Global Warming and Energy Absorption

"As to cooling, in cold climates you can build an ice pond. Just spray water into it and let it freeze around pipes in a huge block of ice. Once the weather gets warm, use the ice as a heat sink to cool buildings without all that heat from the A/C units making things worse."

Sort of like a mini ice cap and ocean ... without all that fossil energy ......?

GA

Have you looked at the volumes required?

Other folks have: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949283,00.html

Yes Dear,

You have started a very useful discussion regarding Global Warming and energy absorption.

I have read most of the replies for your discussion. But I beg to disagree with most. For understanding global warming we need to go slightly up in air. First of all we need to be very clear that 99% of the global warming is taking place due to one factor that is all the radiation which enters earths' atmosphere stay back due to green house effect. For the benefit of those who may not clearly know Green house effect, I must say it is like one way entry of radiation into our atmosphere. In other words the radiation that once enters our atmosphere will definitely strike one object or other, the object re-radiates the incoming radiation back, in this process the wave length of the re-radiated radiation is elongated compared to incoming radiation and hence the same radiation cannot go back into space crossing our atmosphere. That is: it remain trapped between earths/ sea' surface and atmosphere thus raising global mean temperature i.e. so much talked about Global Warming. So for any meaningful measure to check/control global warming we need to go up in air and block the very entry of radiation into our atmosphere. We need to control addition of green house gases into our atmosphere. Ozone layer depleting gasses need to be controlled so that ozone layer does not allow harmful radiation to enter our atmosphere. Once the entry of radiation is banned at ozone layer level, I believe we need not worry about painting our roof white or green or we need not worry to install large reflecting mirrors to send the radiation back. Even if one tries to send back the radiation using reflecting mirrors it is futile exercise as explained above the wavelength of the reflected radiation is elongated hence it will not cross atmosphere, rather it will stay trapped in between surface and atmosphere. The solution lies up in air, nothing that we do at earths' surface will stop absorption of energy. In other words an air conditioner throws out the heat from house to outside but net result remains same. You stop the air conditioner and after few minutes the same heat that was thrown out will come back into the house. Same way if we do not allow the heat to be absorbed on one object, globally it does not matter, as the radiation/heat that has once crossed into our atmosphere and have reached earths' surface is going to remain present in the atmosphere for ever.

-Dr NP Singh

"the radiation/heat that has once crossed into our atmosphere and have reached earths' surface is going to remain present in the atmosphere for ever."

Not absolutely true. Plants extract some of this heat to fuel the chemical processes that produce growth and reproduction. The paleoclimate record includes several periods during which greenhouse gas concentrations significantly exceeded the project worst-case projections of modern climate "experts", each preceding an ice age. There has been at least one study correlating the rise of agriculture and the primitive practice of slash and burn forest lands for agricultural purposes beginning something like 5000 years ago when the great forests of Eurasia were destroyed (a study that has been ignored, but not discredited by the industry). When the population of Europe was decimated by the plague in the middle ages, the greenhouse gas concentrations actually decreased- because the forests started coming back. And the climate cooled...Then, one has ocean currents extracting surface energy and circulating it deep.

"circulating it deep" ....and expending it in movement

.... and more atmospheric violence

... and if we are not stopped by that then, more crust adjustment.

Should be quite fun.

Yes dear,

I agree with you and quote your statement "Plants extract/absorb some of this heat to fuel the chemical process that produce growth and reproduction". All right, kindly think slightly ahead of that i.e. what happens to the plants. Either it is burnet for heat or it is over the period of 50 or more years is biodegraded. If it is burnt, it produces Carbon-di-oxide (A green house gas) and if it is biodegraded, it generates Methane( A green house gas) and carbon, and in all the cases the residue stays with in our environment. I believe my views are logical, or have I missed any angle that you would like to add. You are welcome.

Dr N P Singh

"in all the cases the residue stays with in our environment"

Well dear Dr;

The buried plant sequesters more carbon than is released via methane. So take the one C and convert it to CO₂ and use it for growth and repeat. Eventually you put the coal and oil back - and out of "our environment".

"have I missed any angle that you would like to add" Just Math and Chemistry and the meaning of sequester from the biosphere carbon cycle - as opposed to the gross planet energy equation. So a bit of thermodynamics as well - maybe?

As you are using Dr - presumably Doctor - in which discipline?

Well Dear,

Thanks for reply and correcting me on topic under discussion.

I think Drew has combined our views on the subject. I agree with you that buried plant sequesters more carbon than is released via methane as far the deep carbon sequestration is concerned. Once captured and buried in a deep setting through non operative wells, carbon is assumed to stay there for ever. Let see where from do we get carbon. From coal,oil & gas burning, plants and air. If we take a holistic Global approach at least I am convinced that not single atom of carbon can be generated or destroyed, their number is fixed, only we can play with the fixed carbon atom numbers to put them in sequestrated state, in the form of CO_2, or in the form of plants as per our requirement or resources. For example if we burn coal, oil or gas we produce CO_2, then we capture the same carbon and put back to earth and burry it forever. In the process we have not either created any carbon or destroyed it. Yes I agree that a lot of heat is definitely added to environment in both operations i.e. burning coal, oil/gas and burring carbon deep in earth.

For introduction, I have done my Ph.D. in Solar Energy Engineering from premier technology institute i.e. Indian institute of Technology, New Delhi and working for last 25 yrs with Indian National Oil Company "Oil & Natural Gas Corporation-ONGC, which is a Govt. Of India Company. With the grace of God I am working at Chief Engineer level with ONGC and looking after carbon sequestration projects.

Regards

Dr N P Singh

Solar engineering at an IIT in 1985 - very good! When did they start the program?

Dear sir,

Solar Engineering (M.Tech. & Ph.D. program) started at Center for Energy Studies, IIT-Delhi in the year 1977.

Regards,

Dr N P Singh

"carbon is assumed to stay there for ever" This is indeed the assumption of sequestration. Permanent "hiding" from the biosphere carbon cycle.

Previous events did this and because of that we arrived at a Man compatible climate.

Now man is busily undoing that sequestration of "Stored Solar" - he is busily undoing Man compatible climate.

Your statement; "I am convinced that not single atom of carbon can be generated or destroyed" - is equivalent to "the Climate cannot be destroyed".

Both are true (to a point). Earth will carry on. Earths' climate will exist. Just "Man compatible" won't.

Energy;

The energy released in burning carbon is equal to the energy of recombining carbon.

This is enthalpy. It is a Law.

So to "capture the same carbon and put back to earth and bury it forever" takes exactly the same energy as the burning released.

This means whatever efficiency the energy is harvested at - you need that ratio of over unity efficiency to to "put it back in the earth".

There is no way around this.

You can only pretend to sequester - and in so doing you reduce the usable output, so burn more, so release more.

Fact is, it's been dug and wasted at ~20% efficiency. Still is. To think that the 70% can be put anywhere with "some" of that pathetic yield; is ostrich thinking and ruminant droppings presented in Power-Point for the scientifically naive.

A smart fossil industry would be investing in making that 20% harvest into 60% so using 1/3^rd of the fuel and producing 1/3^rd of the CO₂.

But in a sense of friendly rivalry; explain how sequestration of the carbon in the fossil fuels used in power or transport can be sequestered and I shall explain what energy or impermanence has been hidden to make it look like it works.

Even-though Drew is on the better path of demand reduction and direct solar harvesting - were he to sequester his clippings, use the methane, he still buries the nutrients. At a scale to make a dent in what has been, or is now being, dug up daily - this ability to grow plants rapidly diminishes due to lack of nutrients . I wonder where fertiliser comes from?

I look forward to your comments _{Carbon sequestration projects are a favourite of mine.}

WoHoo Dear,

You are a bit cheeky to modify my statement "/(brutally)"

But I'll ad my GA to your count as it pleases me greatly to hear 'caution' from one charged with sequestering.

Yes, I am "anonymous", but there are reasons, so no, I will not be speaking of my disciplines or letters. Judge me on my utterances.

I'm happy you enjoyed and assimilated "Stored Solar" as a concept. Thermodynamically; what else can fossil be?

I am a bit notorious for creating 'truthful labeling' like; "oil-a-cola", "future oil", "old solar" (aka stored solar, which also includes uranium coalesced in Earths formation), and famously/infamously "free oxygen" in Clean Coal.

I would love to hear where you are going, or contemplating going, with your assigned task. Here or via PM - I am happy to help/contribute.

Yes Dear,

I am back again and agree that 'truthful labeling' is not easily digested by many and even educated lot. Specially people from oil/gas industry. Despite knowing fully well that the oil/gas buried deep , in the earth is actually the creation of solar energy, throughout their life they keep fighting/arguing that oil/gas is different from solar energy and do not like putting oil/gas and solar in the same bracket.

Yes as far as carbon sequestration is concerned, to my little knowledge there are basically two type of sequestration:

1. Carbon sequestration for sequestration: i.e. to capture and store CO₂ deep in the earth

2. Carbon sequestration for enhancing recovery from the old/less producing reservoirs: Capturing CO₂ and pumping it in the reservoirs, where the pressure has depleted and the production of oil/gas from the reservoirs have started declining.

The same can be applied to the oil/gas fields where the reservoirs have gone dry some time back and these reservoirs are no longer producing. I personally feel that by-passed oil/gas left behind in the reservoirs can give new lease of life, and add substantial amount of oil/gas from these abandoned oil/gas fields if we start pumping CO₂ in such fields/reservoirs.

There are distinct number of benefits/advantages of CO₂ sequestration of second type compared to first type. A few are listed here:

1. First and far most being the availability/presence of impermeable cap rock to contain/hold the pumped CO₂ in an existing oil/gas reservoir.

2. All the vital well data base is always available with the oil/gas field operators, that tells us about the production history and rate of depletion of drive mechanism of thr reservoir.

3. From the production data, it can be very accurately calculated that how much CO₂ and at what rate can be pumped into reservoir i.e. the capacity of reservoir can be predicted along with sequestration rate.

4. As all the surface facilities i.e. Xmass tree, casing, production tubing, approach roads etc. already exist for an old oil/gas field hence very little need to start Carbon sequestration.

Dr N P Singh

Well Dear,

It is not really sequestration if the CO₂ dissolves in the oil remaining and becomes re-released.

As you know a huge volume of CO₂ is released at the wellhead in 'normal' oil extraction.

"Sequestering" in wells that need pumping, is simply recycling your sequestering energy to the re-pumpers. You do nothing but subsidise their extraction energy demand.

No carbon is hidden in the production of this "Oil-a-Cola" PowerPoint.

I visualize cycles in the carbon content of our planet and atmosphere. There is a shallow cycle where plants absorb carbon but release some of it back when the plant dies or is burned or other such. The deeper cycle is where plants are buried underground and eventually become coal and oil.

In our lust for cheap energy we are tapping that deep cycle and releasing it to the environment faster than it is naturally being returned. Covering cities with plants will not significantly alter the deep cycle unless the waste plant material is intentionally buried.

Any change in the carbon cycle is just a bonus, my real intent was to save energy in cooling our buildings in cities and reducing the 'heat island' effect of our urban developed areas.

Drew

It seems you are ignoring the historical variability of the climate. If the energy stays forever in the atmosphere, how do you explain ice ages? How do you explain much, much higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the far distant past? Were the energy to remain forever in the atmosphere, then earth's atmosphere would have warmed continuously for 4 billion years or so- or boiled off long ago. For earth to maintain a relatively constant temperature, some energy must be radiated back to space through some mechanism, or be otherwise converted or stored in other forms that do not result in heating the atmosphere.

Since the paleoclimatic record would indicate that the temperature of earth's atmosphere can vary between ice age conditions and polar tropical conditions, and since the paleoclimate record indicates that the greenhouse gas concentrations have been much, much higher than today or even those projected for the near future, it is very difficult to accept the idea that the energy from the sun is forever locked in to the atmosphere...

True, I should have titled my thread Heat Island Effect and Energy Absorbtion.

On the other hand, covering buildings in our larger cities would sequester a tremendous amount of carbon that would eventually either be buried in land fills or composted.

Drew

By the way. Painting everything on the planet wont do anything for global warming.

Why ?

You need to stop the heat entering the atmosphere.

Painting things on the planets surface will just reflect the heat thats made it through the ionosphere back up into the air thus warming the air and not the surface. in fact this would cause the air to heat up faster

You need to stop the heat entering in the first place so the only thing that would help would be solar reflectors in space.

Once the infra red heat has made past the ionosphere its trapped below some will escape but not much as the gasses keep it in.

Think about the suns rays entering a greenhouse, Painting the plants would not stop the greenhouse heating up just the plants would not heat up but the air would as the trapped heat cannot escape,

Now what happens if you paint the windows white yup the heat rays cannot enter the greenhouse thus it stays cooler. This should be one of the approaches to the prevention of slowing down the warming process, it would also give us the ability to control the heat entering the atmosphere if needed

What about some sort of high atmosphere explosion to ignite the methane thats trapped up there, from the cows etc

or maybe not, if ( a well known oil company) was to do it it could all go horribly wrong and the planet could be plunged into another ice age

http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm

oops duplicate please delete

Thus proving all the nuts aren't in the trees...

Peruvian Team Paints Mountain White to Rehab a Melted Glacier

Well...just goes to show great minds think alike. Check out who else is thinking about heat island effect green roofs, and color changing roofs!

http://news.discovery.com/tech/green-roofs-that-melt-the-mind-not-the-house.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

Drew