• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Be specific. Which ones?

    No. You are the one who said “Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.”

    I then asked you to be specific. You tell me which ones have side effects that “worsen the disease.” You don’t get to Uno-reverse at me until you answer the question first.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ah, tucked away down at the bottom. mBin hides the full content of long responses and I was admittedly getting quite frustrated talking with you after you responded to my “be specific” request with a “be specific” of your own.

        The article appears to have two main criticisms:

        • Kelp might outcompete phytoplankton
        • Kelp might not actually grow well enough to work

        Those are basically “it might work too well” and “it might not work.” I don’t see anything in there that would make climate change worse.

        Personally, I’m not terribly interested in the carbon sequestration approaches. They seem unlikely to be able to be scaled well enough to have an impact in an economically realistic way. Solar radiation modification is IMO the most likely class of approaches to geoengineering to help.