Science Memes

12359 readers

3544 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

383

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

153 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I just literally can’t imagine a machine that is both cheaper and easier to deploy than the green goo we call life. Plant a tree. It’ll even spread itself. They look pretty.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren't remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think you have to cut them down and bury them (or at least don’t burn them) for the carbon to “go away”.

That’s how it got underground to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

yes, you are correct, it makes more sense to focus on electrifying our big consumers first.

however, cleaning up could happen eventually. maybe some politician in the future will sell it as some "jobs program" or sth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

What about sea weed? And sink it to the ocean floor?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They were for several hundred million years. What changed?

[–] Delta_V 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The evolution of micro organisms capable of eating dead trees and emitting CO2 as a metabolic byproduct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

don't forget the role that the Great Oxidation Event played in this.

Basically, earth's atmosphere was devoid of oxygen from its beginning, and it took billions of years to change that. it wasn't until life had learned about photosynthesis before large amounts of oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.

however, oxygen is a necessary prerequisite for most animal/fungus consumers, as they use oxygen to break down the organic materials. that is probably when major fossil fuel production stopped.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Nothing. You're just asking trees to do something they're not meant to do. Absorbing a single year of carbon emissions would require half the planet's land area of trees. And that's just while the trees are growing and absorbing a lot of carbon. Trees just aren't efficient enough on a per acre basis to make a dent in carbon emissions, let alone capturing the carbon already in the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Trees aren't actually that great. Algee is what is really effective. Codyslab has some great videos and some wild ideas on application for it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was under the impression that’s just because of the relative surface area of the ocean vs arable land

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

not only that. algae are effectively plants without all the structural (wood) parts. that means, they consume less energy constructing bulky dead material, and put all of their energy towards the growth of the functional parts. that is why they can spread more rapidly and achieve a higher efficiency than plants.