Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic A simple solution to global warming?? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Fouad[/m] at 7:24 am on Aug. 10, 2008[quote][u]i think the first might work but its VERY exoensive[/u][/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post sunshineshower Posted at 7:21 am on Aug. 10, 2008 I don't have any sources to back this up, I'm not claiming this will work I'm just repeating something I was told. Apparently there are a few ways to combat global warming, involving "carbon catching". There are two ways that people have suggested to do this. 1) Special trees will be built that catch carbon. As they move in the wind they catch the carbon and trap it, it can then be filtered to give out cleaner air and the carbon is then stored so it is now longer part of the environment. However, it was estimated about 8 billion trees would be needed. Overall about the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars combined. 2) Iron fillings will be dropped into the sea which encourage phytoplankton to grow in greater numbers than usual. For those who don't know phytoplankton are microscopic plants that live in the ocean. They remain near the surface of the water, as that is where there is most light, and because of this they take in large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. The phytoplankton are eaten by larger fish and so on up the food chain. When the phytoplankton or consumers die they fall to the bottom of the ocean and the carbon is trapped within them. Do you think its possible/would ever be possible for either of these ideas to work?

Replies erict Posted at 5:04 pm on Aug. 14, 2008 Another advantage to phytoplankton is that it can be turned into oil. A 52,000 sq kilometer area (20250 sq mi 143 by 143 miles) can produce 95 million barrels of oil per day,  or 100% of daily global consumption. This technology is carbon nutral since all of the carbon released after burning was originally taken out of the atmosphere while growing. source:http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34239 obvious child Posted at 2:30 am on Aug. 13, 2008 Care to provide such studies? The Samsoniteman Posted at 10:35 am on Aug. 12, 2008 Most of the data supporting it somes from the commercial companies that want to persue it. Truely indepedent studies have shown that not enough of the new growth material manages to sink to the ocean floor and stay there for it to make a real difference. obvious child Posted at 10:53 pm on Aug. 11, 2008 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 8:48 am on Aug. 11, 2008 I'm not sure what you're getting at with trees moving through air before filtration. But the science behind dumping iron filings in oceans has been firmly debunked, unfortunately. "firmly debunked?" You mean conflicting data. In some studies it has worked in others it has failed. That doesn't equate to "firmly debunked." The Samsoniteman Posted at 11:48 am on Aug. 11, 2008 I'm not sure what you're getting at with trees moving through air before filtration. But the science behind dumping iron filings in oceans has been firmly debunked, unfortunately. Event Horizon Posted at 8:14 am on Aug. 10, 2008 Quote: from Reefer at 7:37 am on Aug. 10, 2008 The first could work but it would cost too much. The second would help one of our enviromental problems, but create a dozen mark. I don't really see how solving our ecological problems should have a budget... If we discovered a way to solve global warming with 100% certainty, and it cost multiple billions of dollars, don't you think it would be worth it? This is not just america involved in this, this is the whole world. Reefer Posted at 7:37 am on Aug. 10, 2008 The first could work but it would cost too much. The second would help one of our enviromental problems, but create a dozen mark. sunshineshower Posted at 7:26 am on Aug. 10, 2008 Quote: from fouad at 3:24 pm on Aug. 10, 2008 i think the first might work but its VERY exoensive However, america had the money to spare for the wars. If this was a worldwide effort then that amount could probably be quite easily raised, no? EllaYeah Posted at 7:26 am on Aug. 10, 2008 I always thought about the first one its like "wtf!?" but apparantly noones clever enough to think of that apart from us and I think the second one would do more bad than good DoNotCare Posted at 7:25 am on Aug. 10, 2008 I think that the second idea is very plausible, not so much with the first. Fouad Posted at 7:24 am on Aug. 10, 2008 i think the first might work but its VERY exoensive DonnieDarkko Posted at 7:23 am on Aug. 10, 2008 Dropping that large an amount of iron filings into the ocean surely is going to have an adverse affect on some other part of the ecosystem All 12 previous replies displayed.