Science Memes

14373 readers

2295 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

471

Entropy? Never heard of it. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

156 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (15 children)

The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

I just literally can’t imagine a machine that is both cheaper and easier to deploy than the green goo we call life. Plant a tree. It’ll even spread itself. They look pretty.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren't remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

They were for several hundred million years. What changed?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The evolution of micro organisms capable of eating dead trees and emitting CO2 as a metabolic byproduct.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

don't forget the role that the Great Oxidation Event played in this.

Basically, earth's atmosphere was devoid of oxygen from its beginning, and it took billions of years to change that. it wasn't until life had learned about photosynthesis before large amounts of oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.

however, oxygen is a necessary prerequisite for most animal/fungus consumers, as they use oxygen to break down the organic materials. that is probably when major fossil fuel production stopped.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Nothing. You're just asking trees to do something they're not meant to do. Absorbing a single year of carbon emissions would require half the planet's land area of trees. And that's just while the trees are growing and absorbing a lot of carbon. Trees just aren't efficient enough on a per acre basis to make a dent in carbon emissions, let alone capturing the carbon already in the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Trees never evolved for the purposes of mass capturing carbon from the air as efficiently as possible. Yes, they convert CO2 to O2 as part of their life cycle, but algae and other organisms have a much bigger role in capturing CO2 and turning it into O2.

Furthermore, so much of the CO2 that we emit is CO2 that was sequestered in the past over those very same 100s of millions of years. Meaning that going the natural route will take that amount of time.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)