climate change geoengineering

>realistic

Planting trees

>>8713318
I've done research on that and it apparently doesn't work that well. Trees don't take that much carbon.

>>8713318
/thread

>>8713318
No

>>8713300
Unlikely to work. You can remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, but even then you'd have to do on a truly colossal scale.

>>8713318
Sub-optimal, as >>8713321 said
I agree with the OP that algae would work better, as they are more efficient. Using abandoned mines is a great tactic, but I would expect heavy resistance from the people, who would probably regard it as bad or gross somehow. Perhaps if that doesn't work we could find a way to fossilize the algae using chemicals. Actually, they would probably hate that, too. Maybe we could seal it in tanks?

>>8713324
It would be more about removing CO2 from ocean water, not the atmosphere.

It would be extremely low energy.

- self driving trucks/trains deliver fertilizer

- solar powered factory dumps fertilizer in

- lake is filled with a simple siphon mechanism

- lake is drained with a simple hole drain at the bottom of the lake

- water goes into anaerobic underground space

>>8713334

No one will care. It's just algae.

>>8713345
To clarify, some CO2 would dissolve into the water in the process, but most of the CO2 fixed will be from the ocean itself.

>>8713345
>It would be extremely low energy

for you

>>8713318
Plants are carbon negative only while they're growing. Once they're adult, they're actually carbon neutral. Think about it, where could all that C from CO2 be going if the tree's not getting infinitely tall? It leaves the tree in the form of leaves and sticks/branches that drop off, which then rot and return the carbon to the atmosphere.

>>8713300
Carbon sequestration is already underway, but I don't think your idea would work by itself. Algae isn't that small, relatively speaking, and it would immediately clog up any aquifer and drop conductivity to near zero.

Maybe giant ponds of algae with air bubbled through them, which are then evaporated and the dried algae dropped into deep ocean as large heavy bales. But the energy required to do all that would probably negate your efforts, which is the case with most things.

File: matcha-tea-powder-720x480.jpg (62KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x480px

>>8713300
>bostonTeaParty.jpg

I want to drink that entire ocean.

>>8713406
>Plants are carbon negative only while they're growing. Once they're adult, they're actually carbon neutral. Think about it, where could all that C from CO2 be going if the tree's not getting infinitely tall? It leaves the tree in the form of leaves and sticks/branches that drop off, which then rot and return the carbon to the atmosphere
That still means that planting trees would pull CO2 out of the atmosphere as they grow. By increasing the number of trees across the globe we increase the amount of CO2 stored in trees. Plus trees look cool

>>8713300
Checked
>belives their is C02 in the atmosphere
>its actually just air
Stay woke people

>>8713345
so if you're just removing CO2 dissolved from the water in the lake what is your plan to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere?

Is it to:
-transfer 1 lake's worth of ocean into empty lake
-reduce amount of CO2 in that lake to x% from y%
-return that lake of ocean water back to the ocean
- the concentration of CO2 in the ocean was x% before but is now y%*((entire ocean - one lake)/entire ocean)+x%*(one lake /entire ocean) so slightly more CO2 can dissolve into the ocean

??
wouldn't each transfer of water from lake to ocean and back again take a lot of energy and only reduce the concentration of CO2 in the ocean by a little bit?

>>8713464
Ocean CO2 comes from the atmosphere. Why do you think Oceans are becoming more acidic?

>>8713473
ok, do you have an answer for the rest of the post?

>>8713406
>Plants are carbon negative only while they're growing. Once they're adult, they're actually carbon neutral.

And then they die, and they stop taking carbon out of the atmosphere and put it back as they rot.

Build up a large library -- every tree that goes into making a book on your shelf is one less rotting away and adding CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Or ignore CO2, which is a weak greenhouse gas anyway, and concentrate on methane, or on SO2, which from time to time volcanoes inject into the upper atmosphere, causing noted global cooling. Emulate a natural volcano on a relatively modest scale and we can stop worrying about CO2 and warming.

>>8713479
Are you retarded? The rest of your post is dumb because ocean carbon dioxide is atmospheric carbon dioxide.

>>8713318

Planting trees would require buying arable land and converting it to forest, which costs millions of dollars. This would be dirt cheap.

>>8713508
Can you explain what part of the rest of the post is dumb?

I feel like you haven't read it properly. Nothing in that post should be too complicated for you to understand.

>>8713514
>complicated
It's not complicated, it's bone headed, because you know nothing about the carbon cycle.

>>8713519
yikes I feel embarrassed having to step you through the post again word for word when it is already there but here we go:

-transfer 1 lake's worth of ocean into empty lake
-reduce amount of CO2 in that lake to x% from y%
-return that lake of ocean water back to the ocean
- the concentration of CO2 in the ocean was x% before but is now y%*((entire ocean - one lake)/entire ocean)+x%*(one lake /entire ocean) so slightly more CO2 can dissolve into the ocean

wouldn't each transfer of water from lake to ocean and back again take a lot of energy and only reduce the concentration of CO2 in the ocean by a little bit?

can you either answer the question or point out specifically which part says something dumb.and how it is wrong?

>>8713521
>>8713464
just noticed that it should say
>- the concentration of CO2 in the ocean was y% before
not
>- the concentration of CO2 in the ocean was x% before

File: image.jpg (919KB, 4999x3488px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 4999x3488px

>>8713300
That's a terrible idea ecologically speaking and a waste of land/freshwater that will be permeantly fucked up and salinated.
You would be better off using photobioreactors (the kind that float on water) and municipal waste for fertilizer. Use the algae for biodiesel.

But the only way to do it is a radical restructuring of society that is needed for a billion other reasons.

kill all non-whites, climate literally solved over night

>>8713639
hmm, but the waste product produced by decomposing the dead produces CO2 through respiration, and there's already a lot of CO2 inside a person. More CO2 would just be added into the atmosphere.

>>8713321
>Trees don't take that much carbon.
t. brainlet

>>8713666
They take a lot of carbon. But not enough carbon. Because it's a shitlotlad of carbon. Try to keep up here.

>>8713671
>shitlotlad
Nice. I blame this typo on inconsistent delete functionality.

>>8713671
>They take a lot of carbon. But not enough carbon.
you're all kinds of retard aren't you?

File: samuel-l-jackson.jpg (472KB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1000x1333px

>>8713300
> My idea:
Scientists worldwide have been researching algae biodiesel for near 40 years.

> kill all non-whites
Yes, because white people don't have huge carbon footprints, McMansions that have to be heated / powered, or huge cars.

Fuck off to /pol/ and plant a tree, already.

>>8713681
Not legally

File: haiti-island-001.jpg (58KB, 460x301px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 460x301px

>>8713691
Think of the trees that could regrow on ethnically cleansed land. No more chop chop for firewood or subsistence farming.

>>8713321
Trees fix a monumental amount of carbon

>>8713300
Fostering mid oceanic diatombe blooms.

They fix carbon from the atmosphere, they also increase alkalinity of surrounding waters

>>8713300
the US Navy already figured it out.

>www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA539765

ocean water has much higher concentrations of CO2 than air. you use nuclear or green energy to power a global network of these sequestration plants, and use the ocean as a carbon sink for the atmosphere.

>>8713318
>>8713324
>>8713406
>>8713508

fun fact: the timber industry in the US is experiencing a boom due to INSANE growth in the national forests. literally can't cut shit down fast enough.

Uhhhhh

just throw a match I to the atmosphere, and let all the CO2 burn off?

I have to think of everything for you brainlets

>>8713671
Forests should be the front line of defense. Apart from sequestering carbon they keep mostuire in the ground and provide a nipton of other ecosystem services that we need.
Our ecological problems like biodiversty loss and habitat fragmentation/ degradation are our real existential threats. Climate change is just making those preexisting crises a grolllion times worse. We need stable socioecological systems trying to solve this by just sequestering carbon is like trying to control a tire fire with bottled water.

>>8713300
How about you know, NOT PUTTING CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

>>8713802
That has been tried for the last 20 years. There's literally nothing wrong with trying to go one step further and consider capturing it

>>8713321
bamboo can grow up to 91cm per day

>>8713802
>let's stop making money, okay?

Feeble.

>>8713837
he probably means carbon capture and storage (CCS)

>>8713828
Isn't bamboo also hollow? What mass of CO2 does bamboo capture per day

>>8713300

or you end up with an ecological diasaster like the salton sea

>large scale tree farming
>use industrial hemp

Do that, embrace nuclear, and find better ways of food production than factory farming and climate change will become just an infrastructure issue.

>>8713721
Any biomass does. And then as things die, they start putting their carbon back.

>>8713828
CM of stem does not tell you much -- the question is, how many kilograms of cellulose, or just of carbon, per day per area planted? An additional consideration is longevity.

>>8714378
But would trade a Salton sea for saving the world? If you only accept solutions with zero downside, we're fucked.

File: download (2).jpg (68KB, 750x497px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 750x497px

>>8713300
I used to want to overfly ice caps with large jets spewing ionically charged carbon black but have recently found a far better solution.

Chlamydomonas nivalis will reproduce and will do a far better job. Only a few spores dropped from a balloon can grow into a huge algae bloom.

There are few natural ways for algae to spread and could dominate glaciers with just a little human help.

I want Greenland and Antarctica to melt as soon as possible. Who is with me?

>>8713300

You can't just say it'll use a lot of energy but it doesn't count because it'll be solar power

File: 1444364806714.gif (89KB, 200x152px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 200x152px

Beef production is the number one reason globally for deforestation. Eating less/no beef would also save so god damn much water, not to mention the trillions of tons of methane cows polltute the environment with

>>8713481
Why don't we:

1. Burn all dead organic material until nothing but graphite (carbon) is left
2. Shoot it into space

Then we'll blast away all of the carbon. All carbon-based lifeforms will take carbon from the atmosphere via the food chain. We reduce the amount of carbon on the planet as a whole and thus less CO2 can be created.

1) Depopulate Africa, India, the Middle East, China, and South America.

2) Begin to move heavy industry into space.

3) Cut down on fossil fuels and beef production.

There we go, Earth saved, humanity getting ready to spread green across the cosmos.

>>8714851
See >>8714206 for the solution to everything.

>>8714863
1) take away all of whitey's money and spread it around the globe
2) wait for environmental kuznet's curve to kick in

racist