Feasability Study - $3.5 Billion to counter-act Global Warming with geo-engineering

[Anonymous No.9773161]

http://workshop.caltech.edu/geoengineering/presentations/09_keith_final.pdf

Feasibility study conducted into geo-engineering solutions to global warming come up $3.5 billion price tag to end all temperate change using existing technology and methods.

http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu

[Anonymous No.9773165]

>>9773161
>$3.5 billion price tag to end all temperate change

youre a fucking liar for not saying $3.5billion per unit time

your credibility is gone

/thread

[Anonymous No.9773166]

In the face of cheap and technologically viable global warming solutions. The establishment scientists have claims such solutions would not work because it would not change bad behavior of humans and be "too easy".

The $3.5 billion dollars to cool earth a few degrees astonished most scientists. The idea it could be so cheap and easy to cool the earth is something they can't quite comprehend.

Whereas the more intelligent scientists are already calling for global administration for how much a country could cool the earth.

As any country could theoretically begin to cool the earth and cause massive ice age without most countries noticing. In fact, a rogue group could cool the earth significantly.

[Anonymous No.9773173]

>>9773165
The billions don't matter. It's relatively inexpensive and as of now the easiest and cheapest way to change global temperatures. Any country could start doing it tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.9773753]

Sulfur dioixde seeding only works while your doing it. It increases acid rain. Temperatures snap back once you stop.

Excess energy from wind or solar to power electrolysis and sabatier reaction plants to produce methane. Which is then put back in the ground for good. You could also react atmospheric co2 with water to produce stable liquid hydrocarbons. Which could be put into nthe ground for good.

[Anonymous No.9773758]

>>9773753
You are talking about a positive aspect like it's a negative

>You have to keep pumping it in the atmosphere to maintain effect

This is a FUCKING GOOD thing you brainlets. You want whatever you are doing to be controllable. It should already alarm people that a cheap global temperature changing process exists like this to begin with. It's more of a risk that a hot country would go solo and cool the earth for their own relative gain.

[Anonymous No.9773763]

>>9773758
It's a delaying strategy and nothing more. The acid rain harm to forests and other plants will probably outweigh the warming pause.

[Anonymous No.9773787]

>>9773763
post the acid rain study you are citing or referring to

It's grams of sulfur for each ton of carbon dioxide it offsets

[Anonymous No.9773802]

Just to cite things. Volcanic Eruptions cause this type of cooling naturally and can be studied. The most recent large-scale one cooled earth about 0.6 degrees celsius.

https://www.livescience.com/14513-pinatubo-volcano-future-climate-change-eruption.html

[Anonymous No.9773823]

>>9773763
Under this logic (delta time doesn't matter) we shouldn't slow down carbon emissions. Because why does it matter if it happens in 10 or 20 years? They are both equivalent under your logical framework of delta time not mattering.

[Anonymous No.9773830]

Let's analyze the logical framework of an average (meaning stupid) climate change nutter (retard).

Slowing down global warming is not something we should attempt as it's pointless.
Geo-engineering technologies are not allowed and bad.
We are going to be fucked by global warming.

Under these criteria the only eventuality is extinction. If we cant ever remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via geo-engineering projects how would we solve the percieved problem?

It's pretty obvious the entire goal of global warming nutters is:
1. Global Warming is happening
2. We must stop economic growth and development
3. We can't solve it any other way or use any other idea.

[Anonymous No.9773838]

Doom, Disaster, all because you didn't listen to us important intellectuals. The world will burn. We will all die. Storms will rage across the sky. DOOM, DOOM, DOOM.

>Hey what about this potential cheap geo-engineering solution that causes cooling after volcanic eruptions and is extremely cheap.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

THATS TOOO EASY

[Anonymous No.9774284]

>>9773838

This is why I don't take the politics of global warming seriously. If we really wanted to stop it, you are going to have to delay the effects and sequester the CO2 to not go above the 2C temperature increase that is cited as point of no return (which I also express doubts). Still it is a solid goal but current proposals don't meet that target.

[Anonymous No.9774494]

>>9774284
They dictate that

- They get to define the only possible solution
- Don't have to have reasonable arguments
- If you disagree you are against scientific reasoning by being open minded

[Anonymous No.9774974]

>>9773161
Just use magma energy yo. It makes you immortal

[Bob No.9775116]

but what if we actually could bring about exinction with our behavior?
we must live more responsibly. limitations to the economy will not kill us off, and I believe a fair balance could be established to find a sensible solution, at least to buy us time to understand efficient mitigation of the problem, such as atmospheric cleanup. I want the world to be balanced and happy, and the destruction of it hurts. the weather here in golden has been fucked and I see no reason to act in a negative way. If we are living irresponsibly we must change. Could you give up your vices?

[Anonymous No.9775118]

This solution will not stop the increasing acidification of the oceans.

So I vote we look into other options before doing this as a last resort.

[Anonymous No.9775124]

>>9773161
next to nothing isnt it. makes you wonder why we are not doing it.

[Anonymous No.9775140]

Yeah, I also never understood why global warming is being hyped up to a doomsday scenario.

First of all, you don't need to cut all CO2 emissions. If the developed world cuts their production by 70%, and the developing world by 30%, we would already have no increase in atmospheric CO2 anymore.

Since just switching from coal and oil to natural gas would already do the trick, I really wondered why this was seen as so hard.

Plus, if for some reason humanity does indeed fuck it up, there is always SO2 pumping to fall back on.

In any ways, global warming destroying humanity always seemed a very unlikely scenario.

[Anonymous No.9775145]

>>9773161
The amount of SO2 would have to increase proportionally to the CO2. This is not a long term solution.

[Bob No.9775193]

so you say, as you've been told. what world will be when you are old?

[Anonymous No.9775213]

>shitloads of so2 is good
>solar shades are bad

[Anonymous No.9775248]

this kind of geoengineering could work, but if we're relying on it to save our asses, it's a bad thing.
also, it doesn't do shit about ocean acidification.

[Anonymous No.9775418]

>we'll give a trillion dollars to big business because they fund politicians re-election campaigns
>we won't give less than a percent of that to scientific research

[Anonymous No.9775490]

>>9773758
but what we're doing here is quite opposite to improvement, and i think >>9773763 is right.
You may be able to keep doing it, but without trying to solve the things that causes the increase in temperature in the first place, it'll only keep on stacking until it is out of control.

Sure, it is a good thing to do to temporarily stall for time, but people still have to:
1. be aware of the situation
2. make an effort to solve the problem
for there to be any permanent results

[Anonymous No.9775491]

>People here actully believe in global warming
KEK

[Anonymous No.9775572]

>>9773830
Fossil shill detected

[Anonymous No.9775594]

>>9773166
>The establishment scientists have claims such solutions would not work because it would not change bad behavior of humans and be "too easy".

Mostly because it would encourage further deregulation on the economy along with the cheap and easy practices that brought us there in the first place.

>>9774284
This is mostly because the plutocrats wanted the easiest way to make unlimited wealth, and they see regulations as a threat to that goal.

>>9775116
Easier said than done; we have to sacrifice luxuries for the sake of survival and evolution if humanity. Sadly, capitalism made us addicted to said luxuries.

>>9773830
>>9775140
>>9775491
All Fossil Shills of oil and coal.

We don't know if we can do something about the Oil Barons; but we can all agree that Coal is Dead.

[Anonymous No.9775621]

What are the benefits of sulfer dioxide over something on the ground, say like light-colored floating ceramic plates kept in areas where ice floes were common?

[Anonymous No.9776205]

>>9775193
>rhyming verse
>>>/lit/