Global Waming's Solution(ish)

[Deleted User]

>Detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere
>Let metric-shitloads of radiation rain down onto the earth.

I think whatever you're hoping to protect by countering global warming with nukes will surely die off from the extensive radiation exposure.

We and a lot of other wildlife would be better off if we found a less extreme solution.

I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the stratosphere. Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.

 

[8BitWonder]

I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the stratosphere. Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.

I have a hard time believing that detonating a nuke at an altitude of ~30km will result in the majority of harmful particles escaping the other ~9,970km of our atmosphere.

And particles that are high in the atmosphere still come down eventually.
Violent volcanic eruptions in the past have put debris as high as the stratosphere, but it still eventually settled across the Earth.

Edit: I might also add that the ozone layer is entirely within the stratosphere, we all know how badly it went last time we damaged that.

 

[AkikoKumagara]

Not safe and likely ineffective. If it were that easy, or if there were some simple solution as such, we'd have little concern over the issue.

 

[osaka35]

short answer: you're suggesting a 1,000,000,000 pounds of cure when we're wanting an ounce of prevention.

long answer:
- climate changes moves us out of the safe habitable zone enough to choke out much of the bottom of the food chain and cause terrible weather.
- this is different than an ice-age, which is what you're suggesting. Basically the opposite direction with probably worse results.
- we want CO2 scrubbers, we don't want to block out the sun. We like our sun.
- Radioactive materials will be scattered due to the jet stream. bad news.
- trying to get all nations to agree to this would be completely untenable. We can't even inform our own citizens enough of basic science, much less convince them we need to set off a nuke to fix it.

The real solution will be found through the fields of science and communication. We need to get people to understand the science, and we need to put money into alternative fuels and CO2 scrubbers. That's the easiest, safest route going forward. Still ain't easy though.

 

[Jayro]

Global Warming is a myth

Yeah, and the sun is flat.

 

[Nerdtendo]

Global warming isn't even real

 

[Taleweaver]

This thread would be comedy gold if it wasn't on such a serious topic.

Okay...lemme first say this: it seems to me like @TerribleTy27 has read something about geoengineering, and is getting at it...rather drastically.


Geoengineering (or geo engineering? Geo-engineering? I don't even know how to write it correctly) is a theory that states that the greenhouse effect that is currently slowly heating up the atmosphere can be reversed. In layman terms(1): getting the carbon dioxide out of the stratosphere by injecting it with a chemical (no...not a nuclear bomb ) that causes a reaction with the dioxide, so it becomes heavier and rains down back on the planet. The theory is that if this is done over Antarctica, the local downfall would have a global effect...somehow.
Of course the theory is pretty controversial, as it basically means "stop pollution by polluting more". It would also mean that one of the last pure parts of nature - Antarctica - becomes in effect an huge waste dump...if things are successful, that is. The problem is that there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

The whole "a couple degrees warmer doesn't hurt" is nonsense to those who study climate. Just yesterday I read that back when the world was 5°C colder, Los Angeles was buried under 1.5 kilometers of snow. So yes, those "couple degrees" are a matter of life and death in the long run (it's about climate, so it's always about the "in the long run"). If the pollution doesn't come down, the warming may be increased. If too much of carbon dioxide is removed, then we may be cooling off the planet instead. So in the end...it's a worldwide gamble. Given how the debate goes ("we'll see if we can go with less polution once the problem manifests itself. What's that? No...I mean manifests itself undeniably"), it might be mankind's only real solution in the end. But still: it's a gamble.


(1): and probably missing and/or misquoting things. As said: I only know the very basics

 

[DBlaze]

I say we create a fake sun and blow up the real one.

 

[linuxares]

Sigh these climate change deniers.

Well I'm on a whole different theory than most people. Do the earth getting hotter? Yes. Does it all have to do with Humans? Nope! Have Humans helped the warming of the planet? Oh yes we have.

Why I'm not superworried about climate changes? Well this planet has been both hotter and colder than when we were on it. It's a cycle. Most scientices believe the last 10.000 years have been a oddly calm period. So by all means, we should stop with CO2 releases of coal, fossiel fuels etc. It's not good for anyone. Not even you climate change deniers should be able to agree on that.

 

[Shubshub]

I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the stratosphere. Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.

I dont think you understand just how powerful Gravity is my dude.

 

[KHEOPS]

What does that have to do with anything? If you blow up a petard in your fridge, do you think it will warm up?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The best solutions, other than reducing CO2, is making technology that can take C02 directly out of the air.

You know that this technology has been around for millennia....
This is called photosynthesis, plants and trees, during the day they eat the co2 releases oxygen.
The night the opposite, but produces much more o2 than co2 rejects

Simply planted trees by the millions and stop cutting trees to make rotten furniture like ikea, cut 20 football fields per day in the Amazon forest is completely irresponsible, man is a complete moron.

 

[Ratatattat]

I say we quit glorifying ourselves on how smart we think we are and start writing our epitaph.

 

[KingVamp]

Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial?

If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.
If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.

Better safe than sorry.

You know that this technology has been around for millennia....
This is called photosynthesis, plants and trees, during the day they eat the co2 releases oxygen.
The night the opposite, but produces much more o2 than co2 rejects

Simply planted trees by the millions and stop cutting trees to make rotten furniture like ikea, cut 20 football fields per day in the Amazon forest is completely irresponsible, man is a complete moron.

While trees would help, they can't be everywhere nor are they as efficient than technology designed to capture CO2 from the air.

I say we quit glorifying ourselves on how smart we think we are and start writing our epitaph.

You first?

 

[Ratatattat]

Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial?

If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.
If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.

Better safe than sorry.


While trees would help, they can't be everywhere nor are they as efficient than technology designed to capture CO2 from the air.


You first?

Not to worry will be right behind you looking over your shoulder, since were all in the same boat

 

[KHEOPS]

Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial?

If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.
If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.

Better safe than sorry.


While trees would help, they can't be everywhere nor are they as efficient than technology designed to capture CO2 from the air.


You first?

How can you say that?
What technology are you talking about?
If we had this famous technology to absorb co2, how would we be there today when we talked about global warming? Do you think the man is smarter than tens of thousands of years of evolution? Plants and bacteria were there before man and will be there after man's extinction

The only reality today is what? It is the plant trees and oceans that have always absorbed CO2, man has never done anything in this sense and technology cannot do everything, ex kill bees on earth ,by what will man's intelligence replace polenisation? Is he going to do it himself? Flower by flower? Tree by tree? Stop believing that man is capable of doing everything with technology, this is a heresy, or find a solution for polennisation, should be simpler than transforming co2 into o2 ,the truth is that today it is nature that does the job, not man, or else we do not live on the same planet

And what are you going to say to me?
That man will create bee drones for polenized? How much would it cost? How would that be more effective than bees? Man is inspired by nature, the materials, textiles, the most resistant for example is the spider web, we are in 2018 with nanotechnology we try to create a fiber as strong as the spider web without ever succeeding,and here we're just talking about a kind of insect that man can't or will never match, stop hiding behind technology, it will always be behind nature, like man is unable to prevent tsunamis, ah yes it's true man has technology, it's stacking sandbags, really impressive... Technologically impressive...

 

[KingVamp]

How can you say that?
What technology are you talking about?
If we had this famous technology to absorb co2, how would we be there today when we talked about global warming? Do you think the man is smarter than tens of thousands of years of evolution? Plants and bacteria were there before man and will be there after man's extinction

Link Link

Considering evolution isn't perfect and is a unguided process and we have already made things that are better than nature, yes? Not that it isn't always about being better. Like I said, trees can't be everywhere.

The only reality today is what? It is the plant trees and oceans that have always absorbed CO2, man has never done anything in this sense and technology cannot do everything, ex kill bees on earth ,by what will man's intelligence replace polenisation? Is he going to do it himself? Flower by flower? Tree by tree? Stop believing that man is capable of doing everything with technology, this is a heresy, or find a solution for polennisation, should be simpler than transforming co2 into o2 ,the truth is that today it is nature that does the job, not man, or else we do not live on the same planet

This is completely off-topic. lol That said, artificial bees and helping regrow the bees population, are ways to fix the problem. If you really want to know, you can look it up yourself.

And what are you going to say to me?
That man will create bee drones for polenized? How much would it cost? How would that be more effective than bees? Man is inspired by nature, the materials, textiles, the most resistant for example is the spider web, we are in 2018 with nanotechnology we try to create a fiber as strong as the spider web without ever succeeding,and here we're just talking about a kind of insect that man can't or will never match, stop hiding behind technology, it will always be behind nature, like man is unable to prevent tsunamis, ah yes it's true man has technology, it's stacking sandbags, really impressive... Technologically impressive...

I see that you are set on making this a nature vs technology thing while downplaying and ignoring technology improvements. lol

 

[KHEOPS]

Link 1
The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

Buried underground? This is a viable and intelligent solution I don't think

Link2
However these catalysts are often toxic. And what's more, they're expensive. So instead of using a traditional catalyst, the team from Cambridge in England and the Ruhr-Universität Bochum in Germany turned to enzymes found within algae. It's an enzyme that has remained dormant within the plant for millennia.

Man needs algae for enzymes, he doesn't create algae, nor enzymes, if there are no more algae, no more enzymes, no miracle solutions here, you read without wanting to understand that man has done better than nature? Anything, we build buildings with natural resources, concrete, wood, steel etc.... Man extracts the riches of nature, it has never been a question of making matter from zero, fossil energies are the decomposition of plants that sleep on the bottom of the water, man does not make fuel or gas, he extracts it, if you believe man can do it, then why continue to extract oil? Quite simply that it is not economically viable, creating a synthetic oil costs 10 times the price, in energy and other things, in short man uses nature, so to speak improves on some point, but it is not superior to nature, as for your photosynthesis, without the natural enzymes created by nature, how would that be possible? Your point of view is biased, you want to understand that what allows you to defend man, but you are wrong sorry, man can not and will never replace things that nature has done for millions of years and that is a fact.

 

[netovsk]

Stephen Hawking already said humanity has but a few centuries to leave earth so I'm not sure how much this matters.

 

[KHEOPS]

I would rather believe a scientist stephen hawking, like me than large groups like those with a monopoly on oil or other
They make us believe that everything is fine, that man is capable of great things etc.... But this is illusory, as I predict a 3rd world war, and it will be the war for water, but well it is useless to be uninvolved, man will create water??? Anything, he would rather go plunder resources on ice meteorites, because man is unable to create water, which is vital to him, so to believe that man will do better than nature is really to be ignorant.

The intelligence of man is limited to only one thing, it is to use NATURAL resources, and this since the first hunter-gatherer men, that's all, it improves, it is inspired by it.nature, copying, cloning, but never creating from scratch, your smartphone computers are produced from the ground, precious metals, silicon, but once all the resources are exhausted, that's where we will see the intelligence of man, when he has to create his food from scratch, his water, we can say that man is superior to nature, but we are dependent on nature for food,live and breathed, then stop believing that man is the superior being on this planet, man is just an imbecile who exploits natural resources, and even that he does it wrong, they polish it by extracting resources, he doesn't even know how to do it properly, so to believe that he can create everything he needs zero, it makes me laugh

 

[KingVamp]

Link 1
The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

Buried underground? This is a viable and intelligent solution I don't think

Not really sure what you are saying here, but CO2 in the ground is much better than it being in the air.

Man needs algae for enzymes, he doesn't create algae, nor enzymes, if there are no more algae, no more enzymes, no miracle solutions here, you read without wanting to understand that man has done better than nature? Anything, we build buildings with natural resources, concrete, wood, steel etc.... Man extracts the riches of nature, it has never been a question of making matter from zero, fossil energies are the decomposition of plants that sleep on the bottom of the water, man does not make fuel or gas, he extracts it, if you believe man can do it, then why continue to extract oil? Quite simply that it is not economically viable, creating a synthetic oil costs 10 times the price, in energy and other things, in short man uses nature, so to speak improves on some point, but it is not superior to nature, as for your photosynthesis, without the natural enzymes created by nature, how would that be possible? Your point of view is biased, you want to understand that what allows you to defend man, but you are wrong sorry, man can not and will never replace things that nature has done for millions of years and that is a fact.

Well, actually, you can make matter out of light. Link People all over Earth are using greener technology and synthetic oil can already be bought. Not everyone is extracting more oil.

Ignoring the rest of this, because it just starting to become meta. lol "How could man do anything, if the universe wasn't created?"