11–20 of 165 posts
Wouldn’t that reduce the available sunlight for photosynthesis? The problem is that we’re trapping more heat per photon. Reducing the amount of photosynthesis might reduce the carbon fixation by plants. Not sure if that’d be a good idea.
Everything but taking care of the cause? Pollution. Deforestation. Etc. Here’s a good start: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Everything but taking care of the cause? Pollution. Deforestation. Etc. Here’s a good start: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Taking care of all of the causes is not enough to fix the problem of climate change. If we hit net zero today, it would still continue to warm for decades, which means more deforestation and desertification through fires. Your proposal is far too conservative to avert disaster.
Wouldn’t that reduce the available sunlight for photosynthesis? The problem is that we’re trapping more heat per photon. Reducing the amount of photosynthesis might reduce the carbon fixation by plants. Not sure if that’d be a good idea.
Sounds like most of the brighter clouds generated would be over the ocean in this particular scenario, so shouldn’t affect plants too much.
Phytoplankton rely on photosynthesis and are the food for a large fraction of marine life (either directly or indirectly).
Wouldn’t that reduce the available sunlight for photosynthesis? The problem is that we’re trapping more heat per photon. Reducing the amount of photosynthesis might reduce the carbon fixation by plants. Not sure if that’d be a good idea.
Sounds like most of the brighter clouds generated would be over the ocean in this particular scenario, so shouldn’t affect plants too much.
once the global climate gets sufficiently inconvenient we will definitely figure out a way of regulating ocean albedo via microorganisms or micromachines or something similar. human ingenuity will find a way. yes it might be a bit messy for a while...
If the "upcoming climate disaster" (lol) eliminates us all, then so be it - it is what it is!
Everything but taking care of the cause? Pollution. Deforestation. Etc. Here’s a good start: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Taking care of all of the causes is not enough to fix the problem of climate change. If we hit net zero today, it would still continue to warm for decades, which means more deforestation and desertification through fires. Your proposal is far too conservative to avert disaster.
I think I'm a relative optimist about global warming because there are a number of possible climate engineering interventions which seem fairly cheap and could plausibly buy us another decade or so. I can imagine a future where perhaps India or China decides to act on their own to this effect, risks be damned.