81–90 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photosynthesis is largely limited by water availability. Plants only uptake CO2 when they can open stomata, which is when they won’t dry out.
Photosynthesis is limited by the availability of light, water, co2 and warmth.
The most damaging hurricanes rely heavily on warm water over their last 2-3 days before landfall. Suppose we focused these bright cloud emitters on the water in front of a tropical storm, as a way to prevent it from strengthening into a hurricane? Imagine the city of Miami deciding that eliminating local hurricanes would benefit its local real estate market. They invest in a fleet of hurricane blockers to be deployed…
I think you're overestimating Miami's budget... sure, there are a lot of wealthy people living there, but that doesn't mean the city itself is that wealthy. BTW, if sea levels rise, property values in Miami are liable to go down the drain anyway, hurricanes or no hurricanes...
What concerns me about almost all of the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) proposals is that they don't address the root issue of high Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations. This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. (I'm assuming that we would just use the SRM measures to continue with business as usual, but having seen our progress against GHG emissions so far, that doesn't see…
>This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. This kind of all or nothing rhetoric is damaging to actual progress. Solutions are not mutually exclusive. We can do both . One treats the symptom and buys us a few decades without having to suffer a 4C air temperature rise (and the billions of needlessly lost lives and indeterminate human suffering). The other fixes it in the long t…
…or we could simply stop emitting greenhouse gases. Like, right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stanley wrote on his greenhouse gas powered device from the comfort of his greenhouse gas powered office environment at his greenhouse gas powered employer that his favorite greenhouse gas powered transportation vehicle had brought him to, while slacking of from his day job which was to significantly increased the life quality of millions of people while emitting greenhouse gases. I think you’ve found a great solutio…
What a load of crap. Sure, everyone reading and responding to this did profit from CO2 emissions for sure, but reducing emissions without going back to the stone-age is perfectly possible and this should be clear to anyone : We could simply start taxing Co2 emissions, which would boost renewable energy buildout INSTANTLY: One example: Right now, electricity (and concrete) are DIRT cheap-- my electricity bill is a com…
In the whole of Europe electricity prices are currently through the roof, marking records on many countries... daily. [edit: mostly because CO2 emission taxes and because gas producing countries can charge whatever they want because the whole continent (but France) depends on them] Just because people (normal everyday working-class) people pay higher prices everyday for what they need to live, electricity doesn't come from cleaner sources suddenly; and it sure won't in the short/medium term. We are decarbonizing but in the meantime we have to use gas; the other alternatives (eg: nuclear, which is currently the only solution) are expensive as f* and take a looong time to be build. Renewables are not constant and there lies the problem, they also need a lot of ground allotted to be installed and account for a reasonable part of a country's usage.
We're stuck deep and there's no easy or quick way out. It also isn't "people just don't want to", people can't. Electric cars are very expensive to be adopted massively, and if they were comomn, the energy wouldn't be clean anyway, we have to change the infrastucture. Where do you suggest we get the energy from?
There are no easy and quick solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the "climate engineering interventions" people keep trotting out that don't actually remove carbon from the air end up making things radically, disastrously worse. We know how to remove carbon from the atmosphere, in bulk, with super-plentiful olivine. Cutting off emissions and deploying olivine works. Almost anything else ends up doing no net good, at best, and funnels us deeper into the hole. Soluble iron co…
I have no idea why this has been down-voted. Sure, it's a strong opinion but that's what HN is all about. Couple of questions: - Do we have any estimates yet on how long olivine would take to be effective? - Can we do HFC-capture in a similar way to carbon capture? Would this be more productive?
Of course it would do little good if we continued pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate at the same time.
Getting the SF6 out of the atmosphere is a tougher nut. The present load already accounts for 10% of forcing. There are current efforts to phase out its use, and suck it out of the equipment it is used in.
The HFCs in current use, if all vented, would have as strong an effect as all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Collecting it all up and destroying it is a huge responsibility. Probably most that is in cars, window A/C units, and refrigerators will end up vented.
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.
All of the "climate engineering interventions" people keep trotting out that don't actually remove carbon from the air end up making things radically, disastrously worse. We know how to remove carbon from the atmosphere, in bulk, with super-plentiful olivine. Cutting off emissions and deploying olivine works. Almost anything else ends up doing no net good, at best, and funnels us deeper into the hole. Soluble iron co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true at all. Most plants can use additional carbon all the way to 1000+ PPM. Some all the way to 2000PPM. Quotes below, sources below that: - CO2 increased leaf area, water use efficiency, and harvest index (in tomatoes) [1] - Optimal levels for tomatoes may be 2 to 5 times the normal atmospheric levels (1000 to 1500 ppm CO2 versus ambient levels of 350 ppm) [2] - Combining increases in CO2 with fertilization and…
Elevated CO2 concentration favors plants with C3 pathway, because they appeared when CO2 ppm was much higher, than today. Plants with more recent C4 pathway (evolved around 25 million years ago), do not respond as much to CO2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S197830191...
High-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar happen to represent the greatest public health disaster since smallpox was eradicated and smoking started down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're overestimating Miami's budget... sure, there are a lot of wealthy people living there, but that doesn't mean the city itself is that wealthy. BTW, if sea levels rise, property values in Miami are liable to go down the drain anyway, hurricanes or no hurricanes...
If sea levels rise there will be less available property which will ultimately cause property values to increase.