A straw to cure global warming????!!!!

Wow....

I am not really sure what the giant straw has to do with either religion, or with reversing global warming.

Was it there and I missed it?

"I am not really sure what the giant straw has to do with either religion, or with reversing global warming."

According to them, the giant straw will discharge excess gas into the vacuum of space, thereby thinning the atmosphere to allow infrared energy to disperse and cooling down the Earth.

As for religion, the site claims to be a site for anyone seeking religious information. It's even there in their name: religion-info.com. It also states that the Kogi Indian tribe of the Amazon predicted (prophesized?) that deforestation will cause global warming.

Without attempting to pooh-pooh any thought and action (even if it looks ridiculous or frivolous from one's angle) let us understand the veracity of what Dr. J Bronowsky (in his Book: Science and Human Values) had written:

"Man masters nature not by force, but by understanding; this is why science succeeded where magic failed; because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature"

While the magicians and alchemists of the middle ages were trying the "spell" theories to develop gold and "valuables", Sir Isaac Newton worked on observations, logic and mathematics. And, before he could "spell" his Universal Law of Gravitation (an audacious but accurate statement, even if it had to be modified by Einstein about 250 years later) he worked his way through observing the movements of the moon and comparing his observations with those of Galileo's inclined plane dynamics. To him, when a projectile is thrown at ground level, it did not have a velocity great enough to keep itself in orbit like the moon, which had a velocity to keep itself as a satellite. That the earth had a gravitational power was known to Ptolemy, Aristotle and the Hindu thinkers of 3000 BC. But what Newton did was to objectively conclude "the moon is falling towards the earth, inasmuch as a stone thrown at the ground does." This he could do by inventing the mathematical principles of Calculus ... which we all take for granted today. And he further proved that the Force of Gravity is UNIVERSAL, arriving at the Gravitational constant G, to as close an accuracy as possible.

The above details are being presented to drive home the fact about how science works. And it is this "philosophy" of science that has brought even the greatest tool of mankind - THE INTERNET, which helps us to be in real time contacts, irrespective of whether one is in Alaska or Bangladesh or anywhere else.

Now on the theories of Global Warming:

Over the millennium the human population has been continually increasing, arriving at the current 7 billion. And, apart from creating tumultuous modifications over the earth's atmosphere through agriculture, mining, building construction, industrial manufacturing ... et.all, today we are burning fuels at an alarming rate. And, although one set of observational inferences about the facts of Global warming is hinged on the idea of so-called Green House Gases (GHG), we may also look at the following possibility:

Every Kg of fuel (such as petroleum based gasoline and diesel) produces a heat energy of abut 10, 000 K-cal of heat. And yet, the final heat energy equivalent available at the propulsion level (the wheels of the car; the fluorescent lamp in our homes) is about less than 1, 200 K-cal. This means, of the 10, 000 generated 8, 800 K-cal are spewed out into the atmosphere (or elsewhere)

This writer would like to opine that it is the heat energy released to the atmosphere through such burning or other energy activities that culminate in the increase in Global warming, although the other factors add to these.

Thus, what we should do to reduce global warming is to be analyzed through finding out ways to reduce energy consumption.

You're absolutely right there. Reduction of fuel consumption should be top priority. Where this is impossible, next step is improving process efficiency, because the more energy we can extract out from the fuel, the less waste heat we pump into the atmosphere, and the less fuel we need to consume.

The idea of the straw is for the vacuum of space to thin the atmosphere down i.e. it will have to overcome the gravitational pull of the Earth to achieve this. What the issue I'm trying to raise here is, will this straw idea actually work? Personally, I don't think so, as it is carbonaceous gases that is believed to cause the problem, not all gases, so the issue will be to reduce the levels of such gases. So, the next question I'd like to pose to everyone here is, should valuable resources be utilize to explore unproven, possibly silly ideas such as these, or should we instead work on improving processes and proven ideas?

Hi DVader!

Please refer to the thread No.3 in this discussion, wherein this writer had indicated how science works. We, as engineers, work on providing answers to the material needs of the society. And this, in turn, has to be based on the resources available, on the basic principles of science, and on accepted and time tested "engineering practices". Additionally, we also need to work within limits and norms prescribed by the society. Today, when we say society, it stretches far beyond the confines of one nation or one ethnicity - needing a broader outlook to think and act "globally"

Now you question, after convincing yourself that the "Straw idea will not work": "should valuable resources be utilized to explore unproven, possibly silly ideas such as these, or should we instead work on improving processes and proven ideas?"

First of all the so-called "straw idea" itself is not known in scientific parlance. Any idea/ concept to be accepted in science must be verifiable and repeatable, and be scalable at the engineering level. If any one could show by experimental verification that the "straw idea" is scientifically a FACT, there is a 50% chance to go to the next stage - that of repeatability. This means that the experiment which could be done once, should be repeated over and over, to prove the definite veracity of the idea ... to become a scientific TRUTH. Now, from an engineering point of view, we MUST be able to construct a "scale prototype/ model" and make it work, within OUR controls. If all these have been achieved, society/ entrepreneurs/ governments would decide whether the same could be utilized for the common cause.

It is also to be recognized that any idea/ concept/ scheme begins with some loose thoughts. These thoughts must pass through all the stages, as enunciated above, before reaching the ultimate stage of acceptance by society. Goddard had developed the original "space rocket" in the 1920's but at that time he was arrested for his experimentations with rockets. It was some time in President Kennedy's period (in 1961/ 62) that Goddard was awarded posthumously for his Rocket technology! Any inventor/ scientist/ development engineer (remember Galileo?) would have to overcome huge hurdles before arriving, first at technical success, and then achieving financial success. The latter aspect of financial success is far more complicated and difficult.

Thus, your question whether we work on improving processes and proven ideas?, needs to be understood in these perspectives. What is silly to one may not be silly to another. But the final TRUTH is to be arrived at only through the grinding processes as mentioned here.

As things stand, there are certain DEFINITE theories and conclusive evidences for these, as far as Global warming is concerned. Whether one has to follow that path or FIND a new path is dependent on the individual.

It is hoped that your question is answered, if not fully, at least to the extent of your understanding the basic idea of how science works, and how the needs of the society are to be engineered

Actually, contrary to the impression that my comment on unproven, possibly silly ideas might give, I DO believe in developing new technologies and such. As a matter of fact, I actually came up with an idea for a wind turbine that does not depend on the wind to drive it, because it can generate its own wind using natural convection.

The main reason for my scepticism of this idea is that the concept is based on the idea of the vacuum of space sucking out the "excess gas" to thin the atmosphere down. Since the Earth is not surrounded by a pressurized tank, the upper atmosphere is already in contact with the vacuum of space. It is the Earth's gravity that holds the atmosphere in, and this is what the giant straw will have to overcome.

Many gases that are not carbonaceous are greenhouse gases, e.g. water vapor, NOx, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. As a mtter of fact water vapor is a stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide, but has a much shorter residence time, so it doesn't buil;d up over time. Water vapor is actually the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect on this planet. We actually depend on the greenhouse effect to maintain sufficient warmth in the planets atmosphere to support the life that exist. However, water when it precipitate on to surfaces in the upper atmosphere forms a reflective surface that causes incoming solar energy to reflect into space, causing a cooling effect. Also, these clouds of water droplets scrub the atmosphere of some reactive compounds like SO2 and CO2. So, if we can get the water vapor to form fine droplets in the upper atmosphere and have a longer residence time as clouds (increase the cloud-cover), the planet will cool. Surprisingly the particulate emission we have eliminated since the 1970s had the effect of cooling the planet, as these particules were so fine they remained in the upper atmosphere longer with water droplets forming on them.

The last time we started to building the straw dream we had 2 problems.

There was a NPSH and money shortage. (You cannot expect men of straw to fund a straw dream)

The revised structure will be like this.

1) a 461 mile deep shaft ±112 ft diam must be made (roughly about double the area of 79ft)

2) a 79 ft diam shaft parallel to the first.

3) big vent holes at ground level,

4) the 79 ft straw tower as proposed

Heres how it will work

The air and water etc falls down the big shaft and accelerate due to gravity to x fps.

The speed in the up shaft is increased to 2x fps.

Because the air is heated down below the stream is further accelerated upwards to 4x fps.

At ground level more air is is sucked in even further increasing the flow

NPSH Shortage, I love you man. I can't believe how any serious replys were posted on that one. I can't even begin to figure how more water at the equator moves us farther from the Sun. Were is the law of mass conversion in all this rhetoric? Explain to me what the heck is stopping the gases from leaving of their own accord and how the heck forming them in a giant tube would change a dang thing. (OK don't explain to me why they are not leaving-unless it's really funny).

" Explain to me what the heck is stopping the gases from leaving of their own accord and how the heck forming them in a giant tube would change a dang thing."

That's exactly the point I'm raising here. " What the heck is stopping the gases from leaving of their own accord" is of course the gravitational pull of the Earth, and what the idea these guys have as to " how the heck forming them in a giant tube would change a dang thing" is that the vacuum of space will suck out the gases. How the straw can accomplish this when the Earth's atmosphere is already exposed to the vacuum of space is anybody's gas oops, I meant to say guess. On second thoughts, maybe they believe that someone or something out there has a giant mouth to suck it up.

Actually, if this does work, I'll be very badly worried; just how can we stop it from sucking up all the air on Earth, together with other objects such as people, buildings etc. After all, tornados can tear buildings apart due to the extremely low pressures they generate.

We could build a large wooden Badger... What if you put a giant Venturi on the top and used the solar wind? What is the air speed of the Solar wind? What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

There's a perfect reason for religious people to meet their maker on a casual basis while building the 'straw', then of course the world wouldn't be so populated and the non-believers can leave in peace. It does sound as feesable and logical as religion itself, so if you are a believer why shouldn't it work? Looks like another job for Bruce Willis, go-ahead guys, amen!

Oops! My mistake, getting my movies mixed up, a job for Mel Gibson - aka the draft dodger!

Very interesting item but i do not think i would fully subscribe to the ideas presented. finding the material to buils the straw from is one thing, developing a methodm to induce a suction of the excess water is anotther. i risk being offensive to some cultures but the idea of having the ability to create that required level would in my shop teachers words be a dram come true for some individuals.

that said the issue of global warming ang climate change is not new. your e.p.a. has stomped down hard on a ancient hunting practice which while reducing the extent of contibutors to global warming also produces both ani,al and human health enhacement/assitive benefits.

it also in my view has clearly demonstrated the link to not just north american government but now more recently to eastern and western europes governments being recognizably influenced by internarional pharmacuetical producing companies and thier lackeys the universities of the world.

if you will do it please search for the articles produced in 1939 newspapers published in the state of Maine, in your U.S. for the multiple features regarding what had been back then as the damage done to ecologies of that and other eastern U.S. seaboard ground fish populations by unchecked growths of seal herds.

Al Gore has it seems conveniently overlooked that series of reports and the fact the states fishery commisioner recognised tghe drastic increases in sea bed temperatures which lead to the inability of species to reproduce and populate the regions.

I do not believe i am in errorm that Mr. Gore too represents a manipulated population accepting the myth that global warming is a recent event.

lastly research the orsouq studies' content and the alaskan olive oil stories both are incredible indictments of greeds' attached placed to the "problem of global warming"

reply via a posting if you wish more information, and thank you for the introduction of the topic to C4R readers.

There is a story in the Bible about the building of a straw tower. The result different languages.

Please do not proceed. Nobody will be able to understand one another!

To late! Ek verstaan nie woord van die strooi nie!