this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024

48 points (85.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34338 readers

2347 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Why is ocean fertilization not taken more seriously as a climate change solution? (self.nostupidquestions)

submitted 4 months ago by 3volver to c/nostupidquestions

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 63 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because it’s a bandaid on an arterial bleed of a problem and has its own host of issues (anoxia once the algae blooms die off being one of the big ones, aside from the cost of actually doing it on a global scale). Lots of discussion around whether it makes sense to do, but really for the effort to do it, and the unintended effects on the environment, it would probably be better and cheaper to just reduce GHG emissions.

[+] 3volver -37 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Just reducing GHG emissions doesn't stimulate the economy though.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, why not? Any replacement power generation or transportstion systems will require construction and maintenence, just like any other project.

[–] Paragone 16 points 4 months ago

The actual choice, is

we either act proactively, or
our remnant ( if any ) regret, retroactively.

This isn't consensus for a simulation/model, this is actual historical fact:

Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19798

They're ignoring methane, and they're stating, explicitly, that at our current atmospheric CO2, the planet historically stabilized at between +5C & +6C.

When one factors-in the added methane, 1.3ppm to 1.4ppm, at 82.5x factor, we're actually between +8C & +9C planet-equilibrium-temperature for our current atmosphere.

-4C put 2 miles thick of ice on North America: planet-degrees are BIG.

Humankind simply is either too devoutly-ignorant or too stupid to live, from the looks of it.

After it has happened, oh, then humanity'll admit it ought do something...

Utterly retarded, and the obliteration-of-billions-of-lives it is setting-up the enforcing of, is needless.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Creating an entirely new industry “for the economy” is the reason this is even being contemplated. If you care more about the economy than the planet you live on and the people you share it with, then maybe that makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Sounds like a win-win to me

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago

Any fix on symptoms will only give the worst offenders more excuses to increase emissions. See carbon capture and carbon credits. It's already being used as an excuse to not do anything real about the problem.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because band aide solutions are just bullshit distractions. We need less emissions and we need it yesterday.

[–] madcaesar 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think we're past just lowering emissions. We need to find ways pull some of the co2 out of the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

Cool - but lowering emissions is far more effective than any of these solutions. Let's get serious about that before discussing remediation.

[+] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I apologize because I don't have a source in mind, but my recollection from studying this in grad school (which was admittedly about a decade ago) was that sequestration was one of the hardest parts of this. Creating a bloom of algae was feasible, but even if we ignore a lot of other ecosystem management complications that others have pointed out, there wasn't a reliable mechanism to convert a bloom of algae into a long-term carbon store.

I could be mistaken here. I'm open-minded towards this kind of geoengineering. But I'm also very skeptical that if this could work, it could do so at a rate that would enable us to continue burning fossil fuels at scale, and there is a strong base of support for this technology among people with that attitude.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Yup, we already know what we should be doing, stop using fossil fuels. The IPCC took into account carbon sequestration in their models, they said we should invest in renewable energies and eco-sufficiency (not sure if it's the right word, but they chose "sobriété" un french)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Check out GeoGirl on YouTube, she has an excellent video about this. https://youtu.be/IYOTFuklRvI

She also has a lot of other videos where she describes different geological processes and their interconnectedness.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

invidious / piped for those who don’t want to watch on YouTube.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

CO2 emissions are not the only problem with burning things for power. Air polution causes an estimated 3.6 million deaths annualy (thats like world war 2 every 20 years), with the bulk of those (2.1 million) being caused just by ultrafine soot and ozone from burning fues. Additionaly, burning coal produces huge amount of ashes that are full of toxic heavy metals, in quanties that are near impossible to safely dispose of. Most of this ash just gets pilled up, where it it gets blown into the enviroment. (Fun fact, these ash piles are radioactive from naturaly occuring uranium and thorium)

The only way out is to stop burning things as fuel.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well... there are more consequences than that... Earth is heating up, which change the amount of rainfalls, where they occur, also reducing the ice sheet in the mountain for example. This would provide less freshwater. Less freshwater will reduce agriculture output, which could bring famine. People will migrate because they are living in unlivable places, and this may bring civil unrest.

Yes we should stop burning fuel, learn how to produce food wirhout relying on fossil fuels, learn how to live wirh less.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

It could change the pH of the oceans, making it harder for anything to live there. Plus, it might not store the CO2 for longer than 1000 years, which doesnt really solve the issue (I have a source for that somewhere, I think it was the IPCC).