The world is warming faster than we can cut emissions. Volcanoes are already cooling the planet, with particles that reflect sunlight. Maybe we can too.
"The world is warming faster than we can cut emissions. Volcanoes are already cooling the planet, with particles that reflect sunlight. Maybe we can too."
---
NO! Humans should not start messing around with attempting to modify our climate via reflecting particles in the atmosphere or any other harebrained schemes.
The planet climate is a balanced ecosystem that has developed over time. We do not know enough to make modifications and any modifications to single items will cause unintended effects across this ecosystem. Whew.
Aren't volcanoes the principal source of carbon dioxide too? Here in the UK we have cut emissions from coal-burning to the lowest point since 1600. If we achieve zero carbon dioxide then won't all the plants and therefore all the animals die? seems obvious to me.
As for the difference between "zéro émission" and "net zéro émission", again, it's so painfully obvious that you can't be seriously asking, but in case : no, it won't kill all plants if we stop burning dead plants from 300 million years ago, because, you may be surprised, we actually didn't do that until 200 years ago, and surprisingly, plants existed there (allegedly ) https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-zero-emissions-absolute-vs-net-zero/
"Dippery et al. (1995) found the most extreme response, where low [CO2] (150 ppm) prevented reproduction in the modern C3 annual, A. theophrasti, as a result of the abortion of all flower buds that drove the fitness response to zero. This finding suggested that 150 ppm CO2 may be near the threshold for successful completion of the life cycle in some C3 species (not necessarily C4 species)".
The more CO2 they get the less water they need and vice versa.
Commercial greenhouses sometimes up the amount of CO2 in the greenhouse to 1,000 – 2,000 ppm for optimal plant growth.
Pre industrial revolution, we were around 170 ppm and reducing - Humans saved the planet we are currently endeavouring to destroy.
Suggesting that metal aerosols such as Aluminium etc don't consider the negative health effects of these toxins either.
Simple answer: Disband the USA armed forces who are excempt from emission controls, not far behind are the Chinese and Russians who together would instantly reduce worldwide emissions by around 0.50% and overall reduction in the warming gasses growth.
Other obvious benefits too leading towards global reduction of aggression and potential funding of humans and environment in need.
Big proposals sound great, but are costly, dubious and part of the acceleration of capitalism that is the root cause of our destruction of the planet.
The idea isn't just to stop burning old plants. With carbon dioxide scrubbers and converting carbon dioxide into a form that can be buried, the plan, plainly, is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero.
"The world is warming faster than we can cut emissions. Volcanoes are already cooling the planet, with particles that reflect sunlight. Maybe we can too."
---
NO! Humans should not start messing around with attempting to modify our climate via reflecting particles in the atmosphere or any other harebrained schemes.
The planet climate is a balanced ecosystem that has developed over time. We do not know enough to make modifications and any modifications to single items will cause unintended effects across this ecosystem. Whew.
Aren't volcanoes the principal source of carbon dioxide too? Here in the UK we have cut emissions from coal-burning to the lowest point since 1600. If we achieve zero carbon dioxide then won't all the plants and therefore all the animals die? seems obvious to me.
For this interested in the answer (as opposed to trolling) : of course, NO, volcanoes are not the main source of CO2 emissions nowadays. Even a US gov website agrees : https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
As for the difference between "zéro émission" and "net zéro émission", again, it's so painfully obvious that you can't be seriously asking, but in case : no, it won't kill all plants if we stop burning dead plants from 300 million years ago, because, you may be surprised, we actually didn't do that until 200 years ago, and surprisingly, plants existed there (allegedly ) https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-zero-emissions-absolute-vs-net-zero/
"Dippery et al. (1995) found the most extreme response, where low [CO2] (150 ppm) prevented reproduction in the modern C3 annual, A. theophrasti, as a result of the abortion of all flower buds that drove the fitness response to zero. This finding suggested that 150 ppm CO2 may be near the threshold for successful completion of the life cycle in some C3 species (not necessarily C4 species)".
The more CO2 they get the less water they need and vice versa.
Commercial greenhouses sometimes up the amount of CO2 in the greenhouse to 1,000 – 2,000 ppm for optimal plant growth.
Pre industrial revolution, we were around 170 ppm and reducing - Humans saved the planet we are currently endeavouring to destroy.
Suggesting that metal aerosols such as Aluminium etc don't consider the negative health effects of these toxins either.
nuclear Winter ❄️❄️❄️
Simple answer: Disband the USA armed forces who are excempt from emission controls, not far behind are the Chinese and Russians who together would instantly reduce worldwide emissions by around 0.50% and overall reduction in the warming gasses growth.
Other obvious benefits too leading towards global reduction of aggression and potential funding of humans and environment in need.
Big proposals sound great, but are costly, dubious and part of the acceleration of capitalism that is the root cause of our destruction of the planet.
The idea isn't just to stop burning old plants. With carbon dioxide scrubbers and converting carbon dioxide into a form that can be buried, the plan, plainly, is to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero.