Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Plants need CO2. But they were doing fine with 280 ppm.
Plants need CO2. But they were doing fine with 280 ppm.
Who is to say 280 ppm CO2 is in any way optimal for plant life?
I know this will get me labeled as some kind of “denier” but we don’t know what the ideal global climate is or should be. The planet has been much warmer than now, with much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
What is wrong with trying to go back to 280 ppm?
What is wrong with trying to go back to 280 ppm?
There’s nothing wrong with that, I guess. Just don’t claim this is for the benefit of anything but human civilization.
I’ll see people get all upset about “the planet”, how humans are screwing it up for all the cute fuzzy woodland
I kind of agree that 280 is somewhat random. It seems like things are not that bad today with it at 400 or whatever it is up to. But it is not stable. That is the problem. It continues to climb. I think the first step should be a solid plan to stabilize the number in a finite time frame (but one that is actually doable).
I kind of agree that 280 is somewhat random. It seems like things are not that bad today with it at 400 or whatever it is up to. But it is not stable. That is the problem. It continues to climb. I think the first step should be a solid plan to stabilize the number in a finite time frame (but one that is actually doable).
That number will stabilize all on its own, the higher the CO2 concentration the better plants will get in soaking it in. This likely has a saturation point but if that happens then it is not likely to be anything humans did. Where ever that stable point gets to there will be people still around to adapt, assuming the stable point doesn’t asphyxiate us all.
People act like the world as we know it will cease to exist in just a few years if we don’t take drastic action now. So they set unrealistic goals. Try crazy shit to meet the unrealistic goals, and deal with the fallout. It is exactly like working at a startup that has a ton of problems with their product but refuses to communicate to investors and the public that the ship date is slipping. The workers try their best, but you can’t do good work in that kind of chaotic environment. You cut corners and fuck up. That is what we are doing now with carbon reduction. It is like being at a startup that is going down in flames.
People act like the world as we know it will cease to exist in just a few years if we don’t take drastic action now. So they set unrealistic goals. Try crazy shit to meet the unrealistic goals, and deal with the fallout. It is exactly like working at a startup that has a ton of problems with their product but refuses to communicate to investors and the public that the ship date is slipping. The workers try their best, but you can’t do good work in that kind of chaotic environment. You cut corners and fuck up. That is what we are doing now with carbon reduction. It is like being at a startup that is going down in flames.
It’s the efforts that want to lower CO2 levels the fastest that will most likely fail. They will cost too much money, take too much materials, and get
Plants need CO2. But they were doing fine with 280 ppm.
Who is to say 280 ppm CO2 is in any way optimal for plant life?
Plants need CO2. But they were doing fine with 280 ppm.
Plants need CO2. But they were doing fine with 280 ppm.
Who is to say 280 ppm CO2 is in any way optimal for plant life?
No one said that. Literally nobody.
What was said was that plants were “doing fine” with 280 ppm.
280 ppm is what’s optimal for us. [mit.edu]
280 ppm CO2 is so arbitrary. We could have easily picked a number from any other period within human history. I don’t fear small deviations from that, it’s just that we won’t know what is a “small deviation” until we hit a “large deviation”.
280 ppm CO2 is so arbitrary. We could have easily picked a number from any other period within human history. I don’t fear small deviations from that, it’s just that we won’t know what is a “small deviation” until we hit a “large deviation”.
Look around. Pay attention. We’ve hit it.
Just your phrasing of the problem is so simplistic it’s irretrievably broken: more CO2 is not better for “plants” as a category. If change the level of CO2, it will benefit some plant species *at the expense of others*. Equivalently it will harm some plant species to the benefits of others.
Yes, if CO2 goes up overall you’ll get more plant biomass, but the speciation of that biomass will change to favor plants with high need for CO2 or high tolerance for high CO2 conditions. You’ll get more poison ivy and s
Was the earth much lusher when it was warmer, and did that vegetation become the oil that we burn now to return the earth to that happier, warmer time?
look it up, NASA says the world has become greener in last 20 years. CO2, what plants crave.
It is idiotic to dump large amounts of alkali in any area of the ocean, that is poisonous to plankton and other ocean life same as acidification is.
The obvious solution is to pollute less, anything else is tampering with systems far too complex to model accurately.
NASA says the world has become greener in last 20 years. CO2, what plants crave.
NASA says the world has become greener in last 20 years. CO2, what plants crave.
There’s more forest extent, but less forest biomass, which is why there’s less CO2 being fixed. Mature trees fix more carbon. Old growth is also more resistant to fire. We don’t let trees grow up to full size any more, and we don’t allow fires to come through and clear out the undergrowth, so what we get is fires that wipe out forests.
I say the same thing when I hold someone’s head under water for an hour.
People need water! These clowns will never learn.
Seems like this is a commercial entity, but they uses an electrolyzer to purify rocks to create an antacid that they would then dump into the ocean, releasing hydrogen in the process (I’m assuming the oxygen stays in the water).
Basically they’re burning oil to crush and electrolyze rocks, then they transport it with diesel trucks to the shore, where it gets loaded on boats running on bunker fuel, to them dump in the ocean which they hope will ‘encourage’ the water to become more soluble to carbon dioxide. Sounds like homeopathy to me.
The process they use seems to be the same one that is used in commercial hydrogen production. At this point, hydrogen production with this process is not at all carbon neutral, even if you capture the complete output and use it to replace carbon emissions (hydrogen production is never going to be a perpetuum mobile). These idiots want to dump their product in the ocean just so they can sell carbon credits in the next few years to ‘investors’.
For the early stages, I would assume your comments regarding the carbon-friendliness are true… but this is the experimental stage.
In the long run, there’s no reason the required mining, processing, transport, and delivery couldn’t all be direct-electric ultimately powered by ‘green’ power generation.
With regard to your summary of the endeavour as ‘homeopathy’ I have to strongly disagree. It’s actual science-based chemistry, and essentially they’re looking to artificially accelerate a natural process.
What’s missing in the science here is a model for what elevated CO2 levels do to marine environments even if you’ve resolved the acidity issue. Maybe it’s obvious to a marine biologist, but I’m not one of those so it’d be helpful if they addressed the problem. After all, we know more CO2 in the atmosphere impairs cognition in humans – and presumably in pretty much all other animals to some degree.
What’s missing in the science here is a model for what elevated CO2 levels do to marine environments even if you’ve resolved the acidity issue.
What’s missing in the science here is a model for what elevated CO2 levels do to marine environments even if you’ve resolved the acidity issue.
Mu. If you resolve the acidity issue, then you don’t have elevated CO2 levels, because the CO2 in the water reacts with the water to form acid.
The first concern would be what it does when you dump this product in the oceans en mass. My point about homeopathy is that it is dumping a few tons of product IN THE OCEAN and then claiming this will do something.
Homeopathy is exactly this, you take a cup of water out of the ocean and claim because the ocean has some beneficial minerals, by some transitive property, this cup now has the concentrated effect, they’re doing it in reverse, but it’s the same.
Even if you somehow had enough material t
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about and have trouble with basic logic, so I’m just going to go ahead and not respond to your ‘points’.
Apparently you don’t know what homeopathy is.
Is this really just part of the gay agenda to pinkify the whole planet?
I can agree this is a commercial entity behind this. What I see though is a commercial entity looking for a place to dump their mining tails and also claim some kind of carbon offset credit or something.
There’s a number of minerals that are naturally alkaline with small deposits of rare earth elements, precious and semi-precious metals, and other elements with potential economic value. But part of that value is going to be offset by the costs of disposing of what is left over. If this left over material
This looks to me like some experiment where the people looking to carry it out decided to tie it to global warming in an effort to improve the chances of getting funding and approval. Had this been announced as an experiment on the propagation of an oil spill, as one example, then it would likely go nowhere.
I’m quite suspect of anything that claims to be helpful in fighting global warming. Most every case turns out to be some kind of scam.
If people really want to see CO2 emissions be reduced then there’s plenty of papers written by actual experts in the field on how to make that happen. We could start by doing what is advised in these papers. Once on the path they laid out, efforts well known and a kind of “low hanging fruit”, then we could start looking for ways to improve on their advice.
If people really want to see CO2 emissions be reduced then there’s plenty of papers written by actual experts in the field on how to make that happen. We could start by doing what is advised in these papers. Once on the path they laid out, efforts well known and a kind of “low hanging fruit”, then we could start looking for ways to improve on their advice.
If people really want to see CO2 emissions be reduced then there’s plenty of papers written by actual experts in the field on how to make that happen. We could start by doing what is advised in these papers. Once on the path they laid out, efforts well known and a kind of “low hanging fruit”, then we could start looking for ways to improve on their advice.
Well, if it were “low-hanging fruit”, it would have already been done.
Real world solutions ave to be economically and politically acceptable too. Not just wish fulfillment.
Being a good judge of human character, can I say that that is why I don’t like any of them?
Worse for whom? The consultants? The carbon capture scheme venture capitalist?
There are piles of money to be made here.
Normally we trade a simple brutal problem for a less brutal but complicated to deal with one.
For example, we mostly traded hunger, diseases and environment exposure for global warming.
Was this sponsored by Pepto-Bismol?
Not so much the pink water – presumably even fish have been hit by the saturation Barbenheimer publicity – but dumping loads of alkali in their environment. It’s not like we don’t dump enough trash in the oceans…
… or is notable to me, anyway, is how offended some people would be if there were some cool technological solutions.
I mean, where’s the pain in that? The penance? The comeuppance? The divine punishment????
Sure, why not? The ocean is infinitely able to absorb whatever we toss in it. This has been proven over and over in the same way that there are infinite fish to take out of it.
Bottom line: if you make people scared enough you can convince them to do anything and profit from it. The fear-mongering on climate change is a double-edged sword.
For the Barbie movie.
Surely, they must be using AI. No?
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Teens Hacked Boston Subway Cards For Infinite Free Rides, and This Time Nobody Got Sued
US Spy Agencies Will Start Sharing More Cyber-Threat Intelligence with Private Companies
“The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected.” — The Unix Programmer’s Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972