Can passing current through the polar icecaps stop them melting?

  • 50 Replies
  • 16201 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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.

*

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.

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.

The graphs show a fairly even concentration of CO2 with altitude in conflict with your previous assertions. The graphs are of CO2 concentration in the real world and are based on a large number of measurements. This does not preclude absorption of CO2 by the oceans as there is significant concentration of CO2 at the surface. It does preclude your idea that because CO2 is heavier it will result in higher concentrations at ground level. This is simply not the case in the real world.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
Do you ever run? If you run you displace air.
That is true but I happen to be a solid and I absorb very little air whilst I run. There is no doubt that, if I sit on a balloon of CO2, I will compress it but the other gases in your system will mix and / or diffuse. What do you say will happen in that case? Where is this 'displacement' happening?
Why do you refuse to answer? Could it be that you have no idea and you are just cross when an awkward question is asked?
« Last Edit: 05/06/2008 19:02:55 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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.

The graphs show a fairly even concentration of CO2 with altitude in conflict with your previous assertions. The graphs are of CO2 concentration in the real world and are based on a large number of measurements. This does not preclude absorption of CO2 by the oceans as there is significant concentration of CO2 at the surface. It does preclude your idea that because CO2 is heavier it will result in higher concentrations at ground level. This is simply not the case in the real world.


Again you are talking about static values.I can prove it too.

Any tree/vegetation absorbs co2 and releases oxygen.right?

AT GROUND LEVEL.

right?

Now both you and sophie claim no co2 exists.If this was the case then trees would die.


A tree can only absorb co2 if it exists at ground level.Can you not understand that simple fact?

plants/vegetation is made largely from carbon absorbed from air from co2 and from soil nutrients.

Hence co2 does exist at sea level and your graphs are irrelevant as to the  majority accumulation.

in any case your obsession with diffusion is wrong.DIFFUSION has been occuring for millions of years but the atmosphere is still non-uniform.This is because it is a dynamic system.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
But neither of them said there is no CO2 at ground level. They said that CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere.

*

lyner

  • Guest
GrahamD
We can assume that there is CO2 at ground level; I never stated that it isn't (read carefully). The vertical distribution is of minor consequence, except I have to point our that the CO2 all the way up contributes to warming - not just the bit at ground level.
I ask, yet again, what are the mechanics behind this 'displacement' process which is supposed to increase its pressure so that the surface CO2 dissolves faster. Withering comments are not needed - just a proper explanation without rude comments. You still haven't given one.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2008 23:12:55 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2208
    • View Profile
Sophie, I think you have got your lines crossed :-) I don't think I disagreed with you, did I. I think you should have been addressing NSM.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Oh yes; dopey me!
Remarks actually addressed to NSM.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2008 23:13:28 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
So then the measurements we have of co2 concentration vs. altitude are wrong then NobodySavedMe? They must be because it doesn't line up with your senseless theory? Just to clarifly, are you trying to say that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sits neatly near ground level?

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
So then the measurements we have of co2 concentration vs. altitude are wrong then NobodySavedMe? They must be because it doesn't line up with your senseless theory? Just to clarifly, are you trying to say that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sits neatly near ground level?

You both are missing the point.

IT DOES NOT MATTER AT WHAT ALTITUDE WHERE THE PEAK VALUE OF CARBON DIOXIDE  CONCENTRATION IS.

Your inability to understand a simple fact is astonishing.

All that matters is that it exists at sea level and can be absorbed as explained.

*

lyner

  • Guest
Yes - it doesn't really matter about the distribution.
BUT, you still haven't explained, in readily understandable terms, how you intend to increase the pressure of CO2 where it is in contact with the sea.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPLACEMENT? You have not answered that question yet and that's why I am shouting. If you cannot explain that, your idea has no meaning. If you think I am ignorant, then explain in very simple terms so that even an idiot can understand what you mean. Some actual figures for the quantities involved might help, too.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
Yes - it doesn't really matter about the distribution.
BUT, you still haven't explained, in readily understandable terms, how you intend to increase the pressure of CO2 where it is in contact with the sea.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPLACEMENT? You have not answered that question yet and that's why I am shouting. If you cannot explain that, your idea has no meaning. If you think I am ignorant, then explain in very simple terms so that even an idiot can understand what you mean. Some actual figures for the quantities involved might help, too.

But I already have explained it.
Yet you persist in your argumentative and vexatious manner.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
But I already have explained it.
Yet you persist in your argumentative and vexatious manner.

Are you a politician?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
NSM,
to displace something means, as you pointed out, to move it elsewhere.
Where do you propose to move the CO2 to? The earth's gravity makes "elsewhere"  a dfiicult concept. (incidentally this isn't true of the hydrogen you plan to produce- it's to do with boltzmann distributions and escape velocities)
If it's still part of the atmosphere it will still generate a greenhouse effect.
If you hope that it will dissolve in the oceans then you don't understand the chemistry.
In order to increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water you don't have to increase the overall pressure. You need to increase the partial pressure of CO2 and your proposal doesn't do that.
Adding a diluent gas like H2 or O2 would reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Since there's nowhere else for it to go, it would end up in the air. That makes the greenhouse effect even worse.

That's before we work out how much electrical power it would take to prduce any significant quantity of H2 or O2 - and from that work out how much fuel we would need to burn  and thus see how much more CO2 it would put into the air.
Then there's the other qusetion. Why in the name of anyone would you try to run a current through ice. It's a dreadful conductor so you would need to use much more electicity than if you used water.

Basically the idea is dumb to start with and it gets worse the more you think about it.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
You are w
NSM,
to displace something means, as you pointed out, to move it elsewhere.
Where do you propose to move the CO2 to? The earth's gravity makes "elsewhere"  a dfiicult concept. (incidentally this isn't true of the hydrogen you plan to produce- it's to do with boltzmann distributions and escape velocities)
If it's still part of the atmosphere it will still generate a greenhouse effect.
If you hope that it will dissolve in the oceans then you don't understand the chemistry.
In order to increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water you don't have to increase the overall pressure. You need to increase the partial pressure of CO2 and your proposal doesn't do that.
Adding a diluent gas like H2 or O2 would reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Since there's nowhere else for it to go, it would end up in the air. That makes the greenhouse effect even worse.

That's before we work out how much electrical power it would take to prduce any significant quantity of H2 or O2 - and from that work out how much fuel we would need to burn  and thus see how much more CO2 it would put into the air.
Then there's the other qusetion. Why in the name of anyone would you try to run a current through ice. It's a dreadful conductor so you would need to use much more electicity than if you used water.

Basically the idea is dumb to start with and it gets worse the more you think about it.
rong.


Power stations run 24/7 and at night due to lower load the extra electricity is wasted and could easily be diverted.CO2 has a huge effect on heat absorption.A small change downward would reduce global warming.increasing o2 and h2 would increase absorption by the sea as co2 would be absorbed preferentilly.

*

lyner

  • Guest
After two pages of posts and discussion you still haven't described what your propoasl actually involves. You refuse to say what your 'shorthand' terms mean. How much of your own personal money would you invest in such a scanty case? Forgive me for my total disbelief; you have no idea what is involved.

btw,Power stations do not 'dump' their energy at night. They can vary their output by adjusting the fuel input.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
"increasing o2 and h2 would increase absorption by the sea as co2 would be absorbed preferentilly."
No it wouldn't . Please learn some science.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
And it would just be plain stupid to put all that energy into producing hydrogen and then just letting it escape into the atmosphere and eventually out of it. If you're going to produce hydrogen in mass scale it would be much better used as a fuel instead of a futile effort to increase the atmospheric pressure for no good reason.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
It would probably be a good idea not to screw with the arctic icecap too.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
After two pages of posts and discussion you still haven't described what your propoasl actually involves. You refuse to say what your 'shorthand' terms mean. How much of your own personal money would you invest in such a scanty case? Forgive me for my total disbelief; you have no idea what is involved.

btw,Power stations do not 'dump' their energy at night. They can vary their output by adjusting the fuel input.

Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.

By electrolysing the ice we can restore the normal co2 levels by displacing excess co2 back into the ocean.

You can even try this experiment IN THE GARDEN with ice and 2 forks in the ice attached to batteries and a upside jug semi submerged in a basin of water.AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
So you intend to put a giant upside down vessel over the ice caps?

And out of interest, have you tried it?  How did you show that the co2 was absorbed?

*

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2208
    • View Profile

Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.


Rubbish. A dynamo under load (i.e. when energy is being drawn from it) is harder to turn than one that has its output "open circuit" with no energy coming from it.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8740
    • View Profile
"Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder"
Wrong way round.
"AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed. "
Worng way round again. displacing CO2 from the area above the water will let more CO2 come out of solution.
It also remains the case that ice is a damned poor conductr so passinfg a current through it is difficult. Water's easier.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
"Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder"
Wrong way round.
"AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed. "
Worng way round again. displacing CO2 from the area above the water will let more CO2 come out of solution.
It also remains the case that ice is a damned poor conductr so passinfg a current through it is difficult. Water's easier.


no no no.
displacing co2 from the caps will keep them cool and get it reabsorbed by the sea.we don't need a good conductor.any material conducts electricity, except some conduct better.


Reply with quote
So you intend to put a giant upside down vessel over the ice caps?

And out of interest, have you tried it?  How did you show that the co2 was absorbed?

no.
gravity holds the atmosphere down.did you not know that?

the co2 was absorbed as a colored dye sprayed into the air above water showed as pressure increased it got absorbed by the water surface.

many of you seem ignorant that the sea is the main determinant.70% is ocean surface.

a dynamo under load is easier to turn as the extra speed compensates for the energy being drained from it.it is harder to turn if it open circuit as no energy is being drained.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
no.
gravity holds the atmosphere down.did you not know that?

the co2 was absorbed as a colored dye sprayed into the air above water showed as pressure increased it got absorbed by the water surface.

Yes, I understand that gravity holds the atmosphere around the Earth, and I'll thank you not to question my education.  However, the air above the icecaps is not held rigidly in place by anything similar to your plastic vessel - wind will dispurse and mix the gases.

So you did this experiment by spraying a coloured liquid into your sealed chamber, yes? No by measuring dissolved co2 in the liquid?

*

lyner

  • Guest
NSM
Quote
Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.
Ring up your local power station and find out. Do yourself a favour - let them give you a Science lesson. You clearly won't listen to us who know.
Have you ever heard of Lenz's law?