/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13450009

38KiB, 500x667, corgi pot plant.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 20:31:39 2021 No.13450009 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13451043 >>13451155 >>13451227 >>13451277 >>13451889 >>13451896 >>13451902 >>13451921

Why don't we just engineer a plant that takes up C02 at very high rates and plant a lot of it?
Climate change solved for a while until we can transition to renewables

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Jul 2021 23:43:04 No.13450586 Report

Quoted By: >>13451981

>muh climate change
Fucking nonce.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 02:40:06 No.13451043 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
it exists already, it's called seaweed and cyanobacteria.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 02:41:11 No.13451047 Report

Quoted By: >>13451914

oh yeah just engineer a magic superplant, why didn't anyone think of that before??

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 03:20:00 No.13451134 Report

Quoted By:

Bamboo and trees already do it pretty well. You should look up biochar.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Bad_Idea.webm, 539KiB, 580x480

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 03:33:54 No.13451155 Report

Quoted By: >>13451290 >>13451593 >>13451910

>>13450009
>Why don't we just engineer a plant that takes up C02 at very high rates and plant a lot of it?

Why we already have this in super abundance.
If you want to suck up huge amounts of CO2 just introduce iron into the seawater and you get major blooms.
OR just increase the whale populations back to what they were and their shit will naturally trigger blooms.
It is not fucking rocket science to use what nature has provided to our advantage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 04:04:55 No.13451227 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
It is a lot easier said than done...

Plants are kinda already super at their job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 04:07:32 No.13451235 Report

Quoted By:

Because there's no economic incentive to grow a bunch of plants and then do nothing with them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 04:24:14 No.13451277 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
No. No more science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 04:27:16 No.13451290 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451155
lol i love this site

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO naamapalmu23827.jpg, 336KiB, 692x682

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 06:36:51 No.13451593 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451155

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:13:04 No.13451889 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
>Why don't we just engineer a plant that takes up C02
You should go and study plants first. You’re missing some fundamental basics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:16:06 No.13451896 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
The first step would be exterminating shitskins so only about ~1 billion people are left on Earth, and then fill the now empty-space with lush forests

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:21:10 No.13451902 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450009
not only that you can harvest wood and sell it as a construction material
as the mass of a forest grows exponentially you can exponentially sequester c02 from the atmosphere

turns out the people that promote the idea that c02 concentrations are causative of climate change are just trying to provide substitute goods for oil so the us petro dollar collapses

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:26:42 No.13451910 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451155
>OR just increase the whale populations back to what they were
You ain't fooling me scp-1836

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:31:14 No.13451914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451047
more easy than getting boomers to stop driving ICEs.
more easy than going carbon free.
someone call up monsanto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:34:17 No.13451921 Report

Quoted By: >>13451954

>>13450009
this thread'll do. Can someone explain to me why we can't just evaporate a fuck load of thallium flurate in ethanol/water to absorb all the co2 in the atmosphere?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:38:44 No.13451935 Report

Quoted By: >>13451946

To actually have an impact on global emissions, you would need to plant a lot of plants. We are talking most of the not yet developed and used natural areas. We can't just convert agricultural land, because much of it is needed to feed people.
If you cover most of the undeveloped parts of the earth with the most CO2-efficient plants, you would cover maybe around 10% of the yearly global emissions. Thats a drop in the bucket. But the sideeffects of destroyed ecosystems, removing natural areas, and probably killing millions or billions of animals would make this move pretty bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:41:55 No.13451946 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451935
>plants only live on land

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:43:46 No.13451954 Report

Quoted By: >>13451964

>>13451921
Probably the cost of thallium. How exactly does it absorb CO2?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:47:56 No.13451964 Report

Quoted By: >>13451979

>>13451954
Thallium Fluoride dissolved in an ethanol/water solution and left to evaporate pulls co2 from the air to crystallise into Fluorocarbonate

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:55:04 No.13451979 Report

Quoted By:

>>13451964
That sounds expensive and ineffectual. You could just grow some trees and make houses or furniture out of them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Jul 2021 09:56:12 No.13451981 Report

Quoted By:

>>13450586
/thread

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches