burn charcoal, make carbon dioxide, trees breathe it in, make charcoal out of the trees, repeat.What's wrong with this solution? Loads of places don't have many trees, like europe.
>>16532919Anon, that is not acceptable for they/them.Every day you are still alive it hurts the feelings of climate cultists.
>>16532919what if you run out of trees because you breed like rabbits?
>>16532995make charcoal out of people
Burning 'fossil' fuels is better because it enriches the atmosphere with CO2, that makes the trees and all other plants grow faster and healthier and in turn that results in better conditions for all other forms of life.
Coppicing trees -> wood gasifiers -> biochar is a very good solution to stabilizing the climate. You can also grow bamboo if you want rapid carbon sequestration.
>>16533020Ideally, never monocrop, monocrops can get wiped out by disease. Multicrop agroforestry maximizes biomass and water retention per square meter. Basically youd densely plant every climate appropriate fruit and nut plant, then let the ecosystem decide which species dominate. The goal is to maximize stored nutrients and water per square kilometer. Forests are better than fields for this.
>>16533026Also, the best way to prevent forest fires is a lot of small ponds scattered throughout the forest zone. Shade trees prevent the ponds from evaporating during drought (forests themselves are counter drought as trees both retain and transport moisture from oceans to inland zones). If you scatter small retaining ponds across the forest zones, wildfires become self limiting, these also provide ecosystems for various species that can be cultivated.
>>16533033Essentially the goal of any idealized terraforming project is to turn the landscape into a biodiverse water and nutrient sponge full of human edible and beneficial species.
>>16532919its weird how tech companies are spending billions on carbon capture technology instead of just you know, planting more trees
>>16533037I believe you vastly underestimate how much we are farting carbon.
>>16533037Planting trees isn't a realistic solution. Even if we covered the entire earth on trees, which includes areas that we make all of our food from and areas that trees can't actually live in that still wouldn't be enough to even stop CO2 from going up. It's not even a realistic solution on a 100+ year time scale when realistic conditions apply on the area that could be used AND we stopped CO2 literally today with genie magic.
>>16533033One issue w lots of ponds ofc is you dont want excess mosquitos, thus its important to construct ponds in a manner that prevents them from becoming oxygen stagnant bc you need active fish species to eat up mosquitoes.
>>16533041Planting trees is the most realistic solutiom other than some crazy projects like dumping aluminum out in international watershttps://phys.org/news/2021-05-aluminum-affect-climate-ocean-carbon.html
>>16533056Well if you believe a solution that blatantly just doesn't work is "realistic" then perhaps you just use different English than I do.
>>16533041Chinas already increased forest coverage by 6% and that was with stupid monocropping, so it is incorrect to say that reforestation is not an option. It should be pursued as one of many solutions either way.Note that, due to increased c02, reforestation is occuring naturally in many places, its possible the climate rebalances itself. Increased c02 should increase crop yields.Also, given how shitty industrial nations' demographics are, carbon output is going to reduce on its own unless this generation babymaxxes very rapidly.
>>16533060According to (you) it "doesnt work" despite evidence to the contrary. If you really wanted to reduce carbon output, youd max out investment in nuclear. Otherwise, youd have to let people starve, or accept a really fucked up population pyramid where there are too many old people and not enough young people to keep them alive...unless automation makes up for the labor shortage.
>>16533072The current various measures by the imbecilic boomers in charge>OOOK OOK OVERPOPULATION OHNNOOOOO>HARD PUSH BIRTH CONTROL, FEMINISMS DELAY BIRTH, MUST REDUCE POP>DECADES LATER>NOOOO NOT ENOUGH WORKERS NOT ENOUGH CONSOOOMERS, MUST IMPORT MORE WAGIES AND CONSOOMERS FROM LOW IQ COUNTRIESthe people in charge are morons, i can only suspect the goal was to actively suppress anyone who would ever be a threat to their greed, as all the efforts at depopulation were specifically targeted at the upper middle class
>>16533067It's totally irrelevant, mathematically covering the entire earth in trees isn't enough. Spamming about something that doesn't work is just a distraction.>>16533072>According to (you) it "doesnt work" despite evidence to the contrary.Feel free to calculate the area of new forests that's needed to offset just the current emissions, let alone to start to turn back the clock. This is a simple back off the napkin calculation you surely can do?Then please note the areas of the world where you would put these new forests that wouldn't include farms because "youd have to let people starve" if you replace crops with trees.
>>16533080>ooook oook global warming disaster oook ook>but also must move refugees from low carbon per capita countries to high carbon per capita countries, excaberating the problemNotice how...stupid that is?
>>16533086You are an alarmist on climate, I am not. Every worst case scenario climate prediction over the course of decades has been...a lie. A fraud. A scam. A con. We can look into the history of the alarmist predictions and discover that they were...false. Fake, gay, wrong. Lies.If anything, we will prevent an ice age cycle from happening, which would be much worse anyway.
>>16533093We will also note that, predictions of mass desertification based on a warmer climate are...imbecilic. The opposite always occurs during warm periods of climate. Its during ice age dry cool cycles that deserts increase. A warmer climate means more rain, not more deserts. So the real issue will be dealing with floods. 1000 year floods will be more like 100 year floods, and 100 year floods will be 10 year floods. However, forests trap moisture and act as climate buffers. Either way, reforestation is a solution.
>>16533100Basically, dont buy property on a flood plain. Flood plains should be used for agriculture. Current dam projects may not be able to handle future weather events.
>>16532919"Rate" is the concept you seem to not understand.An introductory calculus course might help you.Good luck.
>>16533067>Even if we covered the entire earth on trees, which includes areas that we make all of our food from and areas that trees can't actually live in that still wouldn't be enough to even stop CO2 from going up.>Chinas already increased forest coverage by 6%This is the most retarded post I've read all day.
>>16533211>covering the earth in trees would not be enough to make up for co2 increaseI disagree. Im not an alarmist like you. Demographics in industrialized nations alone show that co2 production will decrease anyway. All of the predictions of the global warming alarmist groups have not come true, and are also contrary to historical warming patterns.
>>16533292I think every "crisis" is media manufactured bullshit to sell fear porn to gullible slaves and institute new control schemes. Theyre all full of shit. If they really wanted to stop the carbon issue, they would have invested more rapidly in low proliferation risk nuclear. But they didnt. Instead it was bullshit ass carbon credit schemes to make rich people richer. You dumbasses fall for rich people fud scams so easily.>we must reduce carbon>but we also must accept refugees from low carbon per capita country nations into high carbon per capita country nations, thus increasing carbon outputYou. Fucking. Retards.
>>16533296Basically, the world is run by rich dishonest psychopaths, who want stupid, gullible, low iq slaves who will never question their corruption. They want the entire planet to be like india, a caste system. They will continue to manufacture fake crises to confuse you into accepting more bullshit and slavery.
>>16533300If the *actual goal was to reduce carbon*, we would halt immigration from low carbon per capita nations to high carbon per capita nations, and we would invest in nuclear. But we dont actually do that. So the goal has nothing to do with reducing carbon. Next the slave retard npc will scream about right wing bigots when the rich leftists, who care so much about carbon, are continuing to push mass immigration (which only economically benefits oligarchs, lump of labor is not a fallacy, the goal is to reduce all labor to third world income tier).
>>16533306>If the *actual goal was to reduce carbon*then co2 would have been actually reduced by now
>>16532919You're completely right but don't tell global warming cultists, get in the pod slave
>>16533011Sounds antisemitic
>>16533033>the best way to prevent forest firesis controlled fire
>>16536318Or you can use animals to graze the underbrush. Agroforestry is a recent autistic fixation of mine bc I think it is likely to be more productive per acre than field based agriculture.
>>16536448Our current very centralized petrochem based ag system is not only unsustainable, its vulnerable to disruption by state and nonstate actors. And its creating dead zones in the gulf of mexico and the various bays bc of all the nitrate runoff. That runoff is in fact valuable fertilizer for aquaculture.
>>16536452the whole farming is more of industrial mining that produce toxic food and leave wasteland behind with poisoned water and earth
>>16536452>>16536448For sustainable, resilient, and high productivity food and biomass based fuel productivity and carbon sequestration you want:High species diversity instead of disease vulnerable monocrops. You want to maximize biomass in the soil instead of pumping it from petrochem, spraying it, then letting most of it runoff into the ocean. Its bad systems design due to greed. There is no such thing as waste. We have technologies that can take biowaste from any source, pump it through supercavitation nozzles and break all the contaminants down into basic elements via supercritical water oxidization. The only contams it cant handle are heavy metals which can be dealt with via gravity filtration. You take sewage and you get clean fertilizer back out. Can be done either at the individual farm or municipal scale.
>>16536463
>>16536463And the majority of desert biomes can be upgraded to savannah biomes via various landscaping methods.Theres mfers in third world india that take land which is scoured down to hard bedrock, dug small rain catchment basins, and plant shrubs and are turning it into productive terrain. Theres rapid advances in agricultural tech which dont need petrochem.
>>16536464Look into chinese rice paddies + fish. Similar idea. I also like chinampas agriculture for flood plains, bc we are likely to see increased flooding in the future. Dont buy homes in 1000 year flood plains.
>>16536469
>>16536470Yes, biochar.Look into wood gasification. It could replace a lot of wood burning stoves in most countries, and with proper design, you get biochar out of it, and can directly run generators. One issue is filtering the gas bc it can have high tar content which will ruin a motor. However, Id bet you could use the biochar itself as a filter medium for the tar. Plus, bamboo grows rapidly, is low tar source, can be used for textiles and the chinese are making a transparent, fire resistant, hydrophobic bamboo based glass for windows. Theres some huge species of bamboo that grow rapidly. Thus its both an energy crop, textile crop, provides animal fodder, etc.Also, if you want a local source of rubber, theres a process that can turn dandelions into rubber. Otherwise we are dependent on a few countries trees for rubber.
>>16533012To a certain point. Hyperoxia can lead to organ failure.
The biosphere can absorb carbon way faster than anyone predicted, but still not fast enough to offset India/China/etc approaching an American standard of living. Forget warming, at some point you reach the levels of CO2 that start causing health problems for non-plants. >better conditions for all other forms of lifeNope
okay so everyone ignored my thread. isnt soda water carbonated water? why cant it be made with charcoal? no i dont trust chatgpt hence the thread...
>>16532919I don't think you quite grasp how much fuel we are burning. Trees do not grow fast enough. Why do you think people started using fossil fuels in the first place? Coal mines were incredibly dangerous, nobody would have gone down into the pit if you could just burn trees.
>>16533026Breeding a disease that could wipe out bamboo actually sounds pretty based
>>16533296>low proliferation risk nuclear. But they didnt.Deep borehole waste disposal was proposed as recently as 2014, but for (((some reason))) got axed
>>16533012I always saw this image, then it occured to me "looks like the same plant, and it's planted in the same spot" Might just be fraud, any source on the original?
