Take icebergs and place them in the Sahara.

File: 69_p1f3.jpg (278KB, 620x416px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 620x416px

>>8851624
Stop stealing our icebergs.

>>8851624
>a see
A holey see?

>>8851631
A sea****

>>8851624
all we have to do is hack photosynthesis brainlet

>>8851640
explain

the water would evaporate quickly over a matter of years and create absurd weather patterns that would destroy biomes on the short-term

d- idea

X13

File: 1490296096005.png (949KB, 1073x866px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 1073x866px

>>8851644
not the same anon but maybe he's talking about this

rubisco is found in all plants, it's an enzyme that fixes carbon from atmospheric CO2
It's the most abundant protein in the world, and takes up a lot of biomass
Impressive right?
>this is where it gets bad, boi

rubisco is successful only 3/4 times, instead of fixing carbon from CO2 it captures O2
This happens because plants evolved in low O2 atmospheric concentrations so the specificity of the enzyme is quite shit
The plant needs this carbon to run its calvin cycle successfully, if it fucks up, it's losing energy completing a futile cycle

>this is where it gets worse
so instead of fucking fixing the enzyme, plants build their way around it, Kranz anatomy evolved where the plants bury rubisco into a compartment with high CO2 concentration to maintain its affinity for CO2
this costs energy and time to grow

>this is where it gets good
the person who fixes it (hopefully me), will single single-handedly increase plant efficiency by 25%, this means higher crop yields, etc... you get the picture
not to forget a nobel prize and an unforgettable name on the highest value paper note

>>8851778
Wouldn't that make trees and shit fucking huge, too, since they wouldn't expending so much energy on trying to make that enzyme work better?

>>8851778
OP here, so basically increase the efficiency of rubisco to capture more CO2 and reduce its presence in the atmosphere.

More dense forests = less co2 = less heat retention = less global warming = less ice melting

>>8851794
now we're cooking

>>8851793
there are other physiological parameters that affect height of plants, but they could potentially get bigger or at least grow 25% faster

>>8851809
That sounds interesting, has there been any breakthroughs in the field that have steered experiments in the right direction? If not I think it's wishful thinking at this point.