Why cant a giant iron seeding plant be built in the arctic ocean or something to stop global warming?
>>13418525Because global warming isn't the problem; global cooling is. We're in a mini ice age
>>13418525It is a scam created in order to siphon money from the poor to the excessively rich while impoverishing us even further, and even if there were a problem they would not want to fix it because that would end their money monopoly on human activity.
>>13418774Stop gargling jew juice
Greenhouse effect increases heat without increasing solar radianceUsing dust/mirrors to adjust heat will decrease solar radiance
>>13418525whats wrong with the earth becoming like venus, western culture is dead, so really whats the point of carrying on?
>>13418525added some giant inflatable arms to stop the sun,ftfy
>>13418529>Because global warming isn't the problem; global cooling is. We're in a mini ice ageAh yes. Just like my freezer. The warmer it gets, the clearer it freezes things. You simply cannot be this retarded.
>>13418525imagine the algae smell in the winter ack
>>13418529>the current state of /sci/
>>13418525Give us your pitch? What's your estimated price per tonne of carbon sequestered? Is it more cost effective than shutting down a few coal plants?
>>13418525Because global warming is not real.Weather machines are real. If you think solar power and radiation beams from space can't modify the weather then you are full retard.
>>13420269Unironically yes. Europe will get colder because the Greenland ice melting will stop the warm Caribbean water from reaching it.
>>13418525>acidify the oceans by actively dumping co2 into the oceans instead of only passively dumping co2 into the oceansare you retarded?>iron fertilization of seathat's another retarded idea. Do you realize how much damage that will do?>reflectors in orbit>aerosols in stratosphereso two comic book villain style non-solutions that will like make the problem worse or be ineffective at best>cloud seedingclouds also help insulate energy, especially UV radiation. >grow treesSure. It's better to properly manage forests and try to let them expand than it is to just mindlessly plant trees. >genetically engineered cropsa bullshit method. Naturally growing weed grasses that grow together normally in grasslands are more effective than these abominations. Also genetically engineered crops are nowhere near as healthy as natural occurring or traditionally bred crops. Biodiversity is key for carbon absorption. If you're doing these meme solutions, then you're not going to get anywhere. Genetically engineered crops tend to out-compete and in addition stifle the growth of diverse flora due to designed competitive advantage against other plants. This ends up minimizing the effectiveness of grasses to sequester carbon. >greening desertsMost places that are deserts in the earth are deserts due to geography and its effect on storm systems. The only reason people can grow things in deserts such as Utah or Arizona is because they can draw large amounts of water from aquifers and redirect it. The only reason Las Vegas has any water is because it can redirect the water from the Colorado river. You're not going to be successful in this endeavor.
>>13420618>acidify the oceanEven a retard like me can tell that because of this obvious flaw there must be more to it. It's actually quite an interesting read:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_storage_of_carbon_dioxide
>>13418525>aerosols in stratospherejust nuke yellowstone, toba, and campo flegrei
>>13420532The globe will get warmer though. You're mistaking local climate with global climate.
>>13420618>Also genetically engineered crops are nowhere near as healthy as natural occurring or traditionally bred crops.This is some Greta tier pseudoscience myth. GM crops are more nutritious than organic.
>>13422719We kind of want the global temperatures to increase though, which I suppose is his point. When the earth was warmer it was able to sustain a much greater diversity and size of fauna and flora than we have today. What (real) scientists are afraid of is cascade effects if climate change happens too quickly. If a species can't adapt fast enough and goes extinct there is the risk of catastrophic failure in biological feedback systems. However, other human activities are far great risk factors than AGW. Fucking up the Indus river with literal human shit for example, deforestation in Brazil or dumping heavy metals into oceans. These issues are far more directly responsible for the destruction of the environment than AGW, which is basically the one size fits all shorthand that midwitted, self-important activists and populist politicians use.But the reality of environmental engineering is that we don't want to "cool" the planet (to be precise we just want to shed global entropy from human activity faster into space; not prevent heat radiation from coming in) and we sure as fuck don't want to do it by unleasing even more damaging man made mega engineered materials on the environment.
>>13422760I agree. This is why no one is really talking about AGW any more, but about global climate change instead. On the whole, the planet is warming on average though, and I was disagreeing with the misguided anon who thinks we're moving into a global ice age because part of the planet might get cooler. Nevertheless, thank you for your greatly detailed post!
>>13422760>deforestation in BrazilEuropeans have cut down 99.9% of their native forests. Brazil is not the country with a deforestation problem.
>>13422724Have some sources? Not trolling just legitimately curious.
>>13422801They did that centuries ago though.
>>13422915Longer. The height of deforestation in Europe was actually all the way back in the bronze age. In the middle ages already Europeans understood the importance of forests in preserving topsoil, biological diversity and, of course, just mental health of people. To this day all towns and cities in central Europe are still built in roughly the same pattern of central urban developments surrounded farmland and then culitvated forest (for honey, forest gardens, logging etc.) surrounded by natural forests which preserves reservoirs of wild animals. Even 1000 years ago people carefully managed forests to maintain this balance.To this day in a country like Germany it is still precisely maintained at 1/3rd urban (including parks/green spaces), 1/3rd agriculture and 1/3rd forest (commercial and preserved), which is why development is so notoriously difficult. I don't like Europeans preaching conservation to third worlders, but for the last 2 thousand years Europeans absolutely had better conservation efforts than the Arabs/Africans who had desertification or even the disastrous ecological collapse that destroyed the Toltec civilization.I just hope the EC doesn't exist long enough to cuck European natives by letting climate refugees in when their agriculture collapses. Europe is a perfect garden in comparison to the concrete hellscapes being built in the developing world at breakneck pace.
I have a genuine question, I'd also accept being pointed to where I can find the answer myself. If substantially higher than current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are inferred from ice cores, did the same acidification of the oceans occur? If it did, Are these high CO2 periods associated with mass extinctions of caco3 reliant organisms?
>>13418775Stop making counter semites look stupid by denying climate change please
>>13424665I don't deny climate change. See >>13418529
>>13418525Any solution that does not mean a retreat into the stone age is not accepted. To wit: >>13420618Just an exclamation, zero explanation. And society accepts emotional outbursts over scientific work.