Send water and garbage into outer space?

Question

I don't really know much about global warming and am trying to find out more...
Since global warming is being caused by an increase in temperature which melt glaciers and causes other problems...how is it connected? A rise in sea level is bad right? Couldn't we send excess water to other uninhabited planets? Taking it further could be send garbage to other planets? What would be the advantages, disadvantages?

Answer 1

Yes, rising sea levels are just one of the very few problems...

NASA has discussed the taking of garbage into space and such but it isn't cost effective by any means. The problem with global warming is that *extra* greenhouse gases get trapped in our atmosphere. As the sun's light enters our atmosphere some of it is absorbed, but since 2/3 of our planet is water it's reflected back out to space. Well, since there are extra greenhouse gases they can't leave and get trapped in our atmosphere...

Therefore it starts with rising temperatures which is ok by me where I live lol - but being serious this is very bad because it heats up the water causing the most powerful hurricanes we've ever seen (Katrina!). Then it gets bad because the Icecap over greenland starts to melt releasing freshwater into the ocean right in the middle of a VERY important part of the ocean currents...

As most people know, but I'll say it incase anyone doesn't know the ocean currents are the #1 determining factor of our climate!

So, if this "swirl" in the ocean current were to stop moving Europe would go into an iceage!

Your idea is great, but just not cost effective enough. I saw some kind of "cold fusion reactor" that turns garbage into nothing and creates energy in the process which we may see in the near future!! The best thing you can do now is cut down on your electric usage, make sure your car is in good condition and only drive if you have to, and cut down on the amount of red meat that you eat!! Cows produce more greenhouse gases than ALL travel combined!!


...If you're interested in global warming, I never thought I'd say this but "An Inconvenient Truth" was very informative.


- flibbitygibet looks like you've watched an incovenient truth yourself huh? lol, good movie though...



After reading the rest of the posts it raises a very good point - A good friend of mine who is a head engineer @ echland has helped create an alternative fuel using (not joking) a type of lilly pad! When used as a fuel it produces Hydrogen and it's emissions are 100% OXYGEN and WATER! They tried over and over and over to get it passed, but the government will NOT approve it because it will cut ties with the Saudi's and the profits made by petroleum...

...and they say the USA has the best government in the world?!

Answer 2

Hummmm and what size of container would you send, small, medium or large? How much power (fuel) do you think it would take to remove enough water off this planet to make a difference?

Trash to other planets ... sounds close to taking water off the planet. Except, since we cannot control our own waste ... push it off on another planet. How about we use only biodegradable containers or equipment. The invention of plastic was fantastic ... but we can never get rid of it once it is made. Ever wonder why a bottle of drinking water has an expiration date on it? Hummm ... its water? Must be the plastic then! Until mankind recognizes the problems they are creating and not looking towards the future things like plastic will be so abundant that will one day it over take the world - just like global warming.

Fire up that gasoline powered engine again and get more dirt and sediment in the air. What we have to face is that we are killing ourselves as well as future generations without looking at the long term effects.

If someone wants to make a difference lets find an alternative for fossil fuel (gas). Some had all ready found a way to make water burn. Why isnt there more research on that avenue? Big business is why ... profits.

Answer 3

Attempting to send water to other planets (with current technology) would be like trying to drain a swimming pool with thimble. What could be carried into space at this time would not be enough to make a difference. Additionally, what happens when water gets scarce due to enviromental pollutions or we find a better way to utilize water as a possible fuel.
As far as garbage goes we all should make an attempt to recycle and use less resources. Keep in mind the size of container it would take (to make a difference) carry the garbage into space.
Excellent query's though. Too bad not everyone is trying to find or discover ways to help our environment.

Answer 4

There isn't too much water in our oceans. There is too much -fresh- water in our oceans. It disrupts 'The Great Conveyer' which carries cool water towards the equator along the bottom of the ocean, and warm water towards the poles along the surface. This one current is responsible for all currents on Earth. Without it, the oceans as we know them would die.
We produce heat which is no big problem. Usually it would just waft out into space. We don't just produce heat though. We also produce thick gasses and smog. These are the problem, They trap in heat which melts the glaciers which are fresh water.
Cows also produce a lot of pollution.
Instead of rocketing our garbage into the sun, we should stop eating meat. We would be able to feed ten times more people, there would be much less pollution from processing factories and farms, and everyone would be a little healthier ; )

Answer 5

No, we absolutely should not get rid of water. Our planet has all the water it will ever have. Getting rid of any of it would throw off the balance of our planet in a way we can not totally comprehend. I like your garbage idea - but let's just push it into space and let it float off instead. Think of it as our space diplomats, exploring outer space to hit some poor alien's planet light years away in a few million years.

Answer 6

since global warming is only the result of humans ( even though volcanoes, earthquakes, and trees that emit methane gas are like 99 percent responsible, and of which the main problem is deforestation rather than car emissions or coal power plants ) , by sending the water into space would be counterproductive.
Wouldn't sending it to outerspace cause more polution?

Answer 7

The solar radiation reaches Earth's surface and is abosrbed, or reflected back in to space. Ice reflects about 85% of the visible light, while water absorbs 85% of it. So, an decreased size of glaciars, permafrost, and such, will decreae the reflective surfaces of Earth that helps keeping it cool. The absorbed light is re-emitted (as long wave radiation). This long wave radiation can be absorbed by the GHG's (green house gases) which then sends them out in all directons. Roughly 50% of it reaches the Earth's surface and heats it a second time. The more GHG's you have in the atmosphere the more radiation is re-emitted toEarth. There are other factors as well.

Here is a link to a flow chart of human sources.
http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=World-FlowChart&view=100

The major factors are:
Anthropogenic.
Positive RF sources. (Sources that warm the Earth)
CO2 +1.66 W/m2.
CH4 +0.48 W/m2.
N2O +0.16 W/m2.
Halocarbons +0.337 W/m2.
Tropospheric Ozone +0.35 W/m2.
Black carbon on snow + 0.10 W/m2.
Linear contrails + 0.010 W/m2.

Negative RF sources. ( sources that cool the Earth)
Land use - 0.20 W/m2.
Aerosols (direct and cloud effect) - 0.50, - 0.70 W/m2.

Natural.
Positive RF sources
Solar irridiance + 0.12 W/m2.

Negative RF sources.
Volcanic Aerosol emissions: -



The combined anthropogenic RF is +1.6 [ -1.0, +0.8] W/m2.
The combined natural RF ( solar irridiance, volcanic aerosols) is + 0.12 [-0.06, +0.18].

* RF is defined as the change in net irridiance at the Tropopause (boundary between Troposphere and Stratosphere).

All measurements are showing the difference in RF between 1750 (preindustrial), and current (2005).

Radiative forcing is a measurement of how strong the factors that influence Earths climate by altering its energy balance are. A positive forcing increase the energy which will lead to a warming while a negative forcing reduces the energy and leads to a cooling.

Sending water, or garbage to outer space is not an implemetable idea. The amount of fuel to get it out of orbit would cause massive pollutions. There really isn't any garbage, only inappropriate ways of dealing with it. I think the solution lays in recycling and other efficient means of handling it.

Answer 8

As if poluting one planet is not enough
Now you want to start on the Cosmos
At least you are thinking Big
and we need our water
there is a cronic potable global water shortage coming up

Answer 9

One way to reduce CO2 emissions is to use nuclear reactors instead of fossil-fuel power plants.

It is actually possible to dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods in space, since the cost of lifting them to orbit with existing rocket technology is a fraction of the value of the power they generate. It would, however, be much cheaper to dispose of them into the Earth's magma, where they would actually do some good.

Answer 10

This would cost way to much money, space flights don't come cheap.
A cheaper solution to get rid of the garbage would be, to set up a fleet of C-130, C-141, C-17 Transport planes and drop the garbage over Iran, I'm sure they'd be delighted and sift through it as soon as it comes down and it sure would be interesting to see how long old car tires would be bouncing around if dropped from 10000 feet.

Sorry folks, I'm just having one of these funny-feeling-days again, have a good laugh.