Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Aeddan on 21/10/2020 10:09:03
-
The Guardian has an article
"10 million snowblowers? Last-ditch ideas to save the Arctic ice "
There are a few ideas there on how to use geoengineering to keep the ice.
I am wondering if that is the best location to cool down the planet in an attempt to keep the ice.
Would it not be more effective/better to goto the hottest parts of the planet and cool those down?
At the very least going to Arizona is easier than going to the Artic.
Iv always seen geoengineering as a dumb thing to do.So if we are being dumb ... my ideas for geoengineering to minimize the effects of climate change have always gone along the routes of nuclear power-plants & declination plants. In the hopes of turning arid countries green & maximizing the amount of habitable locations in the world.
What mad scientist thing would everybody els do?
-
No need for madness. If adverse climate change is caused by excessive human activity, just make fewer babies. Negligible cost, zero effort, massive economic benefits.
Even if (as I suspect) it has little effect on the climate, our descendants will reap a better and sustainable quality of life for everyone, and be more resilient to climate change.
-
interesting question, I think both hot arid countries and cold, arctic countries need geoengineering, here you already need to decide what is closer to you and what exactly you would like to work on :-X
-
what exactly you would like to work on :-X
WELL step 1 would be find a location faaaar from other people so i never again need to see a mask disguarded on the floor.
The goal is to work out the best location for cooling.
I am convinced cooling the hottest parts of the world would be more efficient.
Going somewhere cold & stopping ice melting seems an impossible task with warming currents.
-
No need for madness. If adverse climate change is caused by excessive human activity, just make fewer babies. Negligible cost, zero effort, massive economic benefits.
The time for that was in the 60's/70's. If everybody did that now, the benefits would come after we pass the tipping points.
For a few decades now there has been a mass extinction even happening. Maybe it is time for some madness because the canary is dead.The coal mine has collapsed. The miners have died of old age & humanity has forgotten the knowledge of how to use geography to find coal in the first place AND we still have people unable to see the scale of the problem.
Geoengineering might be a necessary evil because electric cars wont help much ( cant consume our way out of this mess)
-
Hi!
I recently watched a Kurzgesagt video on YouTube, that adressed this topic.
One of my favorite methods of Geoengineering they mentioned, was fertelizing the oceans with iron, so that the growth of algae would be increased. Why the increased growth of algae would be benefficiary, is pretty self explainatory.
They did mention other methods aswell, but this one sticked with me the best. I would recommend it, if you wanna look more into this topic :)
-
fertelizing the oceans with iron, so that the growth of algae would be increased. Why the increased growth of algae would be benefficiary, is pretty self explainatory.
If I remember correctly this is ineffective... or ...inefficient.
"Controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects".
Same story with adding things to aircraft contrails. It sounds good but it isnt the rite path to take.