The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can passing current through the polar icecaps stop them melting?  (Read 16035 times)

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Stopping Polar Ice Caps from Melting.

As everyone knows due to excess greenhouse gases the polar caps are melting.I suggest that about 120 electrodes be place in a circular area enclosing the majority of each ice cap and a current passed through the TOP LAYER of the ice.

Mild and SLOW electrolysis of the top layer of the ice will generate O2 and H2 gases which will rise and displace the carbon dioxide gas which is responsible for trapping the heat.

Carbon dioxide weighs 12+16+16=44 atomic mass units .

oxygen molecule weighs 16+16=32 amu

hydrogen molecule weighs 1+1=2 amu.

As these gases rise they will displace carbon dioxide gas and and thus stop the heat trapping effect of carbon dioxide.

The cost will be minimal.


We are NOT talking about massive electrolysis or massive current being passed through the top layer of the ice.The top layer means about 3 inches or less of the surface of the ice.

Having multiple electrodes means we can fine tune the current flow.We can pulse it at various frequencies to generate different effects.

You can learn all about the electromechanical effects of ice here:-

permanent.access.gpo.gov...
« Last Edit: 12/06/2008 08:21:10 by chris »


 

lyner

  • Guest
Unfortunately the whole thickness of the atmosphere contributes to the so-called greenhouse effect. You would need to deal with more than a few cms of surface air.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The electrical conductivity of ice is not great, but the main issue is one of the actual calculation of how much energy would be needed to electrolyse significant H2 and O2. It would probably cost a huge amount of carbon to produce the electricity. In any case, how would the release of these gases ensure that the ice caps would not melt. It is not the CO2 just local to the poles that is the problem and, if the idea is to liberate more of these gases, it would be better to trap the H2 and use it as fuel. Planting trees is an easier way to get O2 and traps Carbon at the same time.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
The electrical conductivity of ice is not great, but the main issue is one of the actual calculation of how much energy would be needed to electrolyse significant H2 and O2. It would probably cost a huge amount of carbon to produce the electricity. In any case, how would the release of these gases ensure that the ice caps would not melt. It is not the CO2 just local to the poles that is the problem and, if the idea is to liberate more of these gases, it would be better to trap the H2 and use it as fuel. Planting trees is an easier way to get O2 and traps Carbon at the same time.

The physics and energy requirements of electrolysis are well established.

No government wants to plant billions of trees on a large scale.

Only very small quantities of o2 and h2 need to be liberated, just enough to displace the carbon dioxide.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Perhaps you could point to a website with some figures to back up the conjecture and to explain what you mean by "displace the CO2" in detail. It does not seem practical to me.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Perhaps you could point to a website with some figures to back up the conjecture and to explain what you mean by "displace the CO2" in detail. It does not seem practical to me.

you can google them easily.

displace means... dis·place (dĭs-plās') pronunciation
tr.v., -placed, -plac·ing, -plac·es.

   1. To move or shift from the usual place or position, especially to force to leave a homeland: millions of refugees who were displaced by the war.
   2. To take the place of; supplant.
   3. To discharge from an office or position.

displaceable dis·place'a·ble adj.
displacer dis·plac'er n.


Flying in a plane was not very practical.


It has been proved that bumble bees cannot fly by mathematicians.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
It has been proved that bumble bees cannot fly by mathematicians.

No it hasn't.  In 1934, one mathematician suggested that haphazard flapping of a bee's wings would not enable aerodynamic flight.  Since then, scientists have observed bee wings and flight muscles more throroughly and determined that they use very similar strategies to other flying insects, apparently a combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency.  Not the most efficient of strategies in the insect kingdom, but it works.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Thank you NSM, though I did know what the word "displace" means. I assume you are taking the p**s.
 

lyner

  • Guest
NSM
You are joking. Aren't you?
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
It has been proved that bumble bees cannot fly by mathematicians.

No it hasn't.  In 1934, one mathematician suggested that haphazard flapping of a bee's wings would not enable aerodynamic flight.  Since then, scientists have observed bee wings and flight muscles more throroughly and determined that they use very similar strategies to other flying insects, apparently a combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency.  Not the most efficient of strategies in the insect kingdom, but it works.

Exactly my point.

As time passes, knowledge and technological prowess increases, making the impractical practical and thus making the naysayers dinosaurs of the past.

Surely a triumph over people who have voluntarily strait jacketed themselves mentally by cementing their thought processes.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Firstly
I do not see why you believe that releasing small quantities of hydrogen and oxygen into the polar atmosphere will displace carbon dioxide rather than just add a bit of hydrogen and oxygen to the gases already there.

Secondly even if you could remove the carbon dioxide from the polar atmosphere I do not believe that it would have any significant efect on global warming as most heat comes into the atmosphere in the tropical belts.  please explain your idea in more detail if you want anyone to take you seriously
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Firstly
I do not see why you believe that releasing small quantities of hydrogen and oxygen into the polar atmosphere will displace carbon dioxide rather than just add a bit of hydrogen and oxygen to the gases already there.

Secondly even if you could remove the carbon dioxide from the polar atmosphere I do not believe that it would have any significant efect on global warming as most heat comes into the atmosphere in the tropical belts.  please explain your idea in more detail if you want anyone to take you seriously

Releasing extra O2 AND H2 gas means that the excess gas in the atmosphere has to be reabsorbed back into the oceans due to the extra pressure and it would be C02 as it is heavier then o2 or n2 and nearer or adjacent to the surface of the oceans and would get absorbed preferentially.

 

lyner

  • Guest
You are, in fact, saying that you would be increasing the atmospheric pressure by introducing extra gases into the atmosphere.
1. Just how much effect do you think you could have with the amount of energy available?
2. Have you considered the consequences to the biomass of such an action? Anything which would increase absorption of CO2 by the sea would also affect - our lungs - the leaves of plants. Think!

I realise you want to think outside the box and all that but just being outside the box doesn't necessarily produce the right answer.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
You are, in fact, saying that you would be increasing the atmospheric pressure by introducing extra gases into the atmosphere.
1. Just how much effect do you think you could have with the amount of energy available?
2. Have you considered the consequences to the biomass of such an action? Anything which would increase absorption of CO2 by the sea would also affect - our lungs - the leaves of plants. Think!

I realise you want to think outside the box and all that but just being outside the box doesn't necessarily produce the right answer.

You are wrong again.

a very small increase in co2 has a large effect on heat retained.
thus reabsorbtion by ocean restores balance.
no effect on lungs as we are talking small fractions of a percent.

i said displacement of gas.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
NSM, I find it hard to grasp exactly what your idea is here. You have not provided any clear explanation.
1. Changing atmospheric pressure would take a huge amount of energy, if that is what you are suggesting.
2. Your thesis seems based on CO2 being heavier and would therefore would have high concentrations near the ground. This is, in fact, untrue. There is substantial mixing that far outweighs the effects molecular weights. Some slides in the presentation below illustrate this where they show CO2 concentration vs altitude for each month throughout a year -

http://www.tiimes.ucar.edu/events/presentations/stephens_tiimes_eol_070418.pdf

If this is not what you meant, please explain more clearly with some energy calculations and how much volume of Oxygen and Nitrogen you intend to release and how you see this affecting CO2 density near the oceans.
 

lyner

  • Guest
So how much increase in pressure will you need in order to increase the rate of CO2 absorption?
I have a feeling that Henry's law should apply so, to double the rate of absorption, you would need to DOUBLE atmospheric pressure! OK you may not need to double it but just how much would you need to make a significant difference?
How can you predict the mass effect (on every living thing) of this increase in pressure, of  O2 as well? The photosynthesis rate of all plants could be affected and the metabolism of everything would be affected. How can you assert that this is irrelevant without some knowledge? Your idea is based on a very subtle effect involving the change of concentration of one gas so how can you dismiss the idea of an equally subtle effect due to a change in pressure (and you still haven't said how much) of the other constituents of air?

When you say "displacement", what exactly do you mean? The gases will all mix by diffusion.   There will be a pressure gradient from sea level upwards and the relative proportions of the gases will vary all the way up. Yes, the concentration of CO2 in a still atmosphere is at its highest at the bottom, because of the relative densities . (See the above post for some more detail of practicalities)
 
What, in your system,  will 'displace' what and in what direction? Try to use established terms in the conventional way so that I can understand you with my knowledge of conventional Science.

Instead of being upset by the objections being raised, try to consider that your proposal may, in fact, not be viable.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2008 14:59:02 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Even if the goal of that theory was actually possible it would take a monumental amount of energy. The cost would definitely not be minimal.

120 electrodes? why not 121?
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
So how much increase in pressure will you need in order to increase the rate of CO2 absorption?
I have a feeling that Henry's law should apply so, to double the rate of absorption, you would need to DOUBLE atmospheric pressure! OK you may not need to double it but just how much would you need to make a significant difference?
How can you predict the mass effect (on every living thing) of this increase in pressure, of  O2 as well? The photosynthesis rate of all plants could be affected and the metabolism of everything would be affected. How can you assert that this is irrelevant without some knowledge? Your idea is based on a very subtle effect involving the change of concentration of one gas so how can you dismiss the idea of an equally subtle effect due to a change in pressure (and you still haven't said how much) of the other constituents of air?

When you say "displacement", what exactly do you mean? The gases will all mix by diffusion.   There will be a pressure gradient from sea level upwards and the relative proportions of the gases will vary all the way up. Yes, the concentration of CO2 in a still atmosphere is at its highest at the bottom, because of the relative densities . (See the above post for some more detail of practicalities)
 
What, in your system,  will 'displace' what and in what direction? Try to use established terms in the conventional way so that I can understand you with my knowledge of conventional Science.

Instead of being upset by the objections being raised, try to consider that your proposal may, in fact, not be viable.

You seem to incapable of grasping the fact that only very small adjustments are required to negate the global warming effect.

I do not understand why you can't comprehend this.

We all know about diffusion.Even with diffusion the distribution tends towards higher density at base level.

Have you seen a bell shaped curve?

Have you heard of the poisson distribution or the binomial distribution?

The atmosphere is not your teacup where rapid stirring make it nearly uniform for a very short time.

Your diffusion obsession in fact is invalid.By your diffusion obsession the atmosphere should be a static non-dynamic system when it clearly is not.Non uniformity drives the processes via energy input.

Just a SMALL increase/decrease has a large effect on heat absorption.

The oceans already absorb/release gases due to temperature variation and pressure.We will simply be adjusting the needle towards slightly higher absorbtion of the co2 gas.

120 ELECTRODES AS 360 DIVIDED BY 120=3.

Yes you can use 121 but the cost and wiring goes up and you  need to stop somewhere.

3 degree angular separation will allow fine control without micromanagement issues, although 36 electrodes could be used as well but the control will be less fine and may allow some area not to be electrolysed effectively.


I suggest you get a block/cube of ice floating in water stick to 2 forks separated by a few inches in to the ice cube attached to a 3 to 12 volt battery and placed in a glass/plastic container with some COLORED/DYED dry ice.The effects will be visible the current is increased.You will see some co2 being absorbed as pressure is increased in the closed system due to the electrolysis with the lighter gases rising and co2 being predominately at the bottom in contact with the water in which the ice cube is floating even with diffusion.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2008 11:00:27 by NobodySavedMe »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Which particular curve is bell shaped in this context?
Which particular distribution applies here?
How small is 'small'?
How slight is 'slight'?
Some numbers are essential here. How much CO2 do you actually need to absorb in what time? That will tell you the extra pressure you will need. Then you can work out how much of this extra gas you  will require in the atmosphere and this will indicate how many coulombs of charge you will need for the electrolysis. That will then tell you the energy requirement for your project.
Else, it's just waving your arms about and getting cross when people don't believe you.

And you still haven't explained by what you (in particular) mean by 'displacement".
I am sorry to be so dim about this but I would really appreciate an exact explanation of that particular term. You see, in my education, displacement either means to move something  or somebody somewhere else or, where fluids, in particular, are concerned it is used for 'to take the place of' (Archimede's Principle and all that) which implies floating and sinking issues.  Your extra gases won't /can't act as a piston to push the CO2 anywhere so how are they displacing anything? I don't get it.

btw, have you actually done the experiment you describe?
What did you dye the dry ice with?
How could you tell / 'see'  the CO2 was being absorbed?
Was the container closed? 'Cos the atmosphere ain't.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2008 12:36:42 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
And what about when the hydrogen escapes the earth's atmosphere completely?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Perhaps we could harvest it first and use it as a fuel?
That would appeal to some of our contributors.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Which particular curve is bell shaped in this context?

Was the container closed? 'Cos the atmosphere ain't.


You are wrong again.Gravity is the enclosure.Without it the atmosphere would dissipate quickly.Why do you ask these questions to which you should know the answer.

Do you ever run? If you run you displace air.
 

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling.

You are wrong we are talking about dynamic processes whereas you refer to static values.

If your graphs have any truth then no co2 would be absorbed by the ocean. as it is too high.

I mean when you breath out why does the co2 rise?

Because it is warm.


if it is cold it goes down.
 

lyner

  • Guest
I take it, from the fact that you are merely ridiculing my requirement for your definition of what displacement means,  that you do not actually understand what will actually happen in your proposed process.
What will the distribution of CO2 and the other gases be when your process is running?
Am I right in suggesting that you are actually proposing to increase the mass of the Atmosphere significantly?
You ask me why I ask the questions. It's because, unless YOU can answer them, I have to conclude that you do not understand any of this.
My objections and questions are perfectly reasonable. You should be quite capable of answering them in proper Scientific Terms if you are to be taken seriously.
No more wishy washy please. Some hard Science.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums