>>13676506Removing the CO2 would cause less solar heat radiation to be absorbed; ergo removing the CO2 would cause less solar heat to be absorbed over time, meaning that global entropy is reduced in the long term by these systems in comparison to doing nothing.
>>13676556Then this is just a question of
>Which is better in the long term, for lower temperature raise?>A consistent heat trap that only seeks to stack further and furtheror
>A dump of energy in order to lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that produces useful byproducts in conjunction to the actual energy expended in order to get the material together + run the machineAlso
>That's the real reason Chemical Engineers have not built these things, it is not "costs" (there are companies that make money with selling carbon certificates in Germany).Patently untrue, they're actively making the electroswing systems now.
You need to learn how to pose your points succinctly, and to learn what the fuck you're talking about before screaming about a concept you heard about in a vsauce video about the heat death of the universe.
