Green House solution?

[science_man]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4862/greenhousenx1.jpg<br /><br />The link above is of a diagram of what I am talking about. <br /><br />If we create millions of greenhouses on earth then those green houses can capture all the rays and keep them inside temporarily. That way less uv rays and heat will go back to the atmosphere which is good because less heat. <br /><br />How to now get rid of captured ray and hat in the green house?<br /><br />Suck out all the air in the greenhouse and create a semi vacuum and then release the air in strong pods to moon or mars to create an atmosphere there.<br /><br />aye?<br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks for your time. <br />- Nishant Shukla

 

[kyle_baron]

Several thoughts come to mind:<br />1. Overly simplistic<br />2. Not practicle<br />3. Expensive<br />4. Unseen consequences<br />Other than those problems, it's a great idea! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Very charitable <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[science_man]

1. Yes its simple, because right now its only a though.<br /><br />2. Why is this not practical? (*im not speaking in an angry tone*)<br /><br />3. Yes it will be expensive! 20.000 (cost of greenhouse) * 500.000 (number of greenhouses) = $10.000.000.000 almost 10 billion! This might sound expensive now but later on when times get worse and we're in a situation of life and death because of global warming this is the human solution. Money or human,animal,and plant genocide?<br />Do not forget its not like we would be just wasting money by creating greenhouses. We would also be creating tons of food! And we can keep certain animals in greenhouses together so they can no longer become extinct. It would solve many problems. Don't forget about the tons of atmospheric air that you now have control of after you suck it up.<br /><br />4. True. Cant deny that. Please discuss this. <br /><br />- Nishant Shukla<br /><br /><br />Edited 6:51 eastern USA timezone.

 

[deapfreeze]

Sounds good in theory. But I think the cost issue would keep the worlds governments away. It would be just as easy to start creating orbiting civilizations and this to would not be a waste of money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

Not practicle: Do you build all the greenhouses in one spot, or spread them around the globe? In either case the earth is too big. It will compensate for any loss of heat, no matter where you put the greenhouses (think about winds blowing).<br /><br />Unseen consequences: I'm just thinking about a lot of broken glass. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

This thread really belongs in Enviornment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[science_man]

To deapfreeze:<br />Wouldn't building green houses be a good place to start to creating orbiting civilizations? Think about it. With all that oxygen captured into strong bottles and all let loose in a space ship or maybe just maybe the moon. Wouldn't the moon then have an atmosphere? This rises a second question... If you were to dump tons and tons and tons of oxygen/methane/carbon/nitrogen on the moon would it create an atmosphere? <br /><br /><br />

 

[deapfreeze]

If your going to create orbiting civilizations why even bother wasting the time and money on green houses. The only way earth will heal is to have us leave. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

If the $20,000 green house averaged 2 meters by 2 meters by 5 meter = 20 cubic meters, times 500,000 = ten million cubic meters = 0.01 cubic kilometers which is a puny amount compared to the total atmosphere of Earth. Moving that much air to the Moon or Mars (one time) would be far more expensive than building the green houses. The roof of the green house would reflect some sunlight back into space, but this is also too costly. If 500,000 people would paint their roofs white, this would reflect more sun light at less cost than building 500,000 rather small green houses. A white roof also reduces your air conditioning costs and energy use. Neil

 

[enigma10]

Imagine the impact if we could have white or off white colored roads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Imagine the impact if we could have white or off white colored roads. </font><br /><br />I believe we already have them: concrete freeways, and stone impregnated asphalt, which as I type, is right outside my window. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[tony873004]

Why build greenhouses? Why not just use the same land and put mirrors on the ground?

 

[deapfreeze]

because someone will step on them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[science_man]

and because their are more benefits for green houses. <br /><br />1.) End hunger<br />2.) Trap heat + oxygen for use in outer space<br />3.) Lessen and end global warming<br />4.) save endangered species<br />5.) experimental uses <br /><br />-- Nishant Shukla

 

[deapfreeze]

I still think orbiting civilizations is the better way to go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[science_man]

Yes it is, but do you not reckon why I am asking to create these green houses? Do you just plan to entrench orbital colonies and let Earth rot? An orbital colony or city would consist of very little people and it would not happen soon. Building greenhouses is faster and solves many problems. It is also the FIRST step toward orbital and extraterritorial living. With the oxygen from these many many green houses, one can live on another planet and actually plant trees on foreign planets! <br /><br /><br />-- Nishant Shukla

 

[deapfreeze]

like I said before earth will heal itself when we are gone. It wont rot. As for the green houses, the only thing I can see this accomplishing is world hunger might drop a little. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[science_man]

No that is incorrect. Even though there will be orbital colonies many will have to stay in Earth simply because there is not enough room to fit at most 10% of earth in an orbital colonial ship. <br /><br /><br />Now lets play some devils advocate here. Lets assume we plan to make orbital colonies for 25% of earths population. This would take 100s of years and billions and trillions and quadrillions of dollars because of the massive size and thrust of this colony. By the time we finish this project its burning hot! It would be 100 or more degrees average per year. Killing of millions of people by skin cancer, suffocation, and other unseen causes of excessive heat. There is definably more loss here.<br />Whereas greenhouse would create a quick turn to all this. This would not take 100s of years instead just around 10 to 20 years most likely less. <br /><br /><br />-- Nishant Shukla

 

[deapfreeze]

This is why I think the best option is orbiting civillizations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[renato24]

i think the best option is to get something like a co2 purifier. kind of like febreeze but eliminating co2 =]

 

[qso1]

Orbital industry would be the next best thing. Get polluting industrial activities off planet and in a century or so, earth begins to recover from the damage that may have been caused by human industrial era activity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

I agree. Once we do this earth can start the recovery process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[science_man]

What is your plan on the population of orbital colonies? 100 people? 100,000 people? <br /><br /><br />

 

[science_man]

What do you mean? An orbital L1 or stationary on-earth L1? <br /><br />