/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10984177
It actually doesn't matter what you do if you don't address economic growth. Any actions to increase efficiency or sequester carbon will be quickly canceled out by ongoing growth.

>>10984177

>>10984209
These nations had less than 10% growth in CO2 production between 2005 and 2017.
That's probably 65% of the global economy.
EU
US
Japan
Canada
Russia
Nigeria
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa
Hong Kong
Israel

In fact Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, India and China represent 93% of all CO2 increase since 2005.
A group that represents less than 25% of the global economy, granted a lot of growth is centered in these economies but still.
It is possible to level off at around current CO2 production levels.

>>10984177

There is no realistic climate plan that doesn't have nuclear power providing base load, especially in developing countries.

Get on board or don't do anything at all. All you'd be doing is throwing good money after bad on a feels good project.

>>10984599
I would be more worried about Africa and the Middle east since they have high fertility rates.
Most 1st world countries have a fertility rate below replacement so it is to be expected that their CO2 production isn't growing.

I would question the placement of Nigeria on that list since they have a fertility rate of 5.5 (9th highest in the world).
They are a ticking time-bomb as is the rest of Africa.
If they industrialize, we're screwed.
We're also screwed if we let too many into the first world countries and they bring their baby-production customs while adopting first world consumption customs.

>>10984177
Just build a greenhouse faggot.

>>10984838
Greenhouses work by actually burning fossil fuels to provide the CO2.
There's no magic device that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts it in the greenhouse.

>>10984838
But if you build a wood pellet plant that burns the wood and emits its exhaust under a roof where you grow trees, that would make a difference yes.

>>10984599
Reminder that Russia is benefiting massively from global warming because the ice obstructing their trade routes is disappearing forever. Also the northern region that nobody lives in may become habitable after warming up a few degrees, .

>>10984991
>>10984992
This isn't about Co2. I mean that you should build a greenhouse for personal use, because that way whether it's minus -20 or +40 degrees celsius outside you'll be able to grow food. Whether climate change will actually happen, whether people keep pumping out Co2, whether farmers suffer from droughts or cold, you'll have access to food and therefore your life is not threatened. A simple investment into a greenhouse and climate change stops being a threat to you no matter what.

Basically, you're in panic for nothing.

>>10984177
god... are people stupid enough to think this would work? because it won't. also trees trap heat.

>>10984263
This would badly fuck up the ocean ecosystem, you'd have a ton of carbon dioxide in the ocean affecting all the animals that live down there. Eventually fish that eat those animals and then humans that eat those fish (and so on) will be affected.

>>10985024
based Canada and Russia are going to be best places to be in the world.

>>10984263
>sink a billions trees

>>10984263
better to just store them in a hole so we can come back and collect the fossil fuel.

Excuse me I'm a big dumdum, can someone explain to me why rising CO2 levels are such an apocalyptic issue? Isn't it true that the planet has been perfectly capable of supporting life with much higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere in the history of our planet?

>>10985074
>Isn't it true that the planet has been perfectly capable of supporting life
Of course it has. But last time CO2 levels were this high, humans didn't exist.

You know how "survival of the fittest" dictates that the organisms likely to survive are those most well-adapted to their environment? Humanity emerged because the condition of the world was, at that point, highly suitable for human life. Makes you wonder whether the dawn of humanity would still come to pass under the vastly different atmospheric conditions of today.

>>10985177
Why wouldn't humans be able to exist under higher Co2 levels?

http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN15576

>methane is 28x more potent greenhouse gas than c02 over 100 year time span
>methane can be removed from agricultre by adding small percentage seaweed to feed

>>10984177
you also haven't taken into account wood can be harvested and sold into building materials etc without releasing c02.
you should work it out $/ co2 reduction / time i.e the fastest growing tree may not be the most optimum for c02 removal

>>10985189
what's the increase in demand if there's no tax on renewable timber business

>>10985181
Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has been demonstrated time and time again to warm the atmosphere directly proportional to its concentration of CO2. When Earth gets warmer, by even a few degrees, ecosystems are destroyed and rearranged across the planet. As global warming progresses, temperatures will become more extreme on both ends. Eventually, there will be very little space in which humanity may thrive.

>>10985181
Probably would, but the drastic change in climate and the resulting effects would be hard for our civilization to adapt to fast enough.

Realistically speaking we wouldn't just collectively roll over and die. More like we'd have mass migrations spurred from failed harvests due to droughts, floods and just basically people abandoning cities that lie in places vulnerable to a rising sea level.

Then once all the countries that are economically and technically advanced enough to weather this storm gets about 3 billion immigrants, people in those countries will get very angry about declining standards of living. Some politicians will enevitably direct this anger towards the climate refugees to fuel his campaign. Politicians that base their platform on what basically ammounts to "Fuck you i got mine" aren't typically very good at fostering good international relations. This leads to war. War is bad. When all is said and done a future with unchecked climate change isn't gonna kill us. It's just gonna kill a lot of us, and we might finish the job ourselves with nuclear weapons if things spiral out of control.

>>10985201
this is such nonsense.
Co2 = bad is primary school level my first science poster presentation sophistication

organic matter grows faster at higher c02 levels that's why a greenhouse stays around 600ppm Co2

>>10985205
>grows faster
increasing the uptake of Co2 from the atmosphere.

>>10985177
>Humanity emerged because the condition of the world was, at that point, highly suitable for human life.
Do you think our environment becoming more suitable for the evolution of human life might have had more to do with dinosaurs going extinct rather than CO2 levels? Is there any real reason why a modern human could not have survived in the same atmosphere that the dinosaurs lived in?

>>10984177
your calculations are incorrect

Azolla Sequesters 60 tons of CO2 per ha

Also pure square footage of available agricultural land doesn't matter because of vertical farming

>>10985209
>Also pure square footage of available agricultural land doesn't matter because of vertical farming
this. Maybe there is an algae, fungus or bush that would provide better $ per co2 reduction per volume

>>10985201
>Eventually, there will be very little space in which humanity may thrive.
You make it sound like the world in the time of the dinosaurs was a barren wasteland. Quite the opposite, life on the planet was thriving.

>>10985211
algae estimate with g.engineering is 70

Anyway photosynthesis is way less efficient at harvesting solar energy than solar panels

so if we are talking future technology you would never just want the sun shining down on plants. Vertical farming to translate the solar panel efficiency to multiple times it's area in plant growth.

Also there is already a way to "cool" the atmosphere that is millions of times cheaper than burning carbon. Think billions of dollars max to get equivalent cooling to current warming.

The whole global warming thing isn't something you think about logically or scientifically. It's just people using a political lie to push cleaner tech. It's not a real doomsday thing. It's false, but with good intentions. Don't worry your mind on it.

>>10985213
70 tonnes per hectare?
how many per cubic hectare?
can algae be produced profitably though?

>>10985219
Doesn't matter because you have 100+ years

>>10985218
>It's false, but with good intentions.
imagine accepting this, classic socialism.

>>10985221
not till they start enacting taxes and destroying industry in countries that can stream al gores latest scientism propaganda

>Paulownia

i never felt like

ta-da
ta
ta ta ta

>>10985205
And you've tested this in your lab? Show me evidence and explain to me how and why it can be so different from what is generally accepted to be true. Show me you understand both sides and aren't just taking a really boneheaded position for no reason.

>>10984745
You want to make developing countries like Iran nuclear powers? Really?
Cunning plan,. Global warming will not kill us in a 100 years because global thermonuclear war will kill us in a few years.

>>10985229
I would design a profitable business model that scalablly reduces Co2 from the atmosphere for free just to see al gores response.
Watch him fumble around for reasons why taxing renewable timber is good for decreasing Co2

>>10985236
>tested this in your lab
the year is 2019 and he thinks the relationship between plant growth and Co2 concentration isn't established
https://dutchgreenhouses.com/technology/co2-enrichment

>>10985229
It's only the death-spiral countries that go through with such legislation.

>>10985074
it's not a problem for life in general, reptiles will love it, it's a problem for human life, in a worst case scenario we could only go outside in polar regions in winter

>>10985181
>Why wouldn't humans be able to exist under higher Co2 levels?

put a plastic bag over your head and loo how well this goes.

>>10985242
>he thinks the global economy shrinking, is not a problem for him
hope you're not a wage slave anon

>>10985201
>ecosystems are destroyed and rearranged across the planet.
Happens constantly

>temperatures will become more extreme on both ends. Eventually, there will be very little space in which humanity may thrive.
Even if that was true, which it isn't because even if you add 10 degrees to this planet most of the surface would still be green more than half of the year, people have been able to live in the most extreme climates ranging from Siberia to the Sahara, even without todays technology.

>>10985204
>would be hard for our civilization to adapt to fast enough
I'm not sure buddy but estimated 30-50 years sounds like a damn long time to adapt.

>More like we'd have mass migrations spurred from failed harvests due to droughts, floods and just basically people abandoning cities that lie in places vulnerable to a rising sea level.
Growing crops can be easily solved as >>10984838 already said and migrating people a few meters up withon 30-50 years from the coast is not magic.

>Then once all the countries that are economically and technically advanced enough to weather this storm gets about 3 billion immigrants
How do they "get" 3 billion immigrants? Do they just magically appear? People would be pissed and close the borders after a few million like they already do now. People would riot before way before 100 million. They don't even need to migrate in the first place if they simply build greenhouses, change to higher temp resisting crops and move a few meters up in elevation.

>This leads to war.
Against whom? Civilized countries against third world countries who try to invade because they've been too retarded to prepare within 30-50 years? That wouldn't be war, that would be one sided slaughter.

Literally two simple steps to solve everything
1. Build greenhouses or change to higher temp resistant crops
2. Move up in elevation

If anyone fails to do this, they deserve to be removed from the genepool.

>>10985247
We won't asphyxiate because of a few % more Co2

>>10985245
>it's a problem for human life
Explain why, would we simply drop dead if we were breathing in the atmosphere the dinosaurs lived in?

>>10985245
>we could only go outside in polar regions in winter
Why, would the rest of the planet be a scorching desert? How high would the Co2 % of our atmosphere need to be for that to happen?

>>10985245
the fucking state

>>10985276
How about picking some cherries over a period of time long enough to mean anything, you dishonest jackass.

>>10985289
please present a temperature graph of your choosing that will counter mine and prove that inaccurate climate models predicting 2 degree changes in 100 years are something we should paying tax for

Brainlet thread. The problem has a solution. It is much less preposterous than filling the mariana trench with trees that take forty years to grow. Think of the deep sea creatures you fools. They don't want to be buried beneath your idiocy.

Carbon sequestration should go largescale in australia within a decade. North korea is going to duplicate the technique and we will even help them do it charging them probably nothing at all. China will probably also go big once it is proven working technology.

Africa will still be a shithole. I honestly doubt they will be able to get organised enough to follow us unless we invade. We might have to.

You think this is a shitpost now but your jaw will drop if you remember this post in ten years.

>>10985292
>Carbon sequestration
via what mechanism

>>10985290
I was going to but for some reason I'm range-banned from posting images. This is the best I can do now:

https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/119222607/#119232764

>>10985307
these graphs indicate a very long term decrease in temperature trend uncorrelated with Co2 concentration and short term peaks in temperature preceding peaks in Co2

there's not even correlation for Co2 concentration causing temperature rise in these graphs.

>>10985307
>for centuries
lmao

>>10985319
>uncorrelated
Look at the upper right corner more carefully.

>>10985293
The most efficient one. I've posted here about it before but it just caused problems for somebody foolish. This is another time when I have to say just let the story unfold.

There are more efficient methods of co2 capture than trees though. Have a look around. You can find some interesting information.

>>10985322
temperature increase preceeds Co2 increase in that graph.

the graph has no useful correlation for the idea increases in atmospheric Co2 increases temperature.

>>10985325
how bout you just write one sentence with a specific technology instead of larping

>>10985330
That one graph precedes the other visually means nothing because the scales become different near the end; I manipulated the image with the intent of getting the major peaks to line up as closely as possible, which unfortunately undermines my argument here.

Pay attention to the numbers and spacing on the graphs’ axes specifically. Focus just on the period of 200,000BC to 100,000BC. Now what precedes what?

>>10985371
your manipulation is not the problem

>>10985381
It seems you know a thing or two about manipulation, Mr. Sourceless Infographic.

>>10985385
look at your own graph. Co2 lags temperature

>>10985237

kike spotted

>>10984798
Fuck off racist.

>>10985381
CO2 is the cause *and* effect of global warming. There are undeniably points in your graph that show a sharp increase in CO2 before a gradual increase in temperature. CO2 decreases after the temperature does because heat keeps it in the atmosphere. When the Earth suddenly cools by one of many convoluted processes, the CO2 that’s been stuck in the atmosphere takes time to fully respond to this temperature change - as all chemicals do, to an extent.

>>10985330
>temperature increase preceeds Co2 increase in that graph.
With what accuracy do you pretend to read that data? There is no way there are enough data points per time in there in order to say what preceeds what for hundred thousands of years to make that assessment looking on those graphs. That's just disingenuous.

>>10985040
Care to explain?
The part about CO2.

>>10985209
Thank you, these are the posts i like.
Hadnt heard of azola.

>>10985292
Ok buddy. Anyway im not proposing to dump them in the see.
Burn them at the location of your plantation.
They have 1/3rd the energy content of oil and a localized increase in CO2 might increase yield.

>>10985402
Seems there are enough data points, but what I see here isn't a clearly displayed lag of either.

>>10985401
>CO2 is the cause *and* effect of global warming.
the data says otherwise

>>10985402
with what accuracy do you claim we should inact hundreds of billions of dollars of tax destroy the industry of the world

>>10985414
it is clearest after the peaks, the red line temperature drops before the blue line Co2

>>10985420
>The data says otherwise
What data?? That wasn’t some random claim I made to explain the graph. It’s a widely accepted fact and can be observed directly.

>>10985431
this data
>>10985381
>>10985319

Co2 lags temperature it's not possible it causes temperature increases

>It’s a widely accepted fact
this is not a scientific measure of truth
>can be observed directly
completely false. Show me where this has been done

>>10985443
Do you see what’s happening at 350000? That’s already enough to disprove your claim that temperature always lags behind, but the apparent anomaly there actually even repeats subtly, several times throughout the graph. There are also several instances where the blue line comes distinctly before the red line.

>>10985254
>>10985272
There are 2 effects, one is CO2, it's an asphyxiant gas. Higher CO2 concentrations can result in headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Longer exposure means even bone loss.
You can see these effects if you spend much time in a room with no windows and no ventilation. If we keep going and burn fossil fuels we all will end up with stuffy conditions everywhere.
On top of this is a temperature over 100°F. Even in regions which are now temperate or cold. It will not kill you instantly, but longer exposure is not healthy. So we will need to live underground and can only go outside at night, just like rats.

>>10985457
>temperature always lags behind
Shit, I meant CO2, not temperature.

>>10985457
the graph overwhelmingly shows co2 lags temperature
pic related I added and extra line to represent when this is true

>>10985471
>Overwhelmingly
That’s not enough. Considering the span of time we’re looking at, each fluctuation on the graph is extremely significant. Atmospheric CO2 alternately initiates and results from global warming. CO2 cannot be said to lag behind because that leaves no room to explain the instances wherein its presence precedes a steady increase in global temperature.

>>10985482
the burden of proof is on the people that advocate for anthropogenic climate change
this data >>10985471
is evidence against that claim not for

>>10985471
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-temperature/

>>10985487
>The side that is backed by 99% of research scientists carries the burden of proof
Nah, fuck that. Go ahead and be wrong. You’re making me want to see humanity needlessly devastated anyway.

>>10985494
>what is rate of change

>>10985497
show me some of this proof then

>>10985487
The natural progression of ice ages and the observed increase in the global average temperature since industrialization have two very different drivers; ice ages are driven by natural triggers, while recent warming is not.
The start and end of ice ages are natural processes that have occurred throughout our planet’s history. Natural processes like the Milankovitch cycles trigger ice ages.
The progression of an ice age, as well as the retreat of an ice age, is helped along by various feedback processes. Although the increase in temperature occurs prior to an increase in carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide plays an important role in the retreat of an ice age. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the greenhouse effect is strengthened, and a greater degree of warming occurs.

>>10985501
>the observed increase in the global average temperature since industrialization
well within normal variance pic related >>10985276

>Although the increase in temperature occurs prior to an increase in carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide plays an important role in the retreat of an ice age. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the greenhouse effect is strengthened, and a greater degree of warming occurs.
nice claim anon how about some actual evidence

>>10985500
>Show me
I refuse. The most I’m willing to do is advise you to look up global warming on Wikipedia and read the full opening. Of course, if I’m right - which I am - you can just deny it all because Wikipedia isn’t reliable, the sources are dubious, and the whole idea is forced on us by those biased libtard professors anyway.

>>10985505
>well within normal variance pic related >>10985276 #
This doesn't show global temperature and doesn't show modern warming. The data ends in 1855. So how does this show it's within normal variance of global temperature? This claim doesn't even make sense since "natural variation" such as interglacial warming is not random, we know it only occurs when the orbital eccentricity of the Earth is in a particular state. This state was reached about ten thousand years ago, interglacial warning already occurred and we should be slowly coming now over many thousands of years. Instead we are warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. So please tell me why you are spouting utter nonsense when you have no idea what you're taking about.

>nice claim anon how about some actual evidence
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

>>10985512
>1855
changes nothing pic related
>post image from a climate model
not evidence because it assumes the mechanism (Co2 conc increases cause temperature increases) is true it is trying to provide evidence for

>normal variance of global temperature? This claim doesn't even make sense since "natural variation" such as interglacial warming is not random
nothing is random. there has been no change in temperature outside of the existing statistical distribution of the temperature record

I will read that paper

>>10985395
*sips boomer juice* Riveting stuff, sis.

>>10984745
nuclear is not sustainable either, the only thing it does well is help with the transition.

>>10985549
>changes nothing pic related
LOL now you show global temperature instead of local Greenland temperature. Which is it?

>post image from a climate model
Huh? Most of the image is reconstructions, not climate models. There is only one climate model at the end showing what will happen up to 2100. But this is irrelevant to the point, which is that current warming is categorically different from natural warming.

>not evidence because it assumes the mechanism (Co2 conc increases cause temperature increases) is true it is trying to provide evidence for
Reconstructions are not necessary or even primary evidence for proving CO2 causes warming. This is predicted by fundamental physics and chemistry and directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. Where are you getting these strawmen from?

>nothing is random.
So what's causing the temperature increase?

>there has been no change in temperature outside of the existing statistical distribution of the temperature record
The statistical distribution contains everything that has happened. So what is the point of saying it's within this distribution? Mass extinctions are within the distribution of past events, so I guess that means mass extinctions are nothing to worry about? If you go back fast enough, the Earth being a barren wasteland is within the statistical distribution. Phew, that means nothing that happens is worth worrying about.

>>10985600
How is nuclear not sustainable?

>>10985621
>LOL now you show global temperature instead of local Greenland temperature. Which is it?
show me a global temperature graph that contradicts mine and I will use it

>This is predicted by fundamental physics and chemistry and directly observed via radiative spectroscopy
radiative spectroscopy proves gasses absorb heat in the atmosphere not that the global temperature is as a simple as a relationship as more c02 = more heat

>The statistical distribution contains everything that has happened. So what is the point of saying it's within this distribution? Mass extinctions are within the distribution of past events, so I guess that means mass extinctions are nothing to worry about? If you go back fast enough, the Earth being a barren wasteland is within the statistical distribution. Phew, that means nothing that happens is worth worrying about.
we are not discussing the existence of climate change but the attribution of that change to human activity which there is no evidence for

>>10985024
This is propaganda for people that don't understand the effects climate will actually have in the planet, Russia's northern land is a wasteland, there is a reason people don't grow crops up there and freezing temperatures is just the tip of the iceberg

>>10985629
name another reason besides permafrost

>>10985634
Rocky soil with poor nutrition makes for a terrible place for agriculture, same reason the Amazonian jungle soil needs to be painfully treated for years before obtaining barely descent resources from it

>>10985650
ok. Would you deny an increase in temperature in russia would increase their agricultural ouput

>>10985629
Funny you would mention icebergs, considering the thing about trade routes is still totally true and you can see it on a map. Russia isn't coy about making the most of this.

>>10984177
https://raidboxes.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Carbon-Sequestration-in-Mangroves.pdf

Mangroves are claimed to sequester 3080 tons over a 25 year period.
So we'd only need 3 million square km of mangroves to offset CO2.

>>10985626
>show me a global temperature graph that contradicts mine and I will use it
How can a global temperature graph contradict a local temperature graph? Makes no sense. And I already provided you with global temperature here >>10985512

>radiative spectroscopy proves gasses absorb heat in the atmosphere not that the global temperature is as a simple as a relationship as more c02 = more heat
It shows how much heat they emit towards the surface, which allows us to calculate their radiative forcing:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

The greenhouse effect is a scientific fact verified in many ways and you just make yourself look foolish by denying it.

>we are not discussing the existence of climate change but the attribution of that change to human activity
Then why are you talking about whether it's within natural variability??? If the temperature in your house changes in a way that has occurred naturally does this tell you the house has no air conditioning? You're not even responding to what you quoted. Again, what is the point of saying it's within natural variability?

>which there is no evidence for
LOL, why are you lying?

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

>>10985654
It would make things easier in a way yes, but it would still be a terrible alternative compared to growing crops anywhere else.

>>10985661
That would be really nice, manglars are some of the most beautiful biomes out there. Why haven't they naturally poped up in every coast already?

>>10985626
>we are not discussing the existence of climate change but the attribution of that change to human activity which there is no evidence for
There's plenty of evidence, you're just trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327

>>10985395
N

>>10985330
Ok. I will spoonfeed you without going too far. Peatbog is the key. There are a bunch of support elements which are also required.

Mangroves.

They'll grow on coast line and wetlands in tropical areas. Sequestering carbon, combat erosion, and eating up agricultural run off.

the fastest growing trees in the world are cannabis plants

the fastest growing trees in the world are cannabis plants and takes in more co2 in a short time frame than a tree does in its entire life

the fastest growing trees in the world are cannabis plants and takes in more co2 in a short time frame than a tree does in long time

one of the fastest growing trees in the world is cannabis and they take in more co2 in a short time frame than a tree does in long time

>>10985395
It's an absolute tragedy that hatred of white people is blinding so many to the true nature of the problem faced by all humans.

>>10985662
Then why do you have a problem with the graph. The graph you provided is a model output not observation

No shit the greenhouse effect exists, the earth is an incredibly intervariable system and to say increasing co2 means increasing temperature is fucking retarded and unproven

Because human driven climate change would be unprecedented, like the temperature graph of a 30year old house that got an air conditioner a year ago

There's nothing in that article that proves anthropogenic climate change >>10985685 nor this one

>>10985661
>>10985758
>>10986208
>>10986220
>>10985742
Thanks

>>10986665
You are retarded and unproven. See? Anybody can make claims on the internet and I guess it has to be true right? I could claim that you have a sub 80 iq, that you're a fossil fuel shill, that you need to go back to /pol/ (i.e. where you belong). I'm going to cite you in one of my essays "Random internet denizen claims global warming is false, gets nobel prize".

>>10986680
Co2 lags temperature

>>10984177
You cannot (and should not) ""solve"" natural processes. Global warming + cooling is natural and has been ongoing for millions of years despite what trannies are telling you

>>10985742
If peatbog is only profitable because of carbon taxes it's not a solution
Timber is real profit

>>10984177
you're a fucking retard if you think that reducing co2 output is actually about "saving the planet™"
reducing co2 output in first and not-second-world countries serves two things:
-it sets an example for rapidly multiplying third worlders that "caring about environment makes sense and really matters"
-it keeps usage of fossil fuels in the particular country on the roughly same level which in long term "saves" money

same with "sustainable" "things"; it sort of tries (in pure theory) to ensure that companies producing basic things won't eat themseves

>>10986908
reducing Co2 output is about reducing the feasibility of a petro/military currency

>>10986706
Peatbog isn't where the profit is. Peatbog is simply the best method of sequestering carbon in a form where it can later be released. The profit comes from the production of energy and desalinated water. Timber will be included at a later stage. Timber is not the core backbone of the process I know of.

>>10987032
>the production of energy and desalinated water.
is currently the largest source of Co2 emissions. What do you mean by this

We should grow castor bean plants (they grow really fast) and produce large amounts of ricin toxin for chemical warfare. Also the better answer is to use that land to make biofuel crops and replace oil with biofuel since carbon emissions are increasing over time.

>>10987046
all current biofuels produce more Co2 emissions per joule net than fossil fuels

>>10987053
Biofuels are carbon neutral, I'm implicitly talking about *net* emissions. Fossil fuels take carbon out of the ground and put it in the air while biofuels take carbon out of the air and put it back in the air.

>>10987055
Not when the only way to produce the stuff is to chop down several hectares of rainforest. There's a reason why corn production has stagnated, biofuels aren't projected to increase in production any time soon without some more choppy choppy.

>>10987055
the production and delivery of biofuels makes them worse Co2 emitters than fossil fuels

>>10987068
Yeah it's inefficient but biofuel is literally just alcohol
>>10987071
That's impossible

>>10987074
>that's impossible
t. non stem brainlet
turning corn and sugar cane into ethanol requires chemical processes that create more Co2 per joule for biofuel than Co2 per joule for fossil fuels

>>10987074
Did you even read any of the posts above? Seriously, god damn zoomers have bad reading comprehension. You have to chop down rainforest to grow corn, that's literally the only way you're going to get more land to grow shit, obviously if you chop it down, it releases more CO2, exponentially more, and you no longer have forest to take in the carbon from the coal.

>>10987082
>fermentation produces more CO2 than burning oil
You're right it does produce CO2 but it's like a fart vs a forest fire

>>10987083
We'll take it up with OP, I never said to cut down the rainforest

>>10987085
here's something your npc brain will comprehend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEepDbZqFmE

>>10987088
But you directly implied it, did you not, by saying we should increase biofuel production? Again, we have limited land and not all of it, in fact very little of it, can grow crops.

>>10984177
>>10984263
dude logs float lol

>>10987089
You can't include all that other stuff in the process, that's not a fair comparison. I didn't tell you *how* to move it around or grow crops or whatever. I'm just talking about the process, the raw science. We ferment starches to get alcohol and burn it for biofuel. Oil, we just burn it. If we could just figure out the aromatic hydrocarbon bonds to make more efficient fuels we'd be golden. Low quality gasoline already has 10% ethanol in it. And we can just chip all cars so they deal with biofuel better.
Wait wait wait, why wouldn't the people that make biofuel *use* biofuel to power the progresses that make biofuel. There it is. This is why this pisses me off. Oil shills out in full force.

>>10987113
deliver a biofuel that has a net less Co2 per joule emission per dollar than fossil fuel and I will agree with you and give you money

>>10985044
Nah, the ocean is mainly free of decomposition past a certain depth, it's very close to the surface actually. You throw logs down the mariana trench, they're basically never going to decompose, the only way they're going away is if sea animals eat them.

There was actually a story of ships carrying timber over the ocean that sunk in the late 1800s, people are fishing them up for the wood because trees were of a higher quality in general back then, but it's perfectly preserved wood.

>>10987120
You understand though right? Maybe biofuel right now is really inefficient but if we make some biofuel at a net carbon loss and then use that biofuel to make the next batch of biofuel then we'd *at least* be breaking even every time after one blow to the environment. Then we just keep doing that while we GMO some castor plants or whatever. This thing is really not unfeasible, just expensive or something like that. The market doesn't like it.

>>10987132
Look up Algenol biofuels. It's a failure of a company that GMO'd an algae species to harvest ethanol from. It failed because of high mutation rate of the algae, but some advancements with crispr, and specifically super mendelian inhertance could change that. It turns out that just taking ethanol directly from the cyanobacteria is more efficient than fermenting it.

>>10987132
absolutely I believe biofuel is fesaible but until it is, it isn't.
Maybe someone will be able to cost effectively accelerate the creation of fossil fuels from organic material
I think there will be an entirely new energy paradigm before that though.

>>10987135
Yeah but no matter *how* you do it as long as you can produce even slightly more biofuel than it would take to power your current operation you can bank it until you have enough saved to upsize. There's literally no reason we can't fully switch over to any renewable right now.

>>10987145
>There's literally no reason we can't fully switch over to any renewable right now.
then do it, be the rockefeller of renewable energy

>>10987150
I don't have that kinda money. I gotta finish my education man. But you realize that even though it's currently slow going, it'll only take one chemical engineering breakthrough to render oil obsolete. Or just a really well-managed company. Or both. It's like the talent vs hard work thing.

>>10987163
>one chemical engineering breakthrough to render oil obsolete
yes or a electric, nuclear innovation etc, until it happens renewables are a scam

>>10987172
Ok, my point is the antithesis of your post. Biofuel is a viable alternative to oil right now it'll just take money and effort to do. Not even necessarily better science. Elon Musk? If you can hear me, I come from the future. A future where Teslaa run on biodiesel.

>>10987183
>Biofuel is a viable alternative to oil right now it'll just take money and effort to do
show me the biofuel

>>10987189
Any

>>10987194
there is not a single one. Do I need t o post this for you again?>>10987089

What you guys don't realize is that oil is a really really good fuel. It doesn't need to be that good, a car will use like 20% of the energy locked in the hydrocarbon bonds, the rest goes into the air as CO2 or particulate matter or something nasty.
>>10987201
Basically I don't believe people when they say it's not viable because of overheads.

>>10987204
>I don't believe people when they say it's not viable because of overheads.
then you should take the evidence that led you to that belief and design a business model, then seek funding and become the Rockefeller of bio fuels

You don't need money to do the math on the business model and if it works there will be limitless funding.

>>10987204
>Basically I don't believe people when they say it's not viable because of overheads.
I would work at a job where the travel to get there cost more than what i was paid

>>10987218
Then I'll get my PhD in biofuel funding. I don't even want funding. I just want to live to see oil replaced by something sustainable. In terms of bad things oil is one tier below war and tragedies.

Biofuel can be made sustainable with current technology but oil cannot. And it would be easier than what OP is suggesting. That's my point of hijacking this thread. Should've said that in the first place.

>>10987241
>Biofuel can be made sustainable with current technology but oil
continues to state this contrary to evidence

>>10987244
But is my plan not convincing enough?
>make biofuel using biofuel

>>10987251
whoa I bet the people currently trying to produce biofuel never thought of that.
do the math anon, the chemical process requires energy in.

>>10985665
not sure them, nor China. He's not saying it like "it's ok guys, Russia's got this". He's saying some very large economic zones have an interest in seeing the rest of us go to shit. You can plan all you want and do your best, and you can get those very trustworthy Chinese and Russians to sign all the agreements, and at the end of the day they'll be laughing.
Even if they lose, so did America, and that's good enough for them.

>>10987260
Maybe they never really tried? I'm serious, oil is just so much better. Maybe they just said fuck it, I'm not being the good Samaritan. Anyways that video makes it sound like they never thought of that.

>>10986665
>There's nothing in that article that proves anthropogenic climate change
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327
>We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85°C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1°C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56°C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it.

>>10984209
>It actually doesn't matter
you right

We need to eliminate the populations in Africa, India, and China. Maybe the south American populations as well.

>>10987700
Why not eliminate the mutts instead? It would be more efficient and world would be much better place.

>>10987700
It would be more efficient to start with Arabs, Americans and Australians. And to start with the most wealthy people.

>>10984798
This guy gets it

>>10987035
If peak demand and base load are not your primary concern then there are ways. Actually the method I know of does supply base load but probably not for domestic purposes.

>>10985062
If the hole is deep enough and logs piled high enough on top of each other the pressure would create carbon, right?

It just takes one person with enough resources to make it happen at a loss to themselves or a scientific breakthrough to solve climate change. Just gotta make a bit of sacrifice, damn greedy bastards.

People ITT are just playing dumb. How does this *not* work. Biofuel is literally a trivial solution that's guaranteed to work so that proves that climate change comes down to greed not any practical hangups.

>>10987700
>We need to eliminate the populations in Africa, India, and China.
So your plan is to kill people who contribute the least to the problem?

>>10987716
Mutts produce things that improve life. The aforementioned people don't. They produce retard level humans that do nothing but breed, breed and shit on a street, and breed and act like insects.

>>10987732
Sure, if you want to destroy the life you've become accustomed to. Plumbing is pretty nice to have. Electricity too.

>>10988206
Please tell me what drug you are taking. I can't believe anyone believes that horseshit shoveled. I'm what way do those people contribute less?

>>10985074
In the distant past, there were times where there were no ice caps at all. That however is not relevant to our current situation because the planet has been in a "steady state glacial/interglacial cycles for the past ~1My. Before, the highest ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has not passed ~290 ppm and in the transition times it grew at a rate of ~30 ppm per 200 years. Now we have CO2 reaching 410ppm+ in less than 100 years. This will definitely have major effects on our civilization which we have built under specific conditions in specific places.

>>10988631
>Mutts produce things that improve life.
I´ve got shitton of things that were made in PRC, but no things from USA. Americans also bring onions-tier popculture, degenerate morals and destructive wars. They are worse than insects.

the solution to climate change is putting birth control in the global South's water supply

>>10985204
You assume those immigrants trying to storm nations won't be shot at the border, if the situation ever becomes so dire that food and resources are in short supply. Humanism and philanthropism only exist during times characterized by excess and decadence.
Let in billions of uncivilized people and die from virtue signaling or gun them down. Strong people won't be having any trouble sleeping at night after deciding on the right course of actions.

>>10989015
Made. Designed? No.

>>10985237

Nukes have a way of stabilizing societies.

The Norks never invaded SK despite having nukes. Pakistand and India now have polite skirmishes since 1998. And Israel has not had a war with a peer adversary (Syria, Jordan, Egypt) by virtue of unofficially having them.

>>10989885
>>10989022
>>10987700
No no no, no nukes, no genocide, no birth control. We solve it ETHICALLY, otherwise the west would have a humanitarian shitshow on their hands, and we wouldn't have anyone to make all our electronics and shit.

>>10985395
My argument would be the same if you mad-libbed (no pun intended) any race/ethnicity into the category of high CO2 emitters (per capita) with low fertility rates and any other race/ethnicity into the category of low CO2 emitters (per capita) with high fertility rates.
My argument categorizes people by behavior.
If you are seeing racism it is because you are projecting your own beliefs about how race correlates with behavior onto the argument.

>>10989895

Nukes are ethical.

Lrn2nuclear power you fucking luddite.

>>10989885
Let's give Irans nukes and we will sse what really happens. No risk no fun.

>>10988634
richfags don't do my plumbing, let's just get rid if richest richfags

>>10984177
We can solve global warming by regrowing the ocean floor by dumping iron salt aerosal into the ocean. This is a process that occurs naturally in many places, such as near the Sahara desert. Even if we did only 3% per year.
https://youtu.be/5sm0i-SMAAo

>>10985039
it's not that easy to grow enough to live on by yourself, not to mention a greenhouse doesn't produce water or quality soil

>>10984177
>plants
for fucks sake stop relying on inefficent carbon sequestering machines and make your own after you master fusion

>>10984838
>>10985252
wow dude just build greenhouses, it really is that simple. i can't believe all the world's agricultural business leaders, agricultural scientists, botanists, ecologists and governmental panels and ministeries of all the countries in the world failed to think of such a simple solution cooked up by a retard on 4chan.

>>10985462
Stfu the co2 levels would need to increase 150x the current level

>>10987172
Renewables aren't a scam, they just aren't at the point where they can replace cheap hydrocarbon energy (fully), and that's not even considering that oil has industrial uses outside of energy generation. But wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and the rest still are worthwhile investments today, for individuals, communities and businesses (assuming they're properly managed and installed where they make economic sense)

>>10985074
Climate change isn't apocalyptic in the sense that humanity will disappear. Yes, earth will continue to support life even with gigantic changes in co2 concentration, but that doesn't mean its effects can't be negative for billions of people. We live with nearly 8 billion people in this planet and our societies were built within a specific Earth climate. Cities were built on the coast, farmland was built on flat plains, people live near forests and grasslands and still today depend on those.

Surely we should still try to fix or prevent a problem even if it doesn't kill all of us. Rising food prices, wildfires and storm surges, drought and desertification, death of certain ecosystems, species extinction, water shortages, financial difficulties for certain countries and economic sectors, increasing tax burden to pay for climate adaptation, etc., are still unpleasant even if it won't render us extinct.

Yes, we won't disappear. We will continue to exist. But that doesn't mean that existence won't be worse than it is today, or not as good as it could have been. Also, the effects are not equal across the globe, and often times the richest countries of the world will suffer less (or even thrive such as in northern Russia or Canada where warming will create temperate regions).

>>10985205
Yes but a greenhouse is also supplied with water and soil from outside the greenhouse. You can't suddenly magically grow crops in the middle of a desert just because the co2 ppm reaches a certain threshold.

>>10985024
also the increasing refugee pressure on Europe will be pretty nice for them

>>10985046
need to get rid of the Russians first

>>10987700
don't forget North America

>>10984798
>If they industrialize, we're screwed.
They have industrialised: you mean if they start consuming like Westerners do, but how could they without high population, low consumption nations supporting them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a white supremacist as the next guy, but when it comes to CO2 production the West is the only real problem, and the shithole countries only produce so much because they're making stuff for us.

Why don't we just sequester water vapor?
That's a much more important greenhouse gas.

>>10984177
Won't most of this end up returning to the atmosphere anyway upon decomposition?

>>10985245
The reptilians are probably behind climate inaction

>>10991731
Have you watched the movie Species? It's a documentary not a flick.

Basically "serious money" will start making moves towards adapting to climate change when orphaned assets become a real thing

Like the moment Miami gets flooded 3 times total, the value of all real estate in the area crashes. And that is a lot of lost money.

>>10987105
It is actually a technique used by Japan and other governments to save up resources. They sink them in lakes and the ocean for later use and to help prevent economy problems.