Good way to get rid of CO2

Im sure this idea has already been floated before but would it be possible for CO2 from Earth to be transported to Mars to begin the process of terraforming and solving the problems of global warming(send the other greenhouse gases as well.) Would this actually be feasible(sp?)

I don't think this would work because of the cost involved. Consider that the cost of probes sent to Mars to date have been at the least in the hundreds of millions of dollars up into the billions of dollars each. To send enough CO2 to Mars to make a dent in the atmosphere would require hundreds, thousands, of missions at least. I will pull a number out of the air and assume it will take $100 billion and 20 years of sending transports to try and make a dent into both the Earth's CO2 and Mars CO2 problem. I think for that much money and time (and more likely a lot less money) we would be better off investing in ways to prevent/store CO2 emissions on Earth and deliver machinery to Mars that would either 1) melt the vast stores of frozen CO2 and water on Mars; 2) manufacture greenhouse gases to help thicken, warm and retain Mars atmosphere.

A second problem with terraforming Mars is that there may be life there - it may only be microscopic, but it's still life. So far, officially life doesn't exist on Mars. But with each year, new discoveries suggest that it may exist underneath the surface. There are also many photos of Mars landscape that seem to suggest evidence of primitive plant life there. www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Here's an article that discusses the ethics of terraforming Mars to suit human needs/wants: www.guardian.co.uk...

Furthermore, I don't see why we would need to terraform Mars in the first place. To live there, we will need shelter regardless. The best kind of protective shelter in my opinion would be underground.

Also, while it's possible for us to store CO2 on Earth, whether in the ground or in containers, both solutions do nothing to prevent excess CO2 output. The best way to truly solve a problem is to attack the root cause, not the symptoms.

By the way, if you're interested in truly researching this topic, I would suggest using Google and entering some queries such as "how to terraform mars" "reducing co2" "storing co2" and related/similar terms to find many, many articles that discuss numerous ideas - far more detailed research than relying on random replies from ATS posters. Then if you find some potential solutions that are supported by research or technology breakthroughs, post them here for discussion.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by enhancedesign]

[edit on 3-12-2005 by enhancedesign]

Who wants to invest in a 1,000+ year project which has no certain foreseeable outcome? How would the transportation of CO2 take place, it a gas and meaning only limited amounts can be taken.

Hey im not sayin there arent huge problems in the idea, im not even saying it IS possible.
But what if all the major counties got together then I think it could be pheasible to at least begin transporting CO2, most the world superpowers are planning trips to mars, so what if they all got together in a single mission.
It might not even work if it got to this stage but most huge space missions give lots of technological advances if only space wise (this is mainly refering to the original race between U.S and U.S.S.R.)

Do we even know if CO2 is the cause of global warming? I meen, does it really have to go? Can't just more plants absorb it and we can just put those plants in landfills or store it somewhere on earth.

I know this might sound sarcastic, but I really don't know the answere to those questions.

Originally posted by Shenroon
Hey im not sayin there arent huge problems in the idea, im not even saying it IS possible.
But what if all the major counties got together then I think it could be pheasible to at least begin transporting CO2, most the world superpowers are planning trips to mars, so what if they all got together in a single mission.
It might not even work if it got to this stage but most huge space missions give lots of technological advances if only space wise (this is mainly refering to the original race between U.S and U.S.S.R.)

Umm, sorry, but I can see no logic with this idea. The amounts of energy required to get such a small amount of payload into space and out of earth's orbit to mars would be enormous compared to the benefits. Just think of how much air is in the atmosphere and that you would have to transport, lets say round 25% of it to mars ...I'm guessing that would only take around 10,000 years.

Also, I'm doubtful that CO2 is the true cause of global warming. The oceans are what cause the weather and temperatures, not a relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that "traps" heat from the sun. Think of it this way, in order to boil a pot of water, would you try heating the top of it using a hairdryer across its surface, of course not...it's completely ineffective. So think of the oceans, and what's underneath them, a core of molten magma. If that were to heat up slightly that would have a much more direct affect on ocean temps and weather versus a small increase in surface temperature. Sorry to go off on a bit of a tangent there.

There's a couple of major problems with the scenario... and one of them is that Mars is so cold that the CO2 would simply stay frozen and never melt.

The planet's gravitational field is not terribly strong, and you couldn't keep 1 atmosphere (Earth)'s worth of air around the planet.

There's plenty of CO2 there already.

You don't want to take all the carbon out of Earth. It's vital to life here on Earth. It needs to be put back into the planet; not shipped somewhere else.

Maybe plant more trees? Cut less plant more? How many trees have we lost since the industrial revolution?

Terraforming Mars doesn’t seem like an option. Good reasons are listed above and there are a few old threads about the subject. It just doesn’t seem possible.

Shenroom, why should any of us research answers to your original post for discussion if you don't show any evidence of doing any research yourself? There are TONS of articles and research available to you online if you'd only take the time to use Google as suggested before. Good luck and tell us what you learned.

O.K it wouldnt work/ is completly pointless I get the idea.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Maybe plant more trees? Cut less plant more? How many trees have we lost since the industrial revolution?

It seems that we're losing more and more trees every year because Wal-mart is building new stores (larger and larger) at an alarming rate.

They're builing a Super Wal-mart near where I live and there's already a Super Walmart about 8 miles down the street!

I'm going to hypothesise that Wal-mart is the cause of global warming. You know, with the pitch covered roofs and asphalt parking lots, it can't be cooling the planet off any.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
It seems that we're losing more and more trees every year because Wal-mart is building new stores (larger and larger) at an alarming rate.

Farming is a worse problem, what with topsoil erosion and greenhouse gasses emmited by Farming Equipment and Farm Animals like Cows and Pigs and Fertilizer Runoff etc etc.

www.worldchanging.com...



Sorry for the small image sizes but there is much more info at this link...

www.sage.wisc.edu...

And here is a potential fix for the farming problem...

www.wired.com...

I'm going to hypothesise that Wal-mart is the cause of global warming.

They are one company. That's it. Don't oversimplify what is a very very complicated problem.

You know, with the pitch covered roofs and asphalt parking lots, it can't be cooling the planet off any.

Green Roofs may be the answer to alot of our problems...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.garlandco.com...

[edit on 15-12-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Umbrax
Maybe plant more trees? Cut less plant more? How many trees have we lost since the industrial revolution?

Terraforming Mars doesn’t seem like an option. Good reasons are listed above and there are a few old threads about the subject. It just doesn’t seem possible.

Since the IR? A far fewer percent than what was lost before the Revolution.

The greatest chemical substitute to come from the IR was the use of coal to make steel (or was it cast iron?). Europe, around the begining of the 18th century had lost tremendous amounts of forest. We're talking huge percentages of forest lost because the technique at the time to make steel before was to use charcoal. England in particular.
So trees needed to be chopped down and cut so that the resulting wood could be burnt in a low oxygen environment to then be able to react with iron-oxide in order to displace the oxygen from the iron.

The industrial revolution saved many many a tree. I remember reading in NG and on this forum, that about 40% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere since 1900 has been eliminated through biological process, and most of it comes from marine life.