Revolutionary Solution for Global Warming: Pumping Excess Water into Space!

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
32 replies · 7K views
Freddy_Turnip
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
hey guys! why don't we just pump the excess water out the Earth's atmosphere into space? just build a pipe into space?

nobel prize here i come...
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
At least four reasons I can think of:

1. We don't have the means to build a pipe out into space.
2. It would take a vast amount of energy to condense enough water from the atmosphere to make a difference.
3. It would take a vast amount of energy to pump that water out into space.
4. I doubt that making the Earth's climate drier would be a positive thing.
 
russ_watters said:
At least four reasons I can think of:

1. We don't have the means to build a pipe out into space.
2. It would take a vast amount of energy to condense enough water from the atmosphere to make a difference.
3. It would take a vast amount of energy to pump that water out into space.
4. I doubt that making the Earth's climate drier would be a positive thing.


5 and the BIG one the oceans would quickly replace the water vapor
water vapor is a self limiting part of the atmosphere do to RAIN
but any reduction would be very very short lived even if it was doable

unlike CO2 that has a many year life in the air
water cycles in and out on a daily basis
 
Freddy_Turnip said:
hey guys! why don't we just pump the excess water out the Earth's atmosphere into space? just build a pipe into space?

nobel prize here i come...

One more feasible possibility would be to bioengineer algae to absorb large amounts of CO2 relative to its own weight. This might have other negative consequences, but the only likely way we are going to get ahead of global warming is to remove CO2 (and if we can, CH4) from the atmosphere so that there is a net decline in greenhouse gases to about 1850-1900 levels. There is no reason in principle why this couldn't be done. Reforestation will help, but trees can't do the job alone. If human generated greenhouse gas emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, global temperatures would continue to rise for at least another 100 years according to most models.

Google carbon sequestration+bioengineering. There's a lot of material on this.
 
Last edited:
SW VandeCarr said:
One more feasible possibility would be to bioengineer algae to absorb large amounts of CO2 relative to its own weight. This might have other negative consequences, but the only likely way we are going to get ahead of global warming is to remove CO2 (and if we can, CH4) from the atmosphere so that there is a net decline in greenhouse gases to about 1850-1900 levels. There is no reason in principle why this couldn't be done. Reforestation will help, but trees can't do the job alone. If human generated greenhouse gas emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, global temperatures would continue to rise for at least another 100 years according to most models.

Google carbon sequestration+bioengineering. There's a lot of material on this.

See also
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274
 
What i was thinking was in regards to the rising sea levels due to the polar ice caps melting - just get rid of the water.
 
Rising sea levels are only one symptom of warming. And ultimately, probably not even the worst. Besides, the amount of water we're talking about here is staggering--on the order of 2-3 million cubic kilometers of the stuff. We do not possesses anything remotely like the level of technology to move that much mass offplanet. Not even close.
 
Probably the most realistic, albeit potentially dangerous solution to global warming that I've seen [aside from reducing CO2 emissions and increasing CO2 sequestration], is the idea that we can add something like aluminum oxide powder to jet fuel. In principle, the bright-white powder will remain in the upper atmosphere for an extended period of time and sufficiently reduce the incident radiation striking the surface of the planet, so as to reverse the warming trend. Over time the powder falls back to Earth thus making the treatment controllable.

I consider approaches like this to be radical but potentially justified once we have greater confidence in the climate models; and if they show that we have no choice.
 
I have an even simpler solution Ivan.

Reduce consumption.
 
Skyhunter said:
I have an even simpler solution Ivan.

Reduce consumption.

I wish it were that simple. As I said in post 4, most models that are publicly available predict rising global temperatures to continue for about a century under the best of circumstances. If the Kyoto Treaty had been rigorously followed by all nations not exempted (China, India), it was estimated that this would have lowered the average global temperature by about 0.4 dC below projections over 50 years. This, as it turns out, was optimistic. Global warming is occurring about twice as fast as was estimated in 1998. Half the normal northern summer polar icecap melted in 2007.

There is also the political dimension. China is projected to open about 100 new coal fired electric generating plants in 2009-2010. We should in no way abandon reducing consumption (which also requires zero population growth), and drastically reducing emissions, but it's not enough. We need to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and it's reasonable to think we can develop the means to do it without serious ecological damage.
 
Last edited:
There is one key advantage to using the aluminum oxide approach: If it works as planned, it would work regardless of the cause - it wouldn't matter if the climate change occurring is primarily a natural cyclical phenomenon, say due to solar output variances, or primarily anthropogenic in nature. So from a political point of view, there should be a consensus to use such an approach if deemed safe otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Given the lack of water in certain parts of the world and the problems it brings, getting rid of it (regardless of how) has to be a bad thing. As pointed out before, just getting rid of atmospheric moisture wouldn't do anything, it would just replenish itself. However, no moisture in the atmosphere means no rain, if successful at removing enough to lower atmospheric moisture levels (aka ditching most of the water in the oceans into space), you would create a global africa (think resident evil III film intro).

Also, even if we could get that water into space, it wouldn't just be a case of getting it out of the atmosphere, we would have to either get it far enough away so it doesn't get pulled back by gravity (and as more and more water is dumped the mass increase would mean further and further out), or we would have to put it somewhere like the moon requiring a storage system of some sort.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
There is one key advantage to using the aluminum oxide approach: If it works as planned, it would work regardless of the cause - it wouldn't matter if the climate change occurring is primarily a natural cyclical phenomenon, say due to solar output variances, or primarily anthropogenic in nature. So from a political point of view, there should be a consensus to use such an approach if deemed safe otherwise.

It does nothing however to address the other and more pressing problem with CO2 emissions, ocean acidification.

And there is already a problem with jet plane emissions in the form of a very thin layer of solvents that are coating the entire surface of the planet.

What unintended consequences might we encounter as we add aluminum oxide into the chemical mix?
 
Skyhunter said:
It does nothing however to address the other and more pressing problem with CO2 emissions, ocean acidification.

And there is already a problem with jet plane emissions in the form of a very thin layer of solvents that are coating the entire surface of the planet.

What unintended consequences might we encounter as we add aluminum oxide into the chemical mix?

While in general I agree with your concerns, your statement is not entirely correct. Reducing warming will help to reduce the natural release CO2 - part of the runaway greenhouse effect.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
While in general I agree with your concerns, your statement is not entirely correct. Reducing warming will help to reduce the natural release CO2 - part of the runaway greenhouse effect.

Indeed, in as much as there is an amplification of the CO2 forcing, this also goes then the other way. In fact, if this is true, it is good news, because it means that in the very long term, we have a leverage that will allow us to decide what climate Earth should have.

I like the "solution" of the OP: in order to get rid of potentially a few degrees extra which would certainly cause inconvenience in certain places, the OP wants us to get rid of the water of earth. Talking about a remedy that's worse than the illness! Ooops.
 
Only appropriate as a casual reference, this page describes a number of techniques in the field referred to as Solar Radiation Management.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Solar_radiation_management
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
While in general I agree with your concerns, your statement is not entirely correct. Reducing warming will help to reduce the natural release CO2 - part of the runaway greenhouse effect.
Since the oceans are still a net absorber of CO2, hence the acidification, I don't believe it will have any meaningful or measurable affect on global CO2 levels.

But then if the ocean warms enough to destabilize enough methane clathrates then perhaps it could be a drastic measure to stop what many scientists believe was a runaway feedback 150 million years ago.
 
And it was quite simple Russ.

I am a living example of how one can reduce their consumption of energy and goods by simple lifestyle changes.

Eat a locally grown plant based diet, ride a bicycle, use public transit, buy used instead of new, shop with reusable bags, bring your own cup, and many many more simple things that add up to a dramatic reduction in ones consumption habits.
 
Skyhunter said:
And it was quite simple Russ.

I am a living example of how one can reduce their consumption of energy and goods by simple lifestyle changes.

Eat a locally grown plant based diet, ride a bicycle, use public transit, buy used instead of new, shop with reusable bags, bring your own cup, and many many more simple things that add up to a dramatic reduction in ones consumption habits.

Yeah, we're trying to get our city down to zero waste. Landfills are becoming the new civic cancer. We've been trucking garbage off to unsuspecting small towns in pristine wilderness areas. They actually like getting the jobs in the dump... but the stink and the degradation are deplorable. So, recycling programs are heating up to the point where I take the garbage out once a week... unless there something really rank in it!

We've been consuming local produce. Not much more of a price and much better taste etc.. They need to work on the beer though
 
Skyhunter said:
Since the oceans are still a net absorber of CO2, hence the acidification, I don't believe it will have any meaningful or measurable affect on global CO2 levels.

How is that any different than arguing that CO2 levels should not be increasing? Also, at what rate do the oceans absorb CO2? I thought part of the problem is that we are releasing CO2 faster than the oceans can absorb it.

Or are you simply arguing that the CO2 feedback amplification is insignificant in the first place?

In any event, yes, for a number of reasons we may need to take intermediate steps to help slow the warming. For example, we could determine it to be critical that we slow or reverse the melting of the ice caps - this to intervene in the slowing or stopping of the transatlantic conveyor, which in turn has been cited as being critical to the lifecycle of phytoplankton - the base of the marine food chain.
 
Last edited:
baywax said:
Yeah, we're trying to get our city down to zero waste. Landfills are becoming the new civic cancer. We've been trucking garbage off to unsuspecting small towns in pristine wilderness areas. They actually like getting the jobs in the dump... but the stink and the degradation are deplorable. So, recycling programs are heating up to the point where I take the garbage out once a week... unless there something really rank in it!

We've been consuming local produce. Not much more of a price and much better taste etc.. They need to work on the beer though

I have mine down to one kitchen bag every other week. Most of that is plastic and I recently discovered a place that will take plastic bags, so I expect I can get it down to 3-4 bags everyfew months. Since I don't have any animal products in my food waste, I can compost 100% in my backyard composter I built when I recycled an old fence.

Fortunately I live in northern California where the local beer is some of the best in the world.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
How is that any different than arguing that CO2 levels should not be increasing? Also, at what rate do the oceans absorb CO2? I thought part of the problem is that we are releasing CO2 faster than the oceans can absorb it.

Or are you simply arguing that the CO2 feedback amplification is insignificant in the first place?

In any event, yes, for a number of reasons we may need to take intermediate steps to help slow the warming. For example, we could determine it to be critical that we slow or reverse the melting of the ice caps - this to intervene in the slowing or stopping of the transatlantic conveyor, which in turn has been cited as being critical to the lifecycle of phytoplankton - the base of the marine food chain.

We are releasing CO2 faster than the oceans can absorb it, and yes as the oceans warm their ability to absorb the CO2 directly is diminished. The CO2 feedback is a slow process that takes centuries. It will have an effect, and must be considered in century scale projections, but it is not of immediate enough concern to warrant drastic measures such as seeding the atmosphere with aluminum oxide.
 
Skyhunter said:
I have mine down to one kitchen bag every other week. Most of that is plastic and I recently discovered a place that will take plastic bags, so I expect I can get it down to 3-4 bags everyfew months. Since I don't have any animal products in my food waste, I can compost 100% in my backyard composter I built when I recycled an old fence.

Very cool. I've noticed that there is all this hype about banning plastic bags when I've been recycling them for around 5 years or more. Safeway will collect and recycle them along with other spots.

Fortunately I live in northern California where the local beer is some of the best in the world.

I'll be right there.:biggrin:
 
baywax said:
I'll be right there.:biggrin:

I'll put some local organic IPA on ice.
 
negitron said:
Invisible Pink Armadillo?

No... but I saw one once after downing a few http://www.india-pale-ale.com/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
Probably the most realistic, albeit potentially dangerous solution to global warming that I've seen [aside from reducing CO2 emissions and increasing CO2 sequestration], is the idea that we can add something like aluminum oxide powder to jet fuel. In principle, the bright-white powder will remain in the upper atmosphere for an extended period of time and sufficiently reduce the incident radiation striking the surface of the planet, so as to reverse the warming trend. Over time the powder falls back to Earth thus making the treatment controllable.

I consider approaches like this to be radical but potentially justified once we have greater confidence in the climate models; and if they show that we have no choice.

Why not just paint the Earth's surface white?
 
Skyhunter said:
I'll put some local organic IPA on ice.

IPA... = I Prefer American :blushing:
 
Does not beer release CO2 ?