/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11209445]

If CO2 is such a huge issue, why don't scientists just mass produce and mass feed micro algae?
Given bacteria's growth is literally exponential and how easy are to feed, it could easily counter the balance.

At this point I'm genuinely starting to believe the climate change is just a hoax to further annoy and demoralize western nations.
Given how little the community annoy hyper-polluting and overpopulated Asian countries like India, China, Indonesia, etc. And how they just preach their garbage to the braindead normie population which has an attention span of 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.11209450]

>>11209445
>At this point I'm genuinely starting to believe the climate change is just a hoax to further annoy and demoralize western nations.
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11209453]

>>11209450
>>>/reddit/
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.11209459]

>>11209450
I like you, but you should know that people will still make boring and trivial threads on /sci/. It's simpler to just hide threads that are not to your interest.

[Anonymous No.11209469]

>>11209445
Israel had a rat plague. They introduced cats to prey on them. Now they have a cat plague.

[Anonymous No.11209483]

>>11209469
>there's a decline in co2 absorbing organism
>*add more co2 absorbing organism*
>no, don't do that

[Anonymous No.11209484]

>>11209445
>At this point I'm genuinely starting to believe the climate change is just a hoax to further annoy and demoralize western nations.
Never underestimate greed and stupidity.

[Anonymous No.11209524]

>>11209484
>Aggressive emotional blackmailing campaigns like Greta
>Tons of pointless rallies and speeches that do nothing
>Lots of "You're evil, don't pollute, m'kay?" campaigns despite your average citizen keeps living like he did yesterday
>Total blind eye of pic related
>Total blind eye on countries with explosive fertility rates
>"We need more migrants to keep our economic growth"
It's like you people fail to notice the obvious.

[Anonymous No.11209526]

>>11209483
watch it goy

[Anonymous No.11209533]

>>11209483
>exponential growth is the same as arithmetic growth
>nothing will go wrong

[Anonymous No.11209539]

>>11209445
it's been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

[Anonymous No.11209554]

>>11209445
>If CO2 is such a huge issue, why don't scientists just mass produce and mass feed micro algae?
Where?

>At this point I'm genuinely starting to believe the climate change is just a hoax to further annoy and demoralize western nations.
What evidence do you have is a hoax?

>Given how little the community annoy hyper-polluting and overpopulated Asian countries like India, China, Indonesia, etc.
Not all kinds of pollution are a global problem and Americans have much more superfluous emissions than developing countries.

[Anonymous No.11209667]

>>11209524
>It's like you people fail to notice the obvious.
Never underestimate greed and stupidity.

[Anonymous No.11209731]

>>11209554
>Where?
The open seas.

>What evidence do you have is a hoax?
The focal points of activists and the totally remote source of pollution.

America built passively secure fission power generation in the 60's and it is barely talked about. If it is it's in the context of "next generation" power plant. It's just so weird and incomprehensible that we buy solar shit from toxic manufacturers in China while India sits on the world's biggest thorium reserve.

Fuck mainstream media hype about the climate. Fuck globalists hidden money making schemes. Fuck this silent acceptance of the dystopian reality we now live with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI

[Anonymous No.11209742]

>>11209731
It’s weird that people are still against climate change
Like do you really just want to think all the bad things were doing to the environment are having no effect? Is that the goal behind your reasoning?

[Anonymous No.11209749]

The For Dummies version of why engineering climate is not a solution: If you start then autocrats around the world will see themselves justified to do it as well.

[Anonymous No.11209773]

>>11209742
>all the bad things
gogo-fucking-gaga you imbecile..
we don't have to do "bad things" if we get on the good path we strayed from in the 60's until fusion is production ready.
I'd like to believe the west let's China and India pollute just to share the responsibility but holding back technology and letting kids feel devastated because of it is seriously fucked up.

[Anonymous No.11209776]

>>11209445
becaue the algae decay and release the CO2, and the growth of biomass (growing new forests etc.) IS taken into account when calculating net emissions.

[Anonymous No.11209779]

>>11209749
Emitting CO2 is already "engineering climate".

[Anonymous No.11209782]

>>11209776
Except algea dies, sinks and produce oil reserves.

[Anonymous No.11209791]

>>11209773
Lol why is it always conspiracies with little idiots like you?
Is it so hard grow up and realize the world isn’t filled with magic and secrets around every corner? We’re on a science board, no one wants to here your schizophrenic ramblings about shit you only read about in weird Alex Jones newsletters.
And cmon dude, there are a shit ton of obvious flaws with fissure.

[Anonymous No.11209811]

>>11209791
>Lol why is it always conspiracies with little idiots like you?
Read some history:
https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th

The development of the safer power plant was scrapped for budget reasons to create jobs and elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.11209964]

>>11209731
In part because it isn’t great for ocean ecosystems, but that doesn’t matter because it wouldn’t fight climate change. Guess where all the carbon that was trapped by the algae goes when the algae dies.

[Anonymous No.11209971]

>>11209445
>why don't scientists just mass produce and mass feed micro algae

Because we are talking a land mass of micro algae a quarter the size of the worlds oceans.

[Anonymous No.11210021]

>>11209445
>why don't scientists just mass produce and mass feed micro algae?
They are not permitted. Geoengineering is for some reason declared to bring about the end of the world, so we should instead wait for global warming to boil us. That is, somehow, a permitted end point.

[Anonymous No.11210033]

>>11209524
>If my neighbor his burning his house down, you better not fucking say a thing to me about burning my garden.
This is how goddamned stupid you are. Those countries are also under international initiatives to reduce. Unironically, if Western nations don't start the push, Eastern nations will never. How the hell is this hard to understand for you? You can't possibly be this stupid. I refuse to believe you're this uninformed and irrational.

[Anonymous No.11210056]

>>11209731
>if it doesnt make sense to me, its a hoax!
You can't connect the dots because you don't know the history of the situation well enough to be taking such a strong stance in the first place.
Nuclear isn't being developed because - despite constantly bitching to the otherwise - politicians listen to their constituents, and constituents are irrationally afraid of nuclear. That's why we have to rely on bullshit stop-gaps like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc., because people have consistently been scared of nuclear since the 80's. The fear doubles down anytime there's something remotely close to a nuclear power incident. Fukushima fucked us for another generation.
>GREEN ENERGY IS A GLOBALIST MONEY SCHEME
How do you reconcile this with the known reality that the fossil fuels industry has been suppressing knowledge and information about renewable energy since the 1950's? If you can allow yourself to believe, with no actual evidence, that climate change is a hoax, why can't you accept the literal, widely available factual evidence that shows that the people who are already the biggest IPOs, richest investors, and most influential people on Earth have been actively suppressing technology, spreading misinformation, and getting politicians in their pockets for decades?

This is the shit I will never get about people who think climate change is some kind of money-game hoax. There is literal, factual, undeniable evidence that the anti-climate change camp is spreading misinformation, suppressing knowledge, and buying off politicians, but it's the climate change camp that's making shit up and running a scam?

[Anonymous No.11210064]

I'm going to get an aquarium (just plants, no fish) next year. what species should I put in it to make my apartment air super clean?

[Anonymous No.11210069]

>>11209469
if you just put flea med on them i dont see the problem... also cats spread far fewer fleas than rats

[Anonymous No.11210071]

>>11209964
it's stored in the algae, prick

[Anonymous No.11210081]

>>11210071
Are you saying it’s stored in the algae forever and nothing ever happens to it?

[Anonymous No.11210082]

>>11209749
>if we do shit to make our air cleaner then evil dictator baddies might do shit to make the air dirtier

[Anonymous No.11210087]

>>11209964
>Guess where all the carbon that was trapped by the algae goes when the algae dies.
See >>11209782 . Algae produce oil, the oil doesn't produce carbonic acid like CO2 does.

[Anonymous No.11210089]

>>11209731
>the open seas

>Let's universally disrupt one of the biggest and most important basal ecosystems on earth! It would fix all our problems!

You do realize that this has happened before historically (plants or algae over-reproducing in the ocean) and it caused extinctions, right? This is kind of the problem with CO2, and pollution in general: it's very hard to come up with engineering solutions that don't create a new problem. Sort of like how there's no easy and simple way to remove all the mercury that aluminum production, other smelting processes, coal burning, etc. puts into the oceans once it's deposited there. The biosphere's really fucking delicate.

[Anonymous No.11210090]

>>11209782
No

[Anonymous No.11210101]

>>11210081
No. I said it gets stored in the algae.
The idea is to not release it again, and actually do some useful stuff with the algae afterwards.

[Anonymous No.11210102]

>>11210089
I've got a solution that doesn't cause more problems: Turn biomass into charcoal and bury it.

[Anonymous No.11210108]

>>11210101
>and actually do some useful stuff with the algae afterwards.
Imagine being this retarded. That would release the CO2

[Anonymous No.11210120]

>>11210101
Useful like what?

[Anonymous No.11210121]

>>11210108
>That would release the CO2
Yes. So it could be consumed by new algae... Isn't life great?

[Anonymous No.11210122]

>>11210120
Producing and moving fidget spinners around the globe.

[Anonymous No.11210131]

>>11210102
Where and how will you bury it such that it doesn't become exposed by erosion in several generations? How do you protect the local ecosystem, such that it doesn't leach into the water table, or in some way affect local flora and fauna? From what will you get the energy to bury it, using modern and conventional tools? You might release more carbon in the process of burying it than you'll actually bury. What municipality or country will accept you taking up their land and potentially altering the soil (assuming something goes wrong)? Who's going to pay for it, and how will you combat the inevitable disinformation campaign run by big corporations intent on discrediting the idea of climate change itself? Alternatively, what happens when this technology becomes an excuse, perhaps sponsored by large corporations, to generate even more CO2, to a degree that the sequestration you're performing becomes token and no longer impactful?

It makes me think of that scheme to build olivine beaches all over the planet (https://projectvesta.org/).). Doing this might alter the biochemistry of these beaches and their immediate aquatic surroundings, such that unintended and potentially catastrophic effects might be observed. You'd have to spend a lot of energy shipping the olivine to these locations, grinding it down, and placing it, most of which would be derived from fossil fuels. Some areas may object on principle, because their voters would think green beaches are ugly.

[Anonymous No.11210135]

>>11210121
I’m all for trying to use algae biofuel as a closer to carbon neutral power source. But that doesn’t help problem of sequestering the co2 that was released by burning fossil fuels stored underground.

[Anonymous No.11210136]

>>11210108
Original post says:
>The idea is to not release it again, and actually do some useful stuff
did you read only the last half of the sentence?
you gotta be a special kind of smoothbrain to call others retarded while lacking basic reading comprehension. ~100IQ at best
If you're gonna do something that releases the CO2 trapped inside them, you don't do it. It would make the whole process useless. Dumbfuck
>>11210120
I'm not an algae expert to know what they are useful for. Off the top of my head I can think of super compacting them and make bricks out of them, but I'm sure there's a better use for them. Make paper, thread, or some other crap.

[Anonymous No.11210145]

>>11210131
>oy vey! such big problems!
You are a mega retard. Do your own research...

[Anonymous No.11210166]

>>11210136
>it would make the whole process useless
You hit the nail on the head right there. Making bricks is stupid. Carbon neutral fuels kind of make sense if the power generation side isn’t co2 producing, but it still doesn’t adress the problem of all the extra co2 we have already added to the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11210175]

>>11210131
i was on your side with engineering ecosystems and putting algea into the ocean. and i kinda still am but i gotta rectifie some things here.

producing coal and putting it back into the ground isn't a problem because you could destroy ecosystems with it. Other types of biomass tends to decompose and release the carbon back into the atmsphere but that is not the case with coal. coal pretty much sits in the ground inertly doing pretty much nothing. it doesn't affect plants and animals much and it doesn't produce co2 on its own and it's not toxic.

the real problem is that doing so essentially takes as much energy as we got from burning it. and we wouldn't have burned it if it wasn't a lot. You could get the energy from the sun by growing forests and then produce char coal but that doesn't really work because this method is very inefficient and we don't have enough space to grow forests that large. Burying coal on the other side is not the energy intensive process.

essentially it is just not economically viable. it would probably only be a clean up method for people in the 22. century or so after they managed to use fusion energy or some other large energy source for them

[Anonymous No.11210186]

>>11210131
>Where and how will you bury it such that it doesn't become exposed by erosion in several generations?
Literal non-issue. It stays stable for thousands of years. You could just pile it up, but burying it is a better solution.

How do you protect the local ecosystem, such that it doesn't leach into the water table, or in some way affect local flora and fauna?
It provides additional filtration for the water table and soil amendment for flora. Fauna is not affected. Another non-issue.

From what will you get the energy to bury it, using modern and conventional tools?
Refine syngas from the pyrolysis of the biomass to run a natural gas powered backhoe and you have a carbon neutral power source. Alternatively collect solar energy from above your fields and just use electricity. Another non-issue.

>You might release more carbon in the process of burying it than you'll actually bury.
Maybe if you're retarded. This is super easy to calculate and another non-issue

What municipality or country will accept you taking up their land and potentially altering the soil (assuming something goes wrong)?
Any of them

>Alternatively, what happens when this technology becomes an excuse, perhaps sponsored by large corporations, to generate even more CO2, to a degree that the sequestration you're performing becomes token and no longer impactful?
I vote for slow public execution, but people don't generally go for that.

You should Google things before making a fool of yourself next time.

[Anonymous No.11210190]

>>11210131
>Where and how will you bury it such that it doesn't become exposed by erosion in several generations?
Literal non-issue. It stays stable for thousands of years. You could just pile it up, but burying it is a better solution.

>How do you protect the local ecosystem, such that it doesn't leach into the water table, or in some way affect local flora and fauna?
It provides additional filtration for the water table and soil amendment for flora. Fauna is not affected. Another non-issue.

>From what will you get the energy to bury it, using modern and conventional tools?
Refine syngas from the pyrolysis of the biomass to run a natural gas powered backhoe and you have a carbon neutral power source. Alternatively collect solar energy from above your fields and just use electricity. Another non-issue.

>You might release more carbon in the process of burying it than you'll actually bury.
Maybe if you're retarded. This is super easy to calculate and another non-issue

>What municipality or country will accept you taking up their land and potentially altering the soil (assuming something goes wrong)?
Any of them

>Alternatively, what happens when this technology becomes an excuse, perhaps sponsored by large corporations, to generate even more CO2, to a degree that the sequestration you're performing becomes token and no longer impactful?
I vote for slow public execution, but people don't generally go for that.

You should Google things before making a fool of yourself next time.

[Anonymous No.11210195]

>>11210131
Make compost to enrich carbon poor soils for food production.
Do you want my contact information for investment information? It's very old knowledge slightly forgotten after the industrial revolution and production of artificial fertilizers.

Read up on HUMUS on your own.

[Anonymous No.11210196]

>>11210136
You are pants on head retarded. Anything you do that destroys or decomposes the algae will release the CO2 it's stored. What "useful things" did you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.11210210]

>>11210186
>Refine syngas from the pyrolysis of the biomass to run a natural gas powered backhoe and you have a carbon neutral power source. Alternatively collect solar energy from above your fields and just use electricity. Another non-issue.
now with all the other arguments im pretty much with you but this one is misleading. it is correct that you can get net power out of that shit but essentially what you do here is take solar energy one way or another and produce coal from it. that takes at least as much energy as we got out of burning that coal, but probably a lot more. it is possible but just not economically viable unless you got vast amounts of power at hand AND some instance like a government paying you to do that. and honestly most governments would probably rather pay you to just give them the energy directly so they can do other stuff with it.

The only way we will be doing this in large scale is if the effects of the co2 become really really bad like 4 or 5 °C of warming or something.

[Anonymous No.11210223]

You people don't get the magnitude of the problem do you?

[Anonymous No.11210229]

>>11210210
Are you retarded? Pyrolysis of biomass generates thermal energy in addition to syngas and charcoal. The biomass stores energy from the sun which is what you're using. It's a solar asset in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.11210252]

>>11210229
i fucking know that. and part of that solar energy went into the coal which you want to put back into the ground. meaning some portion of the total solar energy captured is effectively put into the coal. why do you tink burning it releases energy ?

it is litterally wasting energy on producing coal you could also use for other things (the energy is meant). thats what makes it uneconomical unless you really want that co2 out of the atmosphere badly, which is simply not the case yet.

[Anonymous No.11210274]

>>11209445
>At this point I'm genuinely starting to believe the climate change is just a hoax to further annoy and demoralize western nations.

Gee, ya think? Why do you think only Western nations are criticized for pollution and not a single african, asian, or south american country is criticized for it, when they dump far more trash into the ocean, pollute their own rivers by shitting directly into them en-masse, and eat animals to local extinction?

[Anonymous No.11210278]

>>11209964
Neither does solar you fucknut, Solar energy produces 300 times more toxic waste than Nuclear

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/28/solar-energy-300-times-more-toxic-waste-nuclear/

[Anonymous No.11210287]

>>11210252
>it is litterally wasting energy
What a fucking moron. That energy is wasted anyways if you don't collect it with biomass.

>Things are uneconomical because I have no imagination
Like I already said, just put solar panels over your fields. Biomass is great at collecting incidental light and many fast growing woody plants love shade. You can have your cake and eat it too if you incorporate synergy into your design.

[Anonymous No.11210294]

>>11210195
Tilling the soils after harvest releases a shit ton of carbon, realizing this have created a market for perennial crops such as 'kernza' and more. We have a farming revolution on the horizont, get in on it early!

[Anonymous No.11210301]

>>11209483
It doesn’t work like that you can’t just farm algae in astronomical numbers to offset equally astronomical rising atmospheric CO2, the energy requirements, time constraints and ecological impact prohibit this

[Anonymous No.11210306]

>>11209533
Uh just engineer the algae's reproduction cycle to grow linearly then

[Anonymous No.11210308]

>>11210287
lets do a little thought experiment.
i assume that right now weather that co2 that is in the atmosphere stays there or not doesn't matter at all. or in other words no one cares if it stays there.

then take two people who do your aproach with building solar panels and put plants under them. now both of them will produce syngas from the harvested wood and get additional energy out of that and both are left with coal. up until this point they are both the same.

but now one guy dumps his coal in the ground. the other guy burns the coal for some extra energy. the second guy will always have a slight advantage over the first, because he will makes slightly more money and grow faster and over time he will slowly displace the first guy in the market until he is gone.
do you get why i think its not gonna be done? it will only be done if the assumption that we don't care about the co2 doesn't hold anymore. but as of now it sill holds

[Anonymous No.11210311]

I have a question about the carbon cycle. A huge chunk of carbon is stored in boreal forests. During the last ice age most of that area was covered by ice. Where was all that carbon during the last ice age? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? Huge forests in current desert areas?

[Anonymous No.11210331]

>>11210311
>>11210223
The ocean and deep ocean controls the atmospheric CO2 on the ~100 kyr cycles. The ability of the ocean to uptake CO2 is partly controlled by the carbonate chemistry (and pH) an how effectively the CO2 captured at the surface is transported to the deep ocean such as the AMOC current that's present in the North Atlantic now

[Anonymous No.11210332]

>>11210308
That thought experiment only works because it's considered in a vacuum. In reality legislation and social pressures disadvantage the guy burning the coal. You would make more money by skipping the biomass altogether and by burning it you give up your public image and any chance at tax breaks or public donation.

The point is to sequester carbon in a cheap, effective, and scalable way in order to prevent massive ecological damage and economic damages.

[Anonymous No.11210336]

>>11210332
>economic damages
Make that repercussions. I didn't proofread that last sentence and I don't like using the same word twice

[Anonymous No.11210337]

>>11210311
Some was stored in bubbles in the ice.
Sahara has been covered in forests (there are visible tree fossils there)
Mammoths and dinosaurs used to be carbon based.

[Anonymous No.11210346]

>>11210332
well stopping to dig up fossil fuels will always be more efficient and effective than doing that. you can still produce coal as a byproduct after the world has gone green but honestly after the world has gotten carbon neutral no one is going to give a fuck about the co2 that has been released. so probably not so many tax cuts or public donations anymore

[Anonymous No.11210349]

>>11210346
>but honestly after the world has gotten carbon neutral no one is going to give a fuck about the co2
So you are retarded. Learn about the magnitude of this issue and come back when you have something to contribute.

[Anonymous No.11210353]

>>11210349
the magnitude of the co2 problem ? the magnitude of the energy needed to catch it from the atmosphere and put it back into the ground? can you be more specific

[Anonymous No.11210356]

>>11210353
The context makes it specific. Stop being obtuse, assuming you aren't actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.11210358]

>>11210311
Most of the carbon now in the atmosphere used to be in the ground in the form of oil.

[Anonymous No.11210370]

>>11209445
>Given how little the community annoy hyper-polluting and overpopulated Asian countries like India, China, Indonesia, etc.
China is a literal autocracy, and it's investing in climate change motivation techs for a reason (read: they aren't reducing emissions as much, but they are developing ways to make saltwater viable for all uses and suchlike); and both Indonesia and India are trying to do something about herding their big-ass populations, if anything else because one's got a soon-to-be-drowned nation right next to them and the other Is an arcipelago.
And you know what opponents to those measures say in those countries? "Oh no, it's annuda Century of Shame/East India Company/ Dutch Empire!" Do you seriously think both can be reality?

[Anonymous No.11210426]

>>11210274
Is like you literally have no idea what is happening in the world. Another "I don't read fake news" retard. Imbecile!

[Anonymous No.11210456]

>>11210306
That's not as easy as you think. All this tinkering has side-effects.

[Anonymous No.11210459]

>>11210426
News != Science
Sorry snowflake.

[Anonymous No.11210464]

>>11210332
I'm the original pessimist.

>by burning it you give up your public image and any chance at tax breaks or public donation

This is what I think is the biggest problem, really. You're assuming institutional support. When I said "What country or municipality would agree to this?", I wasn't implying that an objection would be rational. All it would take is some tinfoil hat to run around town saying that the coal is going to be doped with "anti-baby chemistry" or something equally absurd, to get your contract canceled. Unfortunately you didn't understand what I was saying due to your own arrogance.

Getting a/the government on board would take ages. They'd likely impose ridiculous restrictions or conditions on your project, like that it would need to produce an unreasonably high output of surplus energy. As this other poster says, sequestering carbon right now is not an option that the public would buy in to, and so governments would be reluctant to subsidize or outright fund such endeavors.

Finding land to lease or purchase would probably be difficult as well, what with its privatized distribution. You'd need to develop a technique to properly bury it, such that subsidence and erosion wouldn't cause some kind of issue 50-100 years down the line.

[Anonymous No.11210468]

>>11210033
Jejejejeje whites actually believe this and they dare to call religious people sheeps.

[Anonymous No.11210506]

>>11210056
>the fossil fuels industry has been suppressing knowledge and information about renewable energy since the 1950's? If you can allow yourself to believe, with no actual evidence, that climate change is a hoax, why can't you accept the literal, widely available factual evidence that shows that the people who are already the biggest IPOs, richest investors, and most influential people on Earth have been actively suppressing technology, spreading misinformation, and getting politicians in their pockets for decades?
I don't doubt humans are behind the climate change or the oil industry suppressing development of other energy sources.
I don't even doubt that knowledge about thorium as a fuel in fission have been consciously suppressed to promote uranium and the few mines producing it.
Greed is poison. That's why I'm against weak, unreliable and dangerous "renewable" energy which actually takes more lives per terrawatt hour than even the accident prone solid-fuel reactors.
It would not surprise me if there's already a commercial solution to the CO2 problem already thought out and ready to be sold when it's to late to stop emitting greenhouse gases.

It's a sick world still favouring psychopathy, greed and lack of empathy in our leaders.

[Anonymous No.11210579]

>>11210464
>Getting a/the government on board would take ages.
Do you live under a rock? There are already government programs in place in many countries that an energy company actively sequestering carbon can benefit from. These programs will become more robust and resistant to abuse over time.

You have no real argument, so why don't you take your defeatist bullshit to /b/ where it passes for wisdom without being examined too closely?

[Anonymous No.11210771]

>>11209554
>Not all kinds of pollution are a global problem and Americans have much more superfluous emissions than developing countries.
Imagine being this much of hardcore cuckold you this much of mental gymnastics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Delhi

[Anonymous No.11210792]

>>11210426
The Ganges is such a clean river!
Am I rite my fellow libcuck?

[Anonymous No.11210800]

>>11209469
Why would you bring in cats to eat Jews

[Anonymous No.11210826]

>>11210579
Those programs tend to be a lot less spectacular and dramatic than what you're describing.

[Anonymous No.11210845]

>>11209554
lol what
not a single city in any western country tops the worst 500 polluted cities list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration

[Anonymous No.11210851]

>>11210792
The Ganges IS widely known to be polluted, though. It's Just that, as you said, India isn't a Western nation.

[Anonymous No.11210950]

>>11209483
Doesn't most co2 come from the ocean
The ocean is gonna get bigger if you believe the climate scientists. Looks like the problem just solved itself

[Anonymous No.11211019]

The technique you're referring to is called Ocean Iron Fertilisation, an oceanographer John Martin discovered this process in the late 80s and announced "give me half a tanker of iron and I will give you an ice age". The IPCC are against doing it because they say it might mess with the ecosystem or some shit. The real reason they are against it is because climate change exists to justify further state control and higher taxes and actually solving the supposed crisis in an intelligent way will leave them without an excuse to hand more power to themselves.

[Anonymous No.11211021]

>>11210456
worse than the side effects of humanity dying due to climate change?

[Anonymous No.11211024]

>>11210301
>you can't just dump a tanker of iron into the sea, think of all the fish that might die, better to just sit here as the climate overheats and destroys all life on earth instead

[Anonymous No.11211040]

>>11210056
>rich investors have been spreading misinformation
>but the US government is incapable of spreading misinfo, it only spreads pure truth

[Anonymous No.11211520]

>>11210826
>Another non-argument
I claimed that they exist and they will improve over time, not that they were perfect in their current form. Why are you still here?

[Anonymous No.11211534]

>>11209731
>The open seas.
That's been studied, it has potentially devastating side effects.

>The focal points of activists
Non sequitur. What evidence do you have it's a hoax?

>and the totally remote source of pollution.
What do you mean?

>Muh thorium meme
The cost of developing thorium based technology to the point of practical deployment is much greater than the benefits over conventional fission before fusion makes both obsolete.

[Anonymous No.11211541]

>>11210771
>Not all kinds of pollution are a global problem
>Posts a city-scale problem
Thanks for proving my point, I guess?

[Anonymous No.11211549]

>>11210845
>not a single city in any western country tops the worst 500 polluted cities list...
OK, and what does that have to do with anything I said? Air pollution is a local problem requiring local solutions. It does not spread all around the globe causing negative effects for everyone, like CO2 emissions. It's especially ironic that you are trying to distract from the CO2 problem with air pollution considering that reducing the use of fossil fuels solves both.

[Burn12 No.11211557]

That is because microalge also release CO2 at night they also have respiration for using energy produce during photosynthsesis microalgae is nota the solution, maybe cyanobacteria that export CO2 into carbonate

[Anonymous No.11212072]

>>11211021
Humanity won't die. Only half of it or something. What will be the side effects of that?

[Anonymous No.11212086]

Oil from algae is promising, but a long way off. I think nuclear is better because no research required. Lower income people will not be hit so hard, a carbon tax will generate growth through the restructuring of industry, and the wages of low-income people are completely flexible, they are not anywhere near the limits of where they would be in a competitive market.

[Anonymous No.11212093]

>>11211534
>What evidence do you have it's a hoax?
What I'm saying is that the activism doesn't adress the source of the problem, and the activists still live their "problematic" lifestyles. It doesn't do anything for Brazil's economy or even recreational travel in the west. The politicians tools are blunt and impractical, taxes on imports create incentives for smuggling. Banning consumption endorsing media would be futile.
People want their money, stuff and food. Most are like kids having never practiced any kind of abstinence. It's mania.

>The cost of developing thorium based technology to the point of practical deployment is much greater than the benefits over conventional fission before fusion makes both obsolete.
I find that hard to believe, do you have any references for this?

>What do you mean?
See >>11209524 . Raising taxes on gas in France does nothing for the climate, it's a symbolic thrust with a closed fist in the air keeping politicians busy with something.

[Anonymous No.11212099]

>>11209445
Honestly, we need more greenhouse gases to make the planet warmer and wetter.

[Anonymous No.11212100]

>>11209450
This is completely /sci/ related actually. Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.11212101]

>>11210800

[Anonymous No.11212102]

>>11209731
India has a few issues actually, mainly politically, not culturally or socially.

[Anonymous No.11212104]

>>11210064
Could you just adjust the chemicals of the tank to kill off plants and not fish.
The fish probably wouldn't be too crash hot though, unless they're mutant cyborg fish.

[Anonymous No.11212105]

>>11209445
If you every get to know eniviomentalists up close, they are some of the biggest Hippocrates around. Greta living the high life on yachts while telling working men to stop using pickup trucks to haul lumber is not an exception .
I remember one back in High school: They think they are making a huge difference by going ultra vegan and jumping on you for eating honey (exploits bees!) while they drive their black smog broncos to trailheads from the suberbs every weekend.

[Anonymous No.11212106]

Biologist here, you try growing a medium-sized pool of algae without it turning into an absolute mess, tell us how it goes.

[Anonymous No.11212107]

>>11210358
That's mainly carboniferous forests though.

[Anonymous No.11212109]

>>11209776
>growing new forests
Wait, are you saying that is bad?

[Anonymous No.11212110]

>>11210346
>you can still produce coal as a byproduct after the world has gone green
The world won't go green, we will always be using fossil fuels to produce green equipment. I doubt we will mine such things from any matter in the future without acquiring a non sustainable source.
The sun is not immortal remember.

[Anonymous No.11212111]

>>11212106
Amateur pasta chef here.
Is it very hard to have a big strainer to get it out?

[Anonymous No.11212114]

>>11210851
Fun fact, most of that shit goes into the ocean.
I drink desal.

[Anonymous No.11212123]

CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million). Currently the global average is around 400ppm which is twice of that as the Pleistocene Period (Ice Age) and jumped up to around 350ppm once the Younger Dryas Event finished. To me this isn't so bad as it shows that we as humans have only possibly made the ppm go up 50... Out of a million... I don't deny that Climate Change is happening as it cleary is. What I do deny is that we as a species are wholly responsible. Another fact glazed over is CO2 during the Cambrian period was ten times higher than it was today.

[Anonymous No.11212131]

>>11212114
>I drink desal.
How much energy is released desalinate the water you use every day?
Not even atomic power is the solution as energy otherwise bound in the atomic nucleus gets released in the form of heat.

[Anonymous No.11212133]

>>11212123
I should add that I'm technically for the mainstream depiction as it is forcing people to be environmentally conscious and I do believe pollution (mainly methane and plastics) are causing permanent damage to our ecosystem. Asia will be the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.11212137]

>>11212123
See the chart dumbass: >>11210331

[Anonymous No.11212140]

>>11212137
Everything I said agrees with this chart why are you being defensive. This chart doesn't even go back to the Cambrian Period...

[Anonymous No.11212190]

>>11212131
I'm more worried about the brine. We've had dead fish in the bay the shit is released into ever since it started in 2007.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/mystery-surrounds-death-of-700-fish-found-dead-in-cockburn-sound-20151122-gl4usr.html

Yeah, don't drink Perth water, it's disgusting. They say it's fine but I highly doubt that. Still drinking it that said. I noticed a massive quality drop when we switched from treated groundwater to desal. Either it's contaminants or it's too many chemicals in it. Government has hushed up shit here very often in the past and the still don't really talk about fukushima, indian/china pollution or other contaminants in this shit. This shit isn't magic and it's likely not 100% accurate in removing contaminants.

[Anonymous No.11212197]

>>11212131
>>11209445
The only real answer to this is to stabilize the global population

[Anonymous No.11212218]

>>11209445
That's not how it works. First of all, you should know that plants, like us, also breathe. Secondly, a tree is, by far, a better way to store CO2. Finally, CO2 is not the only gas involved in climate change.

You can also fuck off and go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.11212268]

>>11212218
Would a higher CO2 level significantly hinder our respiration systems? I know a significant level would, but that would also start to damage trees.
Also, /pol/ has every right to question facts. Companies are fucking with facts daily.

[Anonymous No.11212282]

>>11209445
You'll reap the seeds you sow you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.11212288]

>>11212123
>What I do deny is that we as a species are wholly responsible.
Nothing you said even remotely supports that contention.

>Another fact glazed over is CO2 during the Cambrian period was ten times higher than it was today.
And? What you don't seem to realize is you are comparing climates that took millions of years to change to today's climate, which is changing at a much higher rate over a few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.11212295]

>>11212282
>always sowing seeds every second

[Anonymous No.11212307]

>>11209445
Take your pills and keep your episodes on /pol/ thanks.

[Anonymous No.11212309]

>>11211534
>That's been studied, it has potentially devastating side effects.
So you have no proof either. All you have here are the possibilities, like the possibility that the world's ice caps are melting away. The truth is that Earth's climate had not been sufficently studied to derive such a drastic conclusion.

https://youtu.be/SE1x00mVpDo
>>11212307
if you want to talk politics on a blue board then you and your ilk will lose every single time. Climate change is not a fact because your evidence is flimsy from the get-go.

[Anonymous No.11212324]

>>11209445
Produce more shit out of hemp. Find a way to implement the travelling wave reactor after it was cock blocked by the trade war.

[Anonymous No.11212333]

>>11212307
Climate change is not politics you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11212391]

>>11212309
> Be me
> Le epic skeptic
> Euphoric in my rationality
> Knows more than climate scientists thanks to Breitbart and NEETism
> "Muh evidence"
> Scientists BTFO
> Tfw climate delusion destroyed

[Anonymous No.11212469]

>>11209450
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11212762]

>>11212093
>What I'm saying is that the activism doesn't adress the source of the problem, and the activists still live their "problematic" lifestyles.
That's both wrong and irrelevant. It's wrong because the source of the problem is greenhouse gas emissions and the most widely agreed upon solution is a carbon tax. It's irrelevant because what activists think is the solution abc.d the way they live has no bearing on whether the problem exists. You keep avoiding presenting evidence it's a hoax because you have none.

>I find that hard to believe, do you have any references for this?
tl;dr development of thorium-based technology is 50 years behind uranium- based technology.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/

>See >>11209524 #
I did, see >>11211549


>Raising taxes on gas in France does nothing for the climate
Of course it does, less emissions and less global warming.

[Anonymous No.11214241]

>>11212309
>So you have no proof either.
No proof of what?

>All you have here are the possibilities, like the possibility that the world's ice caps are melting away.
You can observe them melting away, pic related. You can observe negative effects of algal blooms.

>The truth is that Earth's climate had not been sufficently studied to derive such a drastic conclusion.
Numerous studies conclusively show its melting.

>https://youtu.be/SE1x00mVpDo [Open]
Ah I forgot about eminent climate scientist Ted Cruz.

[Anonymous No.11214431]

>>11209445
Because it fucks over all other life in the ocean. Who knows what kind of consequences fucking an entire ocean eco system like that might have.
You know what‘s easy to foresee though? Farting less CO2 into the air leads to less CO2 increase.

[Anonymous No.11214558]

>>11210145
>Makes Jewish joke
>Doesn't acknowledge a single point
You are the one that sounds like a special kind of retard. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.11214591]

>>11212140
Why the fuck would the Cambrian be of any consequence to what's happening now? The earth had a completely different continental and oceanic configuration and life was barely starting to get complex

[Anonymous No.11214593]

>>11212140
It took many thousands of years to rise some dozen ppm and we have raised it more than 100 ppm in 100 years

[Anonymous No.11214676]

>>11209964
>Guess where all the carbon that was trapped by the algae goes when the algae dies.
Carbon is not the problem, carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere is the problem and that is what they metabolize and break down into its base elements.

[Anonymous No.11214820]

>>11209742
>Is that the goal behind your reasoning?
Justify the killing of non-whites while doing nothing about their own profligate lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.11214938]

>>11209445
You would have to utilize dead algae after that.

[Anonymous No.11216204]

>>11209450
wahhh
wahhhhhh wahh wahhhh
That's my impression of you

[Anonymous No.11216286]

>>11210800

[Anonymous No.11216292]

>>11209776
Algae don't store co2 tho
They process it throughout their lives
They may release a quantity upon their death yes
But I'm sure that should an algae live even a short life it would process more co2 than it would release upon death

[Anonymous No.11216294]

>>11214676
Shut up anon, like you know anything
The facts discuss carbon
As in what we dig up from oil

[Anonymous No.11216314]

>>11209445
Could we genetically engineer plants to grow extremely fast? I am quite retarded but I've never heard of this idea before.

[Anonymous No.11216344]

Could we also not provide more funding for nuclear fusion? It seems that we are fucked without a way of producing energy in large quantities to move around the materials we will require to offset accumulation of CO2.

[Anonymous No.11216365]

Global warming is real, but solving it isn't the point.

They want to use the issue to alter and control the economy more. Just look at the "green new deal". It is mostly just a massive social welfare spending plan and social justice grievances.

[Anonymous No.11216702]

>>11209450
Get fucked and whimper back to weddit

[Anonymous No.11216705]

>>11209469
I feel you baited this pic out of me

[Anonymous No.11216708]

>>11209445
If CO2 isn't a huge issue, put a plastic bag over your head, and tighten it real tight.

[Anonymous No.11216709]

>>11209450
>NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU CAN'T JUST QUESTION SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE SCIENCE BOARD LIKE THAT!!!!

[Anonymous No.11216711]

>>11210800

[Anonymous No.11216779]

>>11216708
That's carbon monoxide and the planet has tons of ways to deal with co2 (carbon dioxide) which your head can't.

This is the graph provided by these so called scientists. The dotted part is what they think will happen (if you don't pay them taxes).

Co2 increases biomass

[Anonymous No.11216787]

>>11216779
>what they think will happen
it's already past that, https://www.co2.earth/, but let me guess those evil scientists are trying to discredit the lovable good fossil fuels executives that just want to give us delicious CO2
it's like playing russian roulette with the environment, but you're acting like you know more CO2 can only bring good and nothing bad, you're fucking insane

[Anonymous No.11216930]

>>11209524
You are a stupid fucker. Look up per capita numbers and energy consumption of usa in comparison to Pooland. Blaming niggers for everything isn't the solution

[Anonymous No.11217002]

can someone explain to me why plant agriculture is considered a big carbon emitter? doesn’t it convert millions of tons of carbon into plant material every year?

[El Arcón No.11217033]

>>11217002
Because of fertilizer and pesticide factories, tractors, and bulk cargo freighters.

[Anonymous No.11217064]

>>11209524

https://www.reddit.com/r/xrmed/

[Anonymous No.11217127]

>>11216787
Oh el mao. Let me turn that around, so you notice yourself

The kind and caring commies want you to pay taxes so they can get paid and scare away the dangerous co2 that hasn't been around before the car was invented.
You're acting like it's the end of the world from reading stuff from people PAID to make you feel guilty and pay up, you're fucking insane

Now to the serious part, from the graph I posted (looking away from the theoretical dots) you can maybe see a pattern, given you have an IQ over 50 and normal eyesight. It goes up before it goes down. We are at a peak that was also there 400.000 years ago where there were no cars and such. Even guilt ridden humans like you didn't exist! Now you want me to freak out and pay up some globohomo so he can ride his jet while I bike my kids to school and back?

Well FUCK you, you softhearted pansy. I won't pay your bullshit doomsday cult to "save the weather" and I won't feel guilty about existing and being in a civilization that you wish to destroy so bad. You have no proof. You have zoomed in scales made to scare the average reader and dailymail washing your brain. Where does Al-Gore live? In a mansion by the sea. So do the rest of your guilt servers.

[Anonymous No.11217139]

>>11217127
>it goes up before it goes down
>300ppm = 400ppm
>it went up before, so this means all the billions of tons of CO2 we're currently pumping into the atmosphere does nothing
>ME SMART OK
yeah buddy, whatever you say

[Anonymous No.11217156]

>>11217139
>billions of tons of co2 does nothing
No. It probably does, but not to the scale that we read and hear about. And there is little the average consumer can even do about it, because society is built around us pumping out co2. Plants will get bigger because of the co2 helping photosynthesis, so as to absorb even more co2 until we find a way to reduce it. Nature finds a way. Politicians and Greta's handlers do not.

Paying taxes and being guilt-ridden only serves those who pump out more co2 than you and I could in 500 lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.11217162]

>>11216709
>>11216702
>>11212469
>>11216204
>>11212100
>>11209453
You are a moron if you believe human activity is not responsible for climate change. It is trivial. It's basic atmospheric science AKA physics.

[Anonymous No.11217166]

>>11217064
>reddit
leave

[Anonymous No.11217184]

>>11217156
reminder that those who pump out all that co2 are still getting government subsidies and tax loopholes, and I'd bet that you're against the only candidate who's willing to confront and stop them
"Nature finds a way" is a bullshit assumption, one time we know co2 ppm was higher is the PETM and right now we're releasing co2 at a rate tens to hundreds of times higher
I don't care about your feelees, you can feel whatever you want, but when you start denying reality because "muh feelees" you can fuck right off

[Anonymous No.11217246]

>>11217127
>Now to the serious part, from the graph I posted (looking away from the theoretical dots)
The dotted line is not theoretical, it is observed CO2 concentration. The line is dotted to distinguish it from the CO2 concentration derived from proxies. You would know this if you had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

>you can maybe see a pattern, given you have an IQ over 50 and normal eyesight. It goes up before it goes down.
This pattern has a name, it's called the Milankovitch cycle. It goes up and down for a reason, the orbital eccentricity of the Earth. You would know this if you had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

>We are at a peak that was also there 400.000 years ago where there were no cars and such.
You can clearly see that peak is 300 ppm. Today, we are above 400 ppm. Can you explain why you keep making such obvious mistakes? What exactly motivates you to attempt to discuss s topic you have no knowledge about?

[Anonymous No.11217254]

>>11217127
Oh and I forgot to educate you about Milankovitch cycles. Interglacial warming (the "up" part) occurred 10000 years ago. We are now in the cooling phase when CO2 should be going down. Instead it's rapidly increasing on top of the cycle's peak. So your contention that this is part of the natural cycle is idiotically wrong.

[Anonymous No.11217278]

>>11217184
I would agree, but that science is based on theories and fee fees, and their fee fees count as much as mine! That dooms.day link you provided goes back to 1820 and is a zoom-in on current day natural earth cycle which we can't yet ubderstand with certainty, but act as if it's our fault so as to gain political and monetary power.

Picrelated is Vostok ice core measurements. Do you really fail to see the pattern?

[Anonymous No.11217295]

>>11217278
I do see that that chart tops out at 310 ppm, and nowhere does the co2 concentration get that high, contrast that with today we're at 410 ppm and still rising, see >>11217254
also, I never linked whatever doomsday crap you're talking about

[Anonymous No.11217298]

>>11210800

[Anonymous No.11217301]

>>11210056
>Fukushima fucked us for another generation.
And why is that exactly? Oh yes, I remember, it's because it's going to cost truly gargantuan sums of money to clear up, will take decades if not hundreds of years (like Sellafield, Chernobyl and others), and for some problems they don't even know whether feasible engineering solutions exist and so may just have to give up on even trying to handle them (contaminated water).
The onus is on the nuclear industry to prove it's not clusterfucked, rather than on opponents to show why.

[Anonymous No.11217494]

>>11217278
>I would agree, but that science is based on theories
So it's based on well tested explanations?

>and fee fees
It's patently obvious you have zero knowledge of the science and haven't even tried to obtain any.

>That dooms.day link you provided goes back to 1820 and is a zoom-in on current day natural earth cycle
You were already provided with CO2 going back hundreds of thousands of years. It showed the exact opposite of what you claim, CO2 is rising rapidly when it should be slowly decreasing according to the natural cycle.

>which we can't yet ubderstand with certainty, but act as if it's our fault so as to gain political and monetary power.
If we can't understand it with certain how can you claim it's natural?

[Anonymous No.11218232]

>>11212190
It’s the opposite actually, because RO removes most salts, ions etc. your getting water that’s likely more pure than groundwater. Your better off with groundwater because the low levels of salts and minerals in the water are essential.

[Anonymous No.11218313]

>>11217184
>pump out all that co2

You mean China and India?

[Anonymous No.11218324]

>>11218313
corporations, you brainwashed moron

[Anonymous No.11218396]

Algae are just one half of the equation, you can fix carbon from the atmosphere with them but then you need to sequester it away and remove it from the carbon cycle. It’s hardly economically viable to grow large scale algal ponds for feed/fuels, asking people to just inject their algae into the earth the sequester it is never gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.11218399]

>>11209445
c02 is toxic trash, but i hear plants and mushrooms eat our toxic trash, probably a lot of other stuff too

[Anonymous No.11218907]

>>11209450
/sci/-/pol/-/x/ masterrace reporting in

[Anonymous No.11219725]

>>11216787
CO2 increase is good and for the most-part not harmful to the planet because warmer temperatures will increase the moisture of deserts as well as make more land usable such as the boreal wastelands. Not only that, but plants feed on CO2, Sunlight, Water and whatever happens to be in the soil where they grow. CO2 is literally plant food, feed plants more and they produce bigger harvests, that's why competition farmers grow the biggest vegetables in an artificial CO2 rich atmosphere.
The real issue is not with climate or even CO2, it's with pollution of water and air with harmful chemicals that spread through the environment and damage or kill the flora and fauna that live there.

[Anonymous No.11219745]

Ugh. Climate change is not a hoax.

[Anonymous No.11219806]

>>11217162
If you knew ANYTHING about physics (which you clearly don't) you would know that modeling PDEs with this high dimensionality is BS and every model is filled with with error bars way bigger than any change of the driving forces. Funny enough, a paper JUST happen to demonstrate this:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

(MSc in Physics)

[Anonymous No.11219918]

>>11219806
>MSc
Ok brainlet

[Anonymous No.11220022]

>>11219725
>CO2 is good if I ignore all negative effects of global warming and ocean acidification and make shit up

>warmer temperatures will increase the moisture of deserts
How exactly would they do that? They certainly increase evaporation, which means deserts retain less moisture, not more. In some cases this leads to increased precipitation, but not more water overall since it's just going through the water cycle faster. Ultimately most desserts will see less precipitation and will expand, effecting areas where people live.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2d.-Chapter-3_FINAL.pdf

>Not only that, but plants feed on CO2, Sunlight, Water and whatever happens to be in the soil where they grow.
Increased drought from global warming has a far greater effect on agriculture than increased CO2.

[Anonymous No.11220026]

>>11219806
LOL the author takes an average error and assumes that because it's divided by years it represents a rate of change instead of an average. This is like saying you looked at your watch's time once a day and on average it was a minute slow, therefore your watch's error will grow by a minute every day.

The author is clearly a loon with no relevant qualifications and the journal has zero review standards to have let this trash be published. If you knew anything about physics you would have seen this error immediately. You don't.

[Anonymous No.11220038]

>>11209773
>>hey whats your rationale?
>REEEEE FUCK YOU
>>oh, ok lol good point

[Anonymous No.11220039]

>>11219806

[Anonymous No.11220041]

>>11219806
...

[Anonymous No.11220227]

>>11217301
It's not going to cost truly gargantuam sums of money to clean up. Only some hundreds of billions of dollars. Not even a trillion. That is not a gargantuan sum when it comes to energy costs. Germany alone will spend a trillion or two to support renewable energy by 2030.

Nuclear industry should just have a global insurance fund where they invest 3 % of yearly profits.

[Anonymous No.11220238]

>>11219725
What is jasmonic acid and what does it have to do with high CO2 levels.

What is the effect of 1000 ppm CO2 on human cognitive abilities.

Go do some googling and stop being an idiot.

[Anonymous No.11220758]

>>11216314
congratulations you just engineered a highly invasive, well-nigh immortal cancer of a plant