CLIMATE MITIGATION

ITT: How do we respond to tropospheric warming and ocean acidification? All disciplines welcome.

pic. is from vvvvvvv
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000446/epdf

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2016-04-advances-uranium-seawater-special-issue.html
youtube.com/watch?v=hoz5Q2rGQtQ
youtu.be/CItDiuBWP5I
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

only self bump
don't let these bois down

>ocean acidification & carbon sequestration

>deep ocean water pumps + bio-engineered algae

Deep ocean water has more nutrients but algae can't make use of it because light doesn't reach down there. Use a wave powered water pump to move that water to the surface, combined with some algae that convert C02 into solid carbon the same way diatoms create pure shells of silicon, then harmlessly float to the sea floor once they die. This will remove huge amounts of C02 from the ocean, deposit it in solid form on the seafloor, and allow the ocean to absorb even more C02 to fix our atmosphere at the same time.

While we're pumping seawater from the bottem of the ocean, we could also extract uranium, for nuclear reactors, as well as other preciousness rare metals from sea water.
phys.org/news/2016-04-advances-uranium-seawater-special-issue.html

>How do we respond
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

I will eat you alive.

Short of geoengineering the current idea is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and let nature rebalance itself.

It's a very complex system and there's no guarantee that it will reach equilibrium at any point, let alone at some point we find desirable. I know this is fear mongering but I'm afraid of the possibility of a C02 runaway effect that'll turn the Earth into something more like Venus.
But the truth is we don't know what's going to happen. More research is needed.

Drastically reduce human population or drastically reduce our living standards. Not trying to be an edge-lord, but our current way of living can't sustain 7B people.

fertilizing marine environments is a no-go because it causes dead zones (or at least, fertilization will have to be minimal). but we can fertilize terrestrial environments, and plant fast-growing trees and grasses that can fill marginal niches. maybe a bioengineered strain of switchgrass with some kind of granddaughterless mutation or similar to stop it from spreading out of control (though that would require constant re-seeding).
basically fix as much carbon on land as we can, and either sequester it somewhere or process it into feed or fuel.

making lab-grown meat economically viable would be big, too. growing muscle tissue in a tank has the potential to be much less resource-intensive than growing a whole cow.

Man the planet is going to totally get off fossil fuels in 30-40 years anyway.

Who gives a shit about global warming. It's not going to be a problem in the future.

I'd rather ramp up economic production and research into alternative energy NOW, than cuck the economy and make us all poor and unable to research.

the vast majority of the oceans are dead zones simply because there's no fertilizer to support the base of the food chain. Fertilize the dead zones that naturally exist, and it's suddenly an entire new ecosystem is born full of life.

>but we can fertilize terrestrial environments,
The fertilization that creates dead zones is runoff chemical fertilizers used on land.

Privatize the ocean.

Problem solved.

it may sound a bit defeatist but we just need to get off this planet,

A dead zone is a region of the ocean that has been depleted of oxygen (generally because of the proliferation of algae). The only things that can live in dead zones are things that survive under anoxic conditions, Archea and some Bacteria. Fertilizing the ocean (or any body of water) gives algae the resources it needs to proliferate and out-compete other organisms, ultimately destroying the ecosystem. This process is called eutrophication.

This gives me the worst feel. On one hand Earth problems ought to be addressed, but they compete for the resources needed to colonize space. On the other hand, Earth problems (and emergent tech) have begun to motivate private enterprise to reach other worlds.

Is anyone else here /giantspacemirror/?
It'd be expensive, but recent advances in full-scale reusable rocketry are promising.

Wait patiently for the lazy, greedy masses to die off by the coming "ignorant plague."

>dead zones are because of low nutrient density
you FUCKWIT

it's hypoxia/anoxia, like said
know the most basic shit before you comment.

sorry was using the word deadzone as hyperbole. I meant there are huge areas of the ocean that don't' support any life at all because there is no food chain.
Ocean fertilization, in the context of geo-engineering, doesn't create dead zones through hypoxia as there's not enough life there to begin with. You don't add fertilizer to an area teeming with life. You fertilize the barren parts of the ocean.

>there are huge areas of the ocean that don't' support any life at all because there is no food chain
low primary productivity doesn't mean there is no life in the water. nor does low biodiversity, or even low biomass.
l2oceanography

Bump

I'm a marine ecologist and this is the most retarded thing I've ever heard

I just masturbated to chinese paintings and i have an idea to turn CO2 into money though, but i'll keep it to myself because you guys are all worthless jews and would steal it from me.

boner brb お兄ちゃ~ん

You too
I honestly can't tell if you are joking, I'm new here, I thought this was supposed to be science and math butest you seems to be completely ignorant of ecology and network theory, engineers?
FFS, you probably think large monoculture and synthetic fertilizer is the pinnacle of agriculture.
This would colapse multiple ecosystems with a cascading effect.
Carbon is still fixed and deposited in a large scale in the deep sea fyi, except for on the continental shelf where there is already naturally occurring up/downwelling, and the only place this retardation is really feasible . You can't just mix up a bunch of nutrients and organisms and expect it to make functioning ecological networks. It takes a long while to evolve to a high complexity, more time with today's biodiversity loss and and shifting baselines.
Large numbers of phytoplankton don't exist independent of the life around them

Opps
It's not fixed in the deep sea but it is deposited
Except for thermotrophic bacteria

This. As soon as you dump fertilizer into those barren parts of the ocean algae's gonna spread like a fucking plague. Those barren parts of the ocean are supposed to be barren. The bigger ocean creatures migrate through there, like sharks and whales and stuff.

1. You're gonna fuck up deep sea ecosystems
2. I don't see a way to get algae to produce pure carbon, carbon fixation (photosynthesis) produces glucose
3. Too much algae is bad for he environment

Anyone with decent IQ is not worrying about global warming. It's a slow enough problem you can quite simply reduce it via "future problem solvers" having better ability.

Global Warming is a low IQ trap.

Not to be too dismissive, but it seems silly to equate industrial capacity with research funding. You could ban SUVs tomorrow, and not a dime of research money would be affected.

high IQ non-monkey: Global Warming is a slow rolling problem better solved in the future as society's capabilities improve. It would be like putting current scientists and government efforts to design and construction of a dyson sphere today.

low IQ subhuman monkeys: Climate change is a really big problem and instead of focusing on practical things like improving brainpower or intelligence we should choke progress via economic hardship


REMINDER: GLOBAL WARMING IS A LOW IQ PROBLEM. HIGH IQ PEOPLE IGNORE IT DUE TO THE FACT IT WILL IMPACT EARTH POST-SINGULARITY AND AFTER MANY MANY OTHER VAST CHANGES.

Guys the universe might be in a false vacuum. It's time to put all scientists to work on that instead of fundamental research because we love science and rationality.

It is honestly painful how stupid humans are. Fuck brainlets, singularity genocide when.

>30-40 years
No way José.

Minimalism and New Urbanism are valuable to these ends. American consumerism and sprawl are carbon intensive. Why not be surrounded by carbon-negative green space? Also everybody should be vegans.

>Tfw I feel climate change is a big problem

Ocean acidification can easily be averted by cancelling it out with bases, although, you'll need a lot of it...

>not wanting to live in a futuristic utopia like in blade runner

Fuck green anything.

Pave the fucking planet and install co2 to oxygen converters everywhere.

>co2 to oxygen converters

You mean plants?

Plants are inefficient at it.

Burn all the plants and convert the co2 emitted from this burning using co2 to oxygen converters.

Problem solved

Go to bed, Donald.

P.S. Obama had bigger inauguration crowds.

I genuinely think that we should switch to a energy cycle based completely on wood and lumber, which would also include using lumber as a material for most buildings.

>Those barren parts of the ocean are supposed to be barren.
Who has ordained this?

>anyone I don't like is donald trump
Liberals, everyone.

Yeah we best let the problem be solved by future tech that survives world war 3 rather than fixing it to avoid world war 3

We are already seeing the crisis in our water supply as countries go to war over the increasingly rare resource. By 2060 we are going to have a real problem with our food supply
>food scientist and chemist

Not preparing for it now is giving the human race an expiration date.

>All disciplines welcome.
The obvious solution is to put rings around Earth. These will block a lot of sunlight on the day side and provide cool illumination on the night side. Win win, in other words.

youtube.com/watch?v=hoz5Q2rGQtQ
youtu.be/CItDiuBWP5I

WW2 was inspired by the belief that "living space" was running out. It was a similar sort of theory to climate change today.

We won't run out of water you stupid fucks. We won't run out of food by 2060.

we will have an abundance of both easily.

How about we just stop burning fossil fuels?

let's build the reflector

my plan is lots of sheets with small weights attached to the edges such that when you set it spinning the weights pull the sheets open

low weight, high surface area, you could set millions of these in orbit

but then how will the economy support welfare checks for all the brown people

These. Better technologies exist, and are being slept on. Who knows what treasures will shake loose when the patent-trolls' moratoria expire.

We just need rich people to invest in fixing problems instead of investing in making more money.

Obviously not going to happen until earth becomes more venus-like first to threaten their investments

wew, nice to hear that living space isn't running out

We are getting there but meanwhile hydrocarbons remain a highly efficient energy carrier, in terms of energy per kilo and energy per litre.

Even if you stop using fossile fuel for heat you still need it for synthetic fertilizers which is essential for the survival of billions on this planet. The Green revolution enabled population growth from 4 to 8 billions and much was due to synthetic fertilizers as well as transport for food and fertilizers.

Remove that and a few billions will starve to death.

Mother nature

Water desalination is getting cheaper, there's no way water scarcity is gonna affect the civilized world. Third world is another story, the main issue being that they'll never manage to bootstrap themselves to technological efficiency, but that's kinda their problem

Easy just stop burning fossil fuels