Geoengineering: cool the Earth against warming

[Christophe]

Uh ... flat: will tell an economist or banker that ecology is profitable ...

You might as well piss in a violin ...

[sen-no-sen]

I assure you, in this kind of projects, there is not an ounce of ecology!
Do you think Suez is going green by installing wastewater reprocessing plants?
$$$$$$$ !!!

[dedeleco]

the objective dossier presented by infomystères;
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... CEv2yA.pdf

is truly remarkable without taking a position with all the facts and arguments, in particular some often not considered !!!

Read and assimilate before having a definite opinion, almost impossible, on current short-term warming !!

The only opinion that is certain is that if we continue to burn carbon over the centuries with more than 10 billion living inhabitants like the USA to multiply by 5 or 10 the concentration of CO2, possible in the long term, we will be too hot like 55 million years ago without Antarctic ice and 80m higher seas.
We can even burn all the oxygen in the air and no longer able to breathe !!!

[sen-no-sen]

Interesting document.
I am afraid that a geo-engineering solution will not be imposed in the future in order to definitively establish the power of certain multinationals over the world.
It would fulfill the dream of many irresponsible scientists: a world in their image, dominated by technostructure.

We must remain wary of the issue of global warming. In the 70s, scientists of the time spoke of a return to the ice age ...

[cortejuan]

Hi,

Nature's reactions to climatic variations are complex and we must avoid "linear" analyzes in which an X effect will generate a Y effect and a 2X effect will generate a 2Y effect.

The living world is constantly reacting to ambient conditions (temperature, food (solid, liquid, gas)). And he did not wait for the warning messages from Hulot, Al Gore and the others to react.

As an example, recent studies (at my home in Franche-Comté) have shown that for a few decades, beech trees which have an average lifespan of 70 years (I believe) and therefore begin to decline beyond, have seen their growth start again, as if they had a new youth. The reason given is the increase in CO2. The forests discreetly but surely react to climate change.

So we can imagine that the planetary plant mass will play a phenomenal role in the face of the increase in CO2 (as in carboniferous). What will be the consequences, smart who can predict them ...

cordially

[dedeleco]

beech trees with an average lifespan of 70 years (I think)

In any case, there are huge beech trees hundreds of years old in parks !!!
They live longer than 70 years much longer than us !!
but everything depends on the living conditions they have, and if they leave, they improve !!
http://www.lesarbres.fr/hetre.html

The cherry trees live around this duration like us !!

[cortejuan]

Hi,

I only report comments from fellow scientists working on the subject on local trees. It is true that beech trees can live up to 200 or even 300 years but their development is greatly slowed down. Since the goal is to make a profit, I think the ideal age is less than a hundred years, after the profit is low.

I would add that the existence of exceptional subjects does not mean that normality is two or three hundred years old. For example, my oak trees are a hundred years old, they no longer grow and when I cut them, I notice that many are sick or weak. However, the region where they grow is known to be favorable to oaks.

But the effect is there. The trees resume their growth after 70 years which is abnormal.

cordially

[Christophe]

Do you think Suez is going green by installing wastewater reprocessing plants?
$$$$$$$ !!!

Suez distributes and sells water, it has treatment obligations ... What is the concrete "product" of a planetary spraying with uncertain results and monstrous costs?

Besides, how much does it cost to save the world?
And above all, above all: WHO WILL PAY the bill? Polluters? Future polluters? The rich? Poor people...

We are not already screwed up to agree on emission reductions that would cost almost nothing ... then ask to pay ... do not dream!

I am convinced that this kind of project will never see the light of day in a preventive way ... urgently yes, but it may be too late ...

ps: ah no in the 70s we were already talking about global warming, the proof by Harroun Tazzieff in pictures climate-change-co2 / winter-rigorous-2011-winter-volcanic-t10299.html

[sen-no-sen]

Christophe wrote:

ps: ah no in the 70s we were already talking about global warming, the proof by Harroun Tazzieff in pictures climate-change-co2 / winter-rigorous-2011-winter-volcanic-t10299.html

Indeed, but the fear of the time in terms of climate was mainly vis à vis the return to an ice age.

http://www.bbcfrance.fr/A-propos-de-la-serie-documentaire,872.html

The elders of forum will be able to confirm.

Besides, how much does it cost to save the world? Mr. Green And above all, above all: WHO WILL PAY the bill? Polluters? Future polluters? The rich? Poor people...

Saving the world, absolutely not, rather saving the profits of a few, and I am afraid that this has been calculated for a long time (1997).

[Christophe]

Save the world, absolutely not, rather save the profits of a few, and I am afraid that this is calculated for a long time (1997)

Can you please expand?

ps: use the "quote" button to make quotes, so the smileys are included.