthetic or artificial trees.

It was a school science project provided the inspiration for Professor Klaus Lackner's concept of using sythetic trees to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Air passes through the device and sodium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, each 'tree' could remove 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, put into people terms that means one 'tree' per 15,000 inhabitants of the planet.

The carbon dioxide in solution would need to be permanently stored and the professor believes this could be achieved by drilling holes thousands of metres deep into porous rock beneath the oceans; the CO2 would be injected into the holes where it would permeate the surrounding rock.

A similar scheme using a different chemical process produces a byproduct that can be used in the oil industry.

So whilst you might think your ideas are whacky and crazy you're thinking along the same lines as some highly educated people.

Answer 2

Well, grand idea - hope it goes through, unlike the ideas in the 70's where we need to set off gas bombs to heat the earth up or we will all freeze to death. Those guys didn't try hard enough...they should of saved the planet from freezing, but alas they were weak. But I must say that the ones that dropped millions of tires into the ocean to save the reefs - those guys succeeded...of course forget the fact that 30 years later they found out that all they did was kill more reefs than if they had just left them alone, but that doesn't matter - what is important is if you feel the need to know better and make everything better based on what you think -- I say go for...it is the thought that counts.

Now, the Global Warming Crew, which has replaced the Global Freezing Crew...now they are not weak...they got there act together...soon we will be doing all kinds of wacky things to save the planet...and doesn't it just make you feel good?!?!?\

Isn't that what it is all about? Feeling good - like you made a difference. I mean all those guys from the 70's do not give a crap about the reefs, because hey they feel good and they gave it a shot...plus, they were able to convince people to give them money to destroy the reefs....oops I mean save the reefs. Boy, it just hits you right there...gives you a warm feeling with all those millions upon millions of tires destroying the reefs as you read this. Wonder what we get to see destroyed next by some wacky plan. (P.S. CO2 is not are problem, which I am glad you figured out, it is the nutrients in the soil that are not being replenished and that my friend is an easy fix with no need for bio genetically engineered bacteria or plant. But shhhhhhhhh - don't tell anyone because it doesn't work with their money making CO2 scam. Most people think CO2 is BAD and don't even know that the earth needs CO2 - "You mean plants Breathe CO2???? I thought they just needed sunshine and water...") Oh and no matter what we humans do - the planet will get hot or cold, I mean the day you come up with a plan that works to stop the sun from rising - is the day I will buy into man made global warming.

Answer 3

None of those ideas are too realistic.

Genetically engineering bacteria to eat CO2 is not something that can be accomplished normally. Neither is engineering trees.

Giant air purifiers would run off of some sort of energy at the moment, and would probably cause more damage than they save.

There are currently several options being explored that are more realistic than what you suggest, but also somewhat ludicrous to the average ear:

***Some scientists down in Baja California are experimenting with methods that will allow tiny sea plankton that use carbon in their shells to suck up more CO2 than they normally do. Of course, this could lead to other implications as a population in certain species of plankton will trigger other problems in the ecosystem.

***Carbon sequestration... some people want to gather CO2 from the atmosphere and bury it under the sea. Its a plausible, but incredibly costly and difficult project to engineer and manage.

Answer 4

Sounds like a good plan to destroy all life on the planet in a short time. Al Gore will love it.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is just as important for life as oxygen.

All plants DO consume CO2. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more vegetation on earth which will reduce CO2.

Amazing to think that the earth can take care of itself without man's help. What a strange concept.

Answer 5

there is not any evidence that nukes ought to opposite international warming, nor could we could like it to. it ought to shrink the guy-made contribution to greenhouse gases - something is as much as the Earth. Storing the waste is merely no longer a undertaking interior the quick term (say the subsequent 50 years) and there are technologies presently below progression to cut back the radioactivity to a factor comparable to the radioactive ore from which we first have been given the gasoline. however the fact that we've little or no "prepare" interior the nuclear marketplace, we don't have lots risk to objective new technologies to extra suitable boost nuclear efficiencies. a colourful nuclear marketplace ought to even open the door to the cleanest of renewable power supplies: fusion!

Answer 6

I don't know what's worse:

people who don't know what they are doing to the environment, wasteful of resources, and possibly causing a climate change.

OR

people who don't know what they are doing to the environment, purposefully setting out to alter the Earth's climate, and expending EVEN MORE resources to do it.

Well, actually, I have a good idea who is worse...





...and William: you got it!

Answer 7

This is at least as reasonable as some other plans being put forth.