Climate Engineering

Climate change is reaching the point of no return and we aren't going to stop using fossil fuels. Should we start using technologies like genetically modified corals and iron fertilization ( to mitigate the damage caused by climate change?

Attached: 1548293620468.jpg (1100x613, 120.68K)

Other urls found in this thread:

How did we go from "immanent global cooling catastrophe" in the '70s to "immanent global warming catastrophe" in the 2000s?

Attached: climating.gif (590x261 98.38 KB, 57.99K)

I'm guessing it was Big Capital somehow.

Tbh, we should start terraforming and gene editing fucking EVERYTHING. Socialist science will turn the Earth's inhabitants invincible and the red planet green.

Or in other words.

Genetically Modify Em All 2020
I am harder, better, faster, smarter man
410,757,864,530 DEAD HIPPIES

Attached: 4c349689c6a97b043bdf46bcb50d79288d564461673c7a0f96ddac50a83fe0fc.jpg (1024x1020, 279.99K)

media sensationalism

Some countries actually stand to benefit from global warming, for example Russia will have more land opened up to agriculture. It'll be interesting to see if we can come to some kind of consensus about how to regulate the climate. The thought of having a global organisation in charge of what temperature the earth should be is kinda terrifying.

Also if we come up with a geoengineering solution, countries might stop bothering to reduce emissions… That could have some consequences. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere can have cognitive effects. We might save the climate but poison ourselves in the long run.

If we're not careful we trigger an ice age by accidentally taking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere. This could even happen naturally with algae blooms, and is believed to be the cause of some previous ice ages. We can create an algae bloom, but can we remove it when we don't need it anymore?

I think geoengineering to prevent catastrophic global warming is possible… But it could lead to as much conflict as if we did nothing.

For starters, Climate change will not threaten the existence of humanity (not even the scale of humanity) unless it provokes Nuclear doomsday war.

We do not have the capacity to do any of that (or even reduce global CO2 emissions) anyway. In the end, each authority will fend for itself, and do whatever they are capable of for their patch.

I knew there was something off about that penguin cover it looked way too modern for 1977.

There is absolutely no proof of this. The earth goes through cycles of hot and cold and a single volcano lets out more CO2 than humans

This was just about a very particular winter, wtf?

oil companies suffered major drawbacks in the 70s

Not in 50 years

This thread is such trash.

What we actually need to do is to use more nuclear energy and waste less energy on things we do not need.

You are absolutely ignorant of most scientific reports on this issue if you are not aware that many irreversible events have already happened.

Attached: [HorribleSubs] Zombieland Saga - 12 [720p].mkv_snapshot_05.40_[2019.01.07_21.08.40].jpg (1280x720, 65.03K)


Actual climate scientist here. The only viable geoengineering options are stratospheric aerosol injection (adding small particles to the air above 12km) and planting trees. The aerosol injection basically mirrors what happens when there is a large volcanic eruption but eventually the particles leave and you get a reset. So if we started doing it the CO2 builds up and we need more particle injection to the atmosphere. The real concern is that finances/ war / political will stops and then there is the risk of temperatures increasing by 4-6+ degrees in a single year which would be devastating. Also the aerosols completely screw with the weather meaning more flooding and droughts. So not ideal!

The reasons the others aren't viable is as follows. Iron fertilisation has a very small effect as does increased weathering. Carbon capture and storage works if you are removing CO2 using an energy source to power the process that doesn't emit CO2. Changing the reflectivity of the planet would work except it would require painting 10% of the planet white, whether that is feasible or not you decide.

Happy to answer any questions. I have been wondering if there were other climate scientists on leftypol. I got into climate science to avert the damage so it is frustrating that the capitalists do nothing. I don't know what i can do besides trying to build my profile on social media.

Do you think subsidizing cash crops that grow in poor soils would help fight climate change?

Assuming nothing happens, how many degrees do you believe we'll add and how would climatic zones and habitability in them would change?

I'm a mathematician and I'm not gona lie, I'm a sceptic of climate alarmism for the following reason: it relies on various mathematical models, however, it completely forgoes statistical verification of the said models. Thus, it entirely lacks the component of "how likely it's actually true". Thus it cannot be considered an objective statement.

That said, I don't disagree of general sentiment of maintaining ecology.

The thing with crops is that globally 75% of farming land is set aside to grow feed for animals. gram for gram you can grow crops on sometimes as little as 10% of the land used for animal produce. So really the answer is vegetarianism. This then frees up that land for reforestation and carbon drawdown and you get less emissions from cattle.

But the answer to your question is yes but it will have a small effect.A point to mention is that for the health of the soil you usually need rotation of crops anyway so you can't really have cash crops all the time anyway.

It's rather pointless at this point to try and negate the effects of global warming we should just embrace it at this point

We need to burn all the rain forests, poison the oceans, melt the ice, flood the coasts, detonate thousands of dirty bombs in the atmosphere, spreading radiation to all corners of the globe, killing the unworthy, pump as much hydrogen gas into the atmosphere as possible until the air is saturated with it and then

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (246x329, 113.47K)

I similarly had my doubt about the climate modelling but i've been won over. The models are validated against the historical climate record which they match accurately. They also do numerous monte carlo simulations so look at different outcomes and this gives them sensitivity to different inputs. The complexity of the models has increased over time and each time it improves either, temporal, spatial, or additional processes the more accurate the models get. The IPCC has excellent commentary on all of this. Being able to simulate something like the Pinatubo eruption in your model and accurately replicate the temperature record is very convincing.

I work with climate modellers but am not one myself, it is easy to view it all as black magic but again due to the climate skepticism everything is very transparent these days.

The main thing is all the different emissions scenarios, we are exceeding their worse case scenario every year. We are at 1 degree warming and it only gets exponentially worse as we move into this century. I'll give you an example of one positive feedback.

Temperature makes the ice and snow melt. Snow is white so reflects shortwave radiation. When it melts the ground is not white to the ground heats up and you get more longwave radiation trapped.

Its these positive feedbacks which will be what pushes us into the 3-4 degree territory by the end of the century.

The heat in itself isnt the problem , people can live in 35 degree climates already. The problem is water and food. Weather will change, patterns and extremes get worse. More droughts and floods. Famine means migration and war. Look at Syria, that was caused by unrest due to famine caused by a drought. More to come!

I wished the negative feedback loops actually did more. (increased cloud cover because of evaporation, reflecting energy back into space instead of being absorbed by the dark ocean) Like the excess hurricanes are supposedly taking energy out of the oceans and dumping it on the land which can help green and cool the land. But still we outpace nature.

How would algae fertilization effect the acidification of the ocean?

IMO the Arab Spring was the first indication that we're living unsustainably. To the layman, the Arab Spring might seem to be a case of people getting sick of their corrupt government, but if you look into the root causes it essentially came down to uncontrolled population growth, which increased demand for food, in conjunction with an inability to increase food output due to climate change. This fundamental mechanic is going to be the cause of a lot of our future problems.

The thing is that these fundamentals are not obvious. People don't get angry at population growth and unsustainability, they look for scapegoats like their government and immigration and whatnot. The Egyptians rose up and replaced their government, but that didn't change the fundamentals, and therefore they're still stuck with the same old problems. And the population continues to increase at a frightening rate. To be frank, unless technology can somehow turn sand into soil, the Middle East is boned.

Germany went through a similar process, of course that was not caused by climate change but rather the conditions imposed after WW1, but the results were the same. Germans got squeezed too hard, they got pissed off and looked for someone to blame for their problems. And of course now we are starting to see it in places like the USA and France. Things are looking pretty grim honestly. When the general population is pissed off and unable to make a living, it's only a matter of time before violence occurs.

Attached: PopGrowth.png (643x349, 6.75K)

the problem is Capitalism not population growth.
in the case of population growth

for instance the birth rate in developing nations is starting to rapidly decline for instance in Egypt it when from 6.48 in 1960 to 3.26 in the 2016

also global population will stagnated and decline on 9 billion.

Attached: Dfc2vNFXUAA0-JP.jpg (1200x675, 58.17K)


forget to add this graph
i will add that just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions

Attached: population growth.jpg (1200x1097, 106.41K)

start using technologies like genetically modified corals and iron fertilization

This is why we need family planning. The future is also going to have a fuckton of old people as well