Might I ask a question of the science community

Ok so im new to posting here on ATS so please excuse any ignorance I might portray.
(also if is this is quite long)

I have been sitting here hearing hearing this that and the other about climate change, from what I understand of the situation the gasses\smog our machines\factories produce go into the atmosphere, as well as the waste from the factories into the ground and water, the everyday waste we produce just living life like garbage, going back into the the ground and water by creating landfills, and from what I have only seen pictures of, a giant mass of garbage floating in the pacific ocean I believe(not 100%).

Thus destroying our environment.

At the same time you hear about jobs and unemployment and how that whole system is FUBAR masked with a "ohh we gained a wonderful .o6 percent"(pulling statistic out of my unmentioned region) then mountains of speculation on how to fix it.

So the main question I would like to ask is this:

Don't we\do we have the ability to create air purifiers and find out what need to change in that purifier to allow it to start filtering harmful gasses through, to at least reduce the built up levels of these dangerous gasses, depending on how the technology is harnessed of course. But since we have the ability to create electrically operated vehicles cant we use this on an air craft(or find a way to) find a way power it with solar energy, as well as with a power storage unit and as a back up wind turbines inside the the air filtration system of which would basically be the center of the craft. Put this on an unmanned aircraft possibly capable of limitless fight other then needing to stop for regular maintenance obviously and filter/smog tank change(since the issue of fuel is resolved).

But if that were possible couldn't that same basic idea be applied to the oceans as well cleaning out pollutants in the water. vessels could be created to take in waste floating on the seas like a much like the same way a shark breaths(more or less) with an open front on a larger vessel where it would take in floating debris and let water pass through seal-able slits in the sides of the debris intake chamber lets call it leaving the debris to be stored and dropped off to recycling centers when capacity is reached. Allowing for at least somewhat better removal practices like recycling, instead of just letting float out to sea.

Even under and through the water with submersible "filter" vessels, where like the aircraft the center would be the filter system in which it does its thing, cleaning the water of pollutants but couldn't be used on a massive scale because of the massive amounts of microscopic organisms that would be filtered through and exterminated, which could possibly destroy a large portion of the underwater ecosystems but could be used to clean oil spills in the water for instance.

with just the air and sea in mind that would cost billions of dollars if not trillions, of course it would have to be a global effort(if that's possible) all the industrial jobs as well as science and engineering jobs would literally BOOM upwards at figures of who hypothetically knows. The whole world would benefit from it making the economy stronger since the worlds money really just has the value we as a whole place on it as one example.

To clean the land would probably be the hardest, people would have to sort through peoples garbage properly going through with a good amount of detail. Sorting out plastic to be made into freshly recycled plastic, metal reformed into new metal, paper into recycled paper duh. Food wastes might be the biggest issue because how can you know exactly what it is or whats in it? if you were to try to use something like that for compost on the lands of the world and that compost has poison in it well you just poisoned the worlds food supply, so that issue i don't really ave any ideas for at the moment but in time im sure some one can figure it out if they just try. mabye rigorous testing of it for toxins? I dont know for sure.

Now aside from all the political slander and people just straight up hating each other not working out in this idea. When faced with a greater enemy the enemy of my enemy is my friend right? Such as the death of the necessary environmental factors needed to keep supporting life the way we know it here on earth,that means possibly preventing another mass extinction which obviously you would think everyone in the world would want to prevent. Regardless of who did what where and why, it wouldn't matter if the planet cant support us and allow us to fight about such petty things anyway.

would any of these ideas be plausible? if not already created or implemented and just not in use in the right ways? I wont sit here and argue the science behind these ideas because well... I am no scientist and I know that, and I wont pretend to be, that doesn't mean its not worth looking into. but I am curious to see cause you never know, even if science tells us no, doesn't that really just mean for now? when it comes to matters of science todays science fiction is tomorrows science fact right?


well even if not possible at the moment it seemed important to question, so I thought I might as well put forth the idea and see what happens from there.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

Yeah we have atmospheric CO2 sequestering modules, a few different types; trees, need to plant more; and of course Plankton. I am sure Monsanto will be by soon with a GMO solution to both. It's less costly to plant trees and nurture plankton and algae populations that to create CO2 scrubbers and underground sequestering tanks.

Of course, absorption and sequestering is only necessary if the myth of anthropogenic global climate change is real. If the planetary changes are a natural cyclic or external influence event, then we're just pooched. Cheer up, the worst is yet to come ;-)

Cheers - Dave

Not adding puffer to the guy.

OK... send Phage a message..
Maybe even jimoberg ...

After listening to coast to coast last night.. I'm a useless piece of info..l

I can only speak for my own country (Denmark), which is relatively small.

All the money the carbon tax is generating, is put back in to the infrastructure of the country.

It's all spent on cleaner industry, farming and agriculture, more efficient public transportation instead of everyone owns a car (especially for cities), green energy like wind and solar energy, and much much more, and has been done for years.

Also as the climate is changing which we feel a lot here in massive amount of torrential or constant rain, the severs and high risk areas of flooding are being renewed and made more efficient to deal with the water.

So when it comes to here, we are dealing with the problems through the carbon tax, to limit co2 and have a cleaner environment.

No scientist or politicians are getting rich, as many wants you to believe by saying "scam".

It's a long term plan that needs a lot of money, but things are done incl. some of your suggestions.

Throughout history thee has been gradual warming of the climate and an increase in CO2 which led to increased plant growth and goodness for animals on the planet . But once the CO2 reached a certain level , the bottom fell out of the temperature . I always say "Its not the global warming that concerns me , its the global cooling afterwards " Hard to grow food in 2 feet of ice.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

Don't we\do we have the ability to create air purifiers and find out what need to change in that purifier to allow it to start filtering harmful gasses through, to at least reduce the built up levels of these dangerous gasses

Because I'm a staunch believer in Total Recall being 100% on the money...

I'd have to say yes we do have the ability to do so!




But I'm sure there will be much more scientific responses to your overall point.





Phaaaaaaaggggggeeeeee!!!!!!

a reply to: Mianeye

That sounds like a wonderful place to live I couldn't even imagine it, considering where I live in Illinois one of the most corrupt states in the U.S. here they rebuild the roads they just made last year, and patch the ones that desperately need to be fixed. From what you described it sounds like the world could take countries like your as an example of how to structure themselves on a much larger scale.

Although I have briefly visited Bulgaria for a couple months, I noticed their cars and how they used them there compared to here in the U.S. is drastically different pretty much they just used it for far distances like traveling across the country or transportation of goods or picking people up from the airport stuff like that. Pretty much all the stores and restaurants are all within walking distance meaning they don't need to use a car to get around since its like a 5 or 10 minute walk where as here in the U.S. people use their cars to go out and check the mail but that guy was like 80 but still its pretty normal to get in your car here and go drive for an hour one way just to get to work then an hour back 5 or 6 days a week.

But to change something like that would take literately the entire country working together to restructure the country as a whole, let alone the entire planet doing this (even with some countries closer then others). when enough of the worlds people realize that global warming wont mater if your water is poisonous the seas have no fish and all the nutrients have been bled from the soil. That's when we will realize its time to stand up and do something but by that point we'll all be to weak(or dead) to do so.

[that was also partially a response to bobs_uruncle]

a reply to: magnesiumbones

To clean the land would probably be the hardest, people would have to sort through peoples garbage properly going through with a good amount of detail. Sorting out plastic to be made into freshly recycled plastic, metal reformed into new metal, paper into recycled paper duh

You just described recycling. People already do this, it's just the world is a big place.
Where I take my recycling, even the clear glass is separated from the coloured glass, paper from cardboard etc.

Even old tires are chipped up and turned into road paving materials, and other things.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: magnesiumbones

Don't we\do we have the ability to create air purifiers and find out what need to change in that purifier to allow it to start filtering harmful gasses through, to at least reduce the built up levels of these dangerous gasses

Phaaaaaaaggggggeeeeee!!!!!!

Might take more than a shout out, little brother.

On Topic: The solution lies in organics. It's one thing we're practiced at and relatively successful with. A follow-up with a better understanding of Terra Preta may be wise as well.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

Well, it all sounds dandy, but it's far from enough, Denmark is just a drop in the ocean, but i do know that more European country's are doing their part of the deal, those that have the means for it, but it's also covered in bureaucracy and pointless discussions and the endless climate meetings, plus the ignorance from everyday people who just don't care.

So it might be that things are done, but it's at a very slow pace, and over all it might not have an effect that can be measured.

Only time will tell, and as you say, when people start realizing that there are actually a problem and it might be caused by human activity, it's probably to late.

So far the whole climate discussion is at a stand still, as no one seems to be able to predict whats to come, and what should be really done, plus no one can really say what is causing climate change for real, natural, human caused or a combination of both or more, right now every one is just watching to see if any thing bad happens, and then react according to that.

There are a lot of things in running a world as people see it today that can't be changed easily, and the things that are changed are just the very easy one with an easy solution.
One of the easy solution was to make the carbon tax to cover the cost of the most common stuff, no one believes it helps at all, but it makes people feel comfortable thinking they are doing something.

But, to really do something, drastic measures has to be taken, people don't like when told to change drastically, they think freedom is removed from them by the evil governments.

What ruins all efforts is economy, it just doesn't mix well with a proper solution, and the fact that changing something before there is a cause to do so is not humans way of doing it, they wait for the tire to burst before thinking of changing it, a recipe for disaster.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: magnesiumbones

To clean the land would probably be the hardest, people would have to sort through peoples garbage properly going through with a good amount of detail. Sorting out plastic to be made into freshly recycled plastic, metal reformed into new metal, paper into recycled paper duh

You just described recycling. People already do this, it's just the world is a big place.
Where I take my recycling, even the clear glass is separated from the coloured glass, paper from cardboard etc.

Even old tires are chipped up and turned into road paving materials, and other things.

yes I did, but I also talked about a lot more then just recycling I'm not denying we do that but we don't do it on a scale that really makes a difference when you see the amounts of trash just sitting around in the world. Its about a lot more then then that. I don't believe we are currently in any wide scale cleansing of the ocean and air systems of the earth.

Also I applaud you for recycling in a proper manner, but that makes you stand out because your one of the people who actually do it,because lets be honest not everyone knows how to properly do it, and not just blindly throw anything into a can not caring, plastics, papers, food, and foils even electronics or batteries all into a plastic bag and pile it up. Only creating the opposite effect from what your trying to get out of recycling and it can start out with something simple like teaching people to properly recycle or compost, such a little act can have an overwhelmingly positive outcome.

a reply to: Mianeye

You can do things like that when your government isn't trying to invade multiple countries in the Middle East and handing out foreign aid so other governments can kill other people.

When the US government says, "OK, we've stopped paying out foreign aid. We've cut back military spending to just the amount we need to defend our borders and coastline. We've re-allocated the money that was formerly spent on lobbying and election campaigns. We're now using that money to fight climate change and clean up the environment, but we still need more."

Then I will consider the validity of a carbon tax.

When the US Government says that fighting climate change and cleaning up the environment is a higher priority than torturing people at Gitmo, or having the NSA spy on everyone, then I will listen.

If an asteroid were heading for the Earth, do you think we would need to raise an asteroid tax? No, they would just do what needed to be done, screw the cost. If it's just a matter of money, have the Federal Reserve click a few keystrokes.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

That's true, it's not done properly by many areas. Where I live now, they recycle most things. Where I lived a couple of years ago, it was too far away from the larger city, and they didn't recycle glass items unless they were old beverage containers.

Getting rid of those fluorescent bulbs is almost impossible. My old dead ones are sitting in baggies at he moment.

The whole world needs to step it up a notch

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I fully agree, we are fighting the same wars as a US allied, and don't get me started on the millions of dollars in foreign aid that always end up in the wrong hands that we to are paying.

a reply to: Mianeye

Well that is true but the people of the world most notably its governments are looking at this issue the wrong way its should not be about climate change and global warming, but about global pollution and overall destruction of the environment through unchecked waste procedures of many countries industrial complexes or letting them get away with improperly disposing of hazardous materials. and the ignorance of the masses is not really there fault since they don't really understand why they should care about it even if the global leaders want to have pointless conversations doesn't mean we have to, it only takes about and hour to explain what goes into one waste receptacle and not the other.

But if we are making progress at the rate we are now even with the masses who don't properly dispose of there wastes, imagine if you can cut the amount of people largely contributing to that rate you cut down on the amount of people contributing to the problem.


the fact is you would not ingest small amounts of poison and pretend to be OK, then once you start dying try to save yourself.

if people want to feel better about damaging the ecosystem they live in, they should not try to throw money at a problem, they should try to learn as much as possible about the problem to find the best solution for it. and actually implement these easy solutions they tell people they put into place then you never hear about again, instead of using money under a different budget name to fund the things a government should already have a system put in place for.

And yes I do agree with that lol people do tend to believe things like that when it comes to "sudden change", but when you tell someone YOU MUST CHANGE NOW OR SUFFER, or you help that person understand why it is important to change so that they don't have to suffer, there would most likely be two different outcomes to how that person reacts the the fact that they need to change.

As for that disaster recipe that's completely true but that doesn't have to mean we should just accept that, we have the power to change the world the only problem is that the masses never realize this fact because that wouldnt benefit individual peoples greed.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

why does the government have to tell you whats more important before you react? the government only works the way the people allow it either they sit by and do nothing and just say it doesn't matter but not even bother to question the things that are important to the process. if enough people were about to give up this sense of "what can i do about it" they can learn about the problems being created by the society they live in, again to help better understand the situation[s] on hand.

but this is really starting to take a more political twist then desired, I was really aiming at the more scientific aspect of the topic I posted.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

The government doesn't have to tell me. I tell myself I'm recycling but I think it's closer to borderline hoarding. I have two broken microwaves and a few other broken appliances I'm saving until I can find time to take them apart and separate the steel, copper, aluminum, etc. I've got about nine cubic feet of circuit boards and electronic scrap to try to extract the gold. You know those pins that get left over from pop rivets? Into the aluminum recycling bin with the dog food cans, soda cans, used aluminum foil, etc. Aside from the environmental concerns, throwing away metal is throwing away money.

I was just making a point about carbon taxes. I don't think the US Government should be asking for a carbon tax until they demonstrate that combating climate change and cleaning up the environment is a priority with the existing tax revenues.

For instance, the US has a massive Navy. We could spearhead a multinational effort to clean up that plastic island in the Pacific. Make a proposal to the UN, and countries would be clamoring to join in, just for the great PR. And it wouldn't cost us any more than it does just to send the fleet out on regular deployments.

But even with that, or some of the other cleanup methods you suggest, the best we could do is to just maintain, or maybe slightly improve. Nature is pretty good at cleaning itself if given time. Cleanup is good, more trees is good, but the root problem is an increasing human population on a finite Earth. We need to expand and evolve. Either one first, but both eventually.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

The problem with most of what we do that is man made is one of efficiency. If we tried to clean everything up by racing around the world with some incredible tech, I'm pretty sure it would screw other things up with the power required to do it.

The most powerful and efficient clean-up tech already exists in nature but we misuse it because it works so well (i.e: we build our houses out of those carbon sequestering forests & burn up or spill all that oil over the carbon sequestering aquatic plants).

We can do better, but will we?

BTW love your name & avatar pic.

With a couple of large meteor and comet impacts to turn the soil we could be right as rain in 50-60 years when the dust settled. Carbon emissions down from mass die off of carbon emitters, global cooling from the dust kicked up. Just one short ice age and everything is in the green again.

The fact is the carbon economy was built by powerful people who work tirelessly to prevent changes in the status quo. We really have little effective control over these economic and political forces.

a reply to: magnesiumbones

Natural gas and Ore consumption that is very rooted in combustible mass energy production has a nasty side effect and that's pollution.

The general public iq and or understanding of the world has not met the required level to upgrade societies technological advancement.

Meaning we have all the answers stored away waiting on everyone like Solar Energy. We just need the mass majority to upgrade in consciousness.

Sad but true. We will ride our selves into the grave or the sky one way or another.