The 2 ( 3 !!!) ways to cool the planet

[Red Squirrel]

That's another part of the problem, all the goals being set are too far away. By 2050 it will be way too late. We should have started working on this like 30 years ago. Even all the car manufacturers saying they want to go full electric by 2035 or whatever. Why set goals that are so far away? Do it now! Don't need to design new cars, take existing designs, just make them electric. I don't know why all the auto makers feel they need to make the EVs a totally separate model.

 

[Torn Mind]

That's another part of the problem, all the goals being set are too far away. By 2050 it will be way too late. We should have started working on this like 30 years ago. Even all the car manufacturers saying they want to go full electric by 2035 or whatever. Why set goals that are so far away? Do it now! Don't need to design new cars, take existing designs, just make them electric. I don't know why all the auto makers feel they need to make the EVs a totally separate model.

Because there's a lot of structural matters that will take some time to accommodate the transition. Supply chains have to be adjusted. Batteries have to be beta tested by the well-endowed upper classers(i.e the Bolt's fire problems) before production can ramp up and affordable ones can be made.

Even manufacturers of pure toxins like asbestos and lead had some time to wind things down. Remember that government's fuel is tax revenue, and businesses are the easier source of big tax revenues to collect; they don't want to crush them out of existence when the market is not ready.

 

[Muse]

Humans are notoriously terrible about making shit worse when trying to make it better on extremely large scales, doubly so when the natural world is involved. There's a near 100% chance that the only thing geoengineering will accomplish is just rendering the planet even more uninhabitable.

Carbon removal would no doubt trounce geoengineering in a straw poll of climate experts. Removal is riding a wave of support among centrist environmental groups, governments and industry. Solar geoengineering is seen as such a desperate gamble that it was dropped from the important “summary for policymakers” in the United Nations’ latest climate report.

Yet if I were asked which method could cut midcentury temperatures with the least environmental risk, I would say geoengineering.

 

[Muse]

Humans are notoriously terrible about making shit worse when trying to make it better on extremely large scales, doubly so when the natural world is involved. There's a near 100% chance that the only thing geoengineering will accomplish is just rendering the planet even more uninhabitable.

Seems to me that the world-wide campaign to curb ozone depletion has had some success:

Ozone layer

Why the ozone layer matters and what we’re doing to protect it.

ec.europa.eu

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/achievements_in_stratospheric_ozone_protection.pdf

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The summary paragraph at the end of this opinion essay:

Not big on copyrights are you?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

David Keith in the NYTimes article said that trees trap C in the ground.

That is false. You're misunderstanding. Trees only 'trap' C in the ground if you bury the tree in a place where it exits the carbon cycle, like a mine. Or the moon.

Seems to me that the world-wide campaign to curb ozone depletion has had some success:

Ozone layer

Why the ozone layer matters and what we’re doing to protect it.

ec.europa.eu

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/achievements_in_stratospheric_ozone_protection.pdf

That is completely different, all it required us to do was *not* use a series of products. We didn't release weird shit into the atmosphere or create our own kessler effect to repair the ozone. Also, we're still having issues with it.

Tracing Changes in Ozone-Depleting Chemicals

Scientists used a ground-based network and models to detect global and regional fluctuations in CFC-11 emissions to the atmosphere.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Humans are notoriously terrible about making shit worse when trying to make it better on extremely large scales, doubly so when the natural world is involved. There's a near 100% chance that the only thing geoengineering will accomplish is just rendering the planet even more uninhabitable.

If this pushes our species into the stars then this is a good thing.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

If this pushes our species into the stars then this is a good thing.

Perhaps for Earth, but why pollute other planets? What did they do to deserve a human parasitic invasion?

 

[Muse]

Not big on copyrights are you?

What are you big on?

I am not a lawyer.

All in the interest of saving the planet, not filling the pockets of the NYTimes, although I do pay for my subscription.

I took the LSAT with zero prep. Got good enough score to get into law school but didn't apply because the whole idea of steeping myself in legal soup struck me as nasty.

 

[Muse]

That is false. You're misunderstanding. Trees only 'trap' C in the ground if you bury the tree in a place where it exits the carbon cycle, like a mine. Or the moon.

He did say that some trees are better at sequestering C than others. Let's not quibble.

If this pushes our species into the stars then this is a good thing.

Dream on.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

He did say that some trees are better at sequestering C than others. Let's not quibble.

It's not quibbling, you need to have an understanding of the subject matter you're speaking about before making false statements. No plants sequester CO2 into the ground (aside from root structure, but that's as temporary as the plant itself). It's sequestered into the plant to form the majority of its mass. If the plant dies and rots, it's returned to the atmosphere. CO2 has to be removed entirely from the atmospheric cycle in order to lower it for more than an extremely temporary timeframe. That can only be done by converting it into a physical form, or somehow containing it in a physical form on a permanent basis.

The only large-scale method we currently have is to convert it into plants, then get rid of the plants in a way they won't rot.

 

[Muse]

It's not quibbling, you need to have an understanding of the subject matter you're speaking about before making false statements. No plants sequester CO2 into the ground (aside from root structure, but that's as temporary as the plant itself). It's sequestered into the plant to form the majority of its mass. If the plant dies and rots, it's returned to the atmosphere. CO2 has to be removed entirely from the atmospheric cycle in order to lower it for more than an extremely temporary timeframe. That can only be done by converting it into a physical form, or somehow containing it in a physical form on a permanent basis.

The only large-scale method we currently have is to convert it into plants, then get rid of the plants in a way they won't rot.

Don't argue with me, argue with Dr. David Keith if you have issues with what he's saying and proposing. His essay is right there in post #25 here.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^ Dave's not here.

 

[Muse]

^^ Dave's not here.

WTF does Cheech and Chong have to do with this? Oh, Dr. Keith. Well, he presented his arguments in a fashion that didn't require repartee. That's the nature of the essay format. Sheesh.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Don't argue with me, argue with Dr. David Keith if you have issues with what he's saying and proposing. His essay is right there in post #25 here.

Nowhere in his article does it state that trees sequester CO2 into the dirt.

I was also an early proponent for burning biofuels like wood waste, capturing the resulting carbon at the smokestack and storing it underground

You're trying to argue with the wrong person, you need to argue this with yourself so you understand how this actually works. If trees sequestered CO2 into the dirt, there'd be no atmospheric CO2 left on our planet.

 

[Muse]

Nowhere in his article does it state that trees sequester CO2 into the dirt.

You're trying to argue with the wrong person, you need to argue this with yourself so you understand how this actually works. If trees sequestered CO2 into the dirt, there'd be no atmospheric CO2 left on our planet.

What I was thinking of was this in the essay:

Carbon removal could work. But it will require an enormous industry. Trees are touted as a natural climate solution, and there are some opportunities to protect natural systems while capturing carbon by allowing deforested landscapes to regrow and pull in carbon dioxide as they do. But cooling this fast cannot be achieved by letting nature run free. Ecosystems would need to be manipulated using irrigation, fire suppression or genetically modified plants whose roots are resistant to rot. This helps to increase the buildup of carbon in soils.

 

[lxskllr]

In that case you have to plant trees, then leave them alone. They'll hold carbon til they die. They could be buried or something, and new trees planted, but that's a lot of work.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What I was thinking of was this in the essay:

Carbon removal could work. But it will require an enormous industry. Trees are touted as a natural climate solution, and there are some opportunities to protect natural systems while capturing carbon by allowing deforested landscapes to regrow and pull in carbon dioxide as they do. But cooling this fast cannot be achieved by letting nature run free. Ecosystems would need to be manipulated using irrigation, fire suppression or genetically modified plants whose roots are resistant to rot. This helps to increase the buildup of carbon in soils.

The key point there is genetic modification to create rot-resistant roots, which is yet another thing that I have concerns about. If we genetically modify shittons of plants to have rot resistant roots, that'll very quickly crowd out natural plants, and likely create ecosystems that cannot reasonably support plant life, because too much of the actual dirt is just a lattice of rot-resistant roots.

A very similar thing led to the buildup of coal a billion years ago, we had actual mountain valleys full of dead trees. Trillions of tons of dead trees, because nothing could rot them yet.

 

[MtnMan]

There is always the nuclear winter option.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Perhaps for Earth, but why pollute other planets? What did they do to deserve a human parasitic invasion?

This is silly. I'm taking the limit to positive infinity and you aren't even considering your position should be taken to negative infinity. By your stance we should wipe ourselves out and do Earth the favor. Sorry, I'm too selfish to do that, sir.

Dream on.

If we didn;t have dreamers we would be back in the oceans and never made landfall. Also, this is exactly what a well known robot did in the Asimov universe.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If we didn;t have dreamers we would be back in the oceans and never made landfall. Also, this is exactly what a well known robot did in the Asimov universe.

A peculiar reference, considering the first things to hit land were likely fleeing from predation and being out competed for resources. Y'know, just like we would/will be.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Again, I root for me and my species first. No one is going to change this guy's mind.

 

[Muse]

Again, I root for me and my species first. No one is going to change this guy's mind.

If you don't want to change your mind, nobody else can. It's your mind, mon.

Um, my point was it's impossible for humans to populate other solar systems. And our other planets & moons are not hospitable to life. Face it, we're stuck here. Try to change my mind, I haven't seen any arguments anywhere that indicate it's feasible. Distances too far to other solar systems, challenges too great. Earth is not a bad place to be, but we're fucking it up. I'm an environmentalist, ecologist. Lost in the HTTP isn't going to change that or anybody.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

If you don't want to change your mind, nobody else can. It's your mind, mon.

Um, my point was it's practically impossible for humans to populate other solar systems. Face it, we're stuck here. Not a bad place to be, but we're fucking it up. I'm an environmentalist, ecologist. Lost in the HTTP isn't going to change that or anybody.

At the moment, we are limited by the tools of our times. I've been saying this most my adult life. Even when I studied Physics I knew this and took everything taught as a subset of something yet unrealized. I cannot possibly predict the future, good or bad, so I leave the idea open to the possibilities. There was a time most thought the world was flat because they couldn't imagine seeing over the horizon.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Cooling the planet makes no sense. We are much much much closer to a snowball earth death than any kind of heat death. A cooler earth is an unhappy earth, a warmer earth is a happy earth. The planet has been much warmer in the past, and it was much healthier in the past. Those are the facts.