Climate Change and Will FUSION Stop it

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Pixophir said:

I assume you would accept (though probably not understand, no offence) a Nature or Science paper, maybe PNAS, Royal Society, also EGU, AGU, ... for geoscience related pubs. The IPCC publications have a long appendix of sources. But how about pre-print ? Second and third tier journals ? Are they still "scientific" and "credible", or would one start to treat them selectively ?

In no way.

The ugly system where the so-called "quotability" is the main if not the only criterion of whether the scientist gets money for his scientific researches or no, is a classic positive loopback system, leading to the situation that only one opinion gets funded and printed, while any opponent doesn't get money to collect and publish the counter-arguments.

So, "all magazines tell so" = "thousand of parrots can't mistake telling the same", because if one of them starts contradicting others, its reputation would fall and the river of money would dry.

To mention the second, third, and village tiers is just funny. They just want to eat and publish what they can steal from the seniors' table.

5 hours ago, Pixophir said:

Natural science doesn't need credibility.

Wow!

Any science needs credibility. That's why it's science. What doesn't, isn't a science.

5 hours ago, Pixophir said:

It is not a judge nor a preacher. It has its methods.

All sciences have the same methods. And the (honest) criminal investigations as well. All of them are the same but for different purposes.

What can't be reduced to mathematics and logics, is not a science.
In the best case it's a primary empirical facts collection. In other cases it's a propaganda.

5 hours ago, Pixophir said:

Do we say "all nonsense I burn fossil fuels" or "I must change my life or it takes a bad ending" ?

We do say "a false dichotomy".

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

We could easily squeeze those assets.

That's how you ensure MBS dumps his Western assets - if not sets them on fire, literally- and moves what can be moved into Bank of China. The reason the Western financial system is awash with the money of foreign kleptocrats is because there is a risk of that money being taken away from them, either by rival cronies or by a bunch of loons waving red flags, whereas Western countries respect the sanctity of private property and not take people's stuff arbitrarily.

* used to respect; you'd think people would have gotten the message back during the Cyprus deposits "haircut" back in 2014

Edited August 4, 2022 by DDE

[SunlitZelkova]

This thread is teetering on the brink, hopefully we can remain focused around the physical aspects of climate change solutions.

Nonetheless, I’ll reply.

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

insane ruling class.

Who are protecting their kin and themselves via those instincts.

They are not much different than primates abandoning the injured in favor of themselves. Except in this case, instead it is some seven billion people.

And not only that but much of Homo sapiens’ society is structured around serving the self as you mentioned.

But I personally don’t think this is because of some retrospectively poor decisions made by leaders centuries or millennia ago but is instead an aspect of Homo sapiens’ behavior.

[DDE]

27 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

But I personally don’t think this is because of some retrospectively poor decisions made by leaders centuries or millennia ago but is instead an aspect of Homo sapiens’ behavior.

And this is usually where the fundamental disagreement lies: positing some long-forgotten golden age when [your political system of choice] worked flawlessly. But then [these people] came along and ruined it. If only we [took punitive actions] against [these people]!

Edited August 4, 2022 by DDE

[Codraroll]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

In no way.

The ugly system where the so-called "quotability" is the main if not the only criterion of whether the scientist gets money for his scientific researches or no, is a classic positive loopback system, leading to the situation that only one opinion gets funded and printed, while any opponent doesn't get money to collect and publish the counter-arguments.

This is blatantly wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

[Pixophir]

Well, as long as we're distracting, inventing excuses, pointing to others, we won't change our lives. The planet's habitability is at stake, with local variations. The whys and who's responsible are irrelevant. At least in democratic countries people have a voice to choose a way for the future. We energy hogs can adapt our behaviour, driving for shopping in 2.8 tons is an idiocy to begin with, and no mistake, running AC all day long against the warming climate is another such let's unlogical behaviour.

The consequences of our current behaviour are laid out (IPCC pathways) and they are happening, and for those with a short attention span or an extraordinary ability to evade logical deduction they some up to stop burning fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, or at least get reasonable with it, roll out renewable energy on a global scale (DIY if your country is reluctant, you don't have to go off-grid, it pays off quickly). Apart from that, invent and install methods to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, at a faster pace than they are emitted.

Everything else is just distraction. Of course we can discuss the means and methods, but this is not the right place for that.

35 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

This is blatantly wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Yeah. Impossible to respond to in a reasonable way.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pixophir

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

This is blatantly wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

This is "majority is always right and let the crowd vote which science is bigger".

One thing is to discuss the particular study of dysprosium conductivity at 50 K temperature in presence of liquid argon, and the current experimental results.
Then it's normal to argue that twenty scientists have repeated the experiment and got similar results and are  (or aren't) agreed with the theory author explanations.

Absoluely another thing is to let only one party have a  voice in a wide discussion with controversial arguments.

The worst thing is to bring subjective, emotional "arguments" like "We all die if you aren't agreed with us!!!111"

Almost always the emotions in a scientific discussion mean a lack of arguments and an attempt to cry louder to make shy opponents shut up.

That's how all this human-accusing, human-hating discourse "we are guilty for everything!" works.

Edited August 4, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Pixophir]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This is "majority is always right and let the crowd vote which science is bigger".

One thing is to discuss the particular study of dysprosium conductivity at 50 K temperature in presence of liquid argon, and the current experimental results.
Then it's normal to argue that twenty scientists have repeated the experiment and got similar results and are  (or aren't) agreed with the theory author explanations.

Absoluely another thing is to let only one party have a  voice in a wide discussion with controversial arguments.

The worst thing is to bring subjective, emotional "arguments" like "We all die if you aren't agreed with us!!!111"

Almost always the emotions in a scientific discussion mean a lack of arguments and an attempt to cry louder to make shy opponents shut up.

That's how all this human-accusing, human-hating discourse "we are guilty for everything!" works.

If you want to participate and feel suppressed, go study, choose a task, prepare a paper (usually needs collaboration) and submit it for review. But I can assure you with what you wrote here there is no chance anyone casts an eye on it, for obvious reasons. So stop trying to discredit people in such a nonsensical manner.

You can still do a blog or youtube video and express your feelings there. That's why I avoid those places, they are full of things not-even-wrong.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pixophir

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, Pixophir said:

If you want to participate and feel suppressed, go study, choose a task, prepare a paper (usually needs collaboration) and submit it for review. But I can assure you with what you wrote here there is no chance anyone casts an eye on it, for obvious reasons. So stop trying to discredit people in such a nonsensical manner.

You can still do a blog or youtube video and express your feelings there. That's why I avoid those places, they are full of things not-even-wrong.

Thank you so much!

[SunlitZelkova]

49 minutes ago, Pixophir said:

Well, as long as we're distracting, inventing excuses, pointing to others, we won't change our lives. The planet's habitability is at stake, with local variations. The whys and who's responsible are irrelevant. At least in democratic countries people have a voice to choose a way for the future. We energy hogs can adapt our behaviour, driving for shopping in 2.8 tons is an idiocy to begin with, and no mistake, running AC all day long against the warming climate is another such let's unlogical behaviour.

The consequences of our current behaviour are laid out (IPCC pathways) and they are happening, and for those with a short attention span or an extraordinary ability to evade logical deduction they some up to stop burning fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, or at least get reasonable with it, roll out renewable energy on a global scale (DIY if your country is reluctant, you don't have to go off-grid, it pays off quickly). Apart from that, invent and install methods to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, at a faster pace than they are emitted.

Everything else is just distraction. Of course we can discuss the means and methods, but this is not the right place for that.

This isn't entirely the case though. Changing lifestyle choices alone will not alleviate it, the larger apparatus of society must change too.

I think there is a severe issue with the "all we need to do is this" mentality. It is much easier to say things than do things.

These "just convert to renewable energy and change your lifestyle" statements that frequently come up remind me quite a bit of the "just increase food production" and "just do X thing to improve the country" mentality in the USSR. In reality these things are much harder done than said, "just increase food production" led to things like Lysenkoism rising, through a combination of desperation and the emotional/unscientific things getting put into science (like ideology) that @kerbiloid mentioned. "Just improve the economy" did nothing to halt the stagnation of the Brezhnev years.

It is going to take a lot more to alleviate/halt it than simple statements from activists. There are qualified people who can do that, but they aren't, and that is where the "finger pointing" and "distractions" come up. Things that seem like excuses are not such, they are valid criticisms of the current situation. They are not repeated to avoid things from happening, they are repeated because solving them are necessary to help alleviate it.

The Brezhnev era history of the Soviet Union isn't one of my strongest points, but I wouldn't be surprised if criticism of leadership was decried as "an excuse" at times, after all, the USSR was a democratic (TM) country of the workers, so all they needed to do was work to improve their situation. Obviously that wasn't the case- corruption at the lower level played a part too, but in the end, the poor state of that country was the fault of people in positions of power. The people alone weren't going to fix it.

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This thread is teetering on the brink, hopefully we can remain focused around the physical aspects of climate change solutions.

Yes I agree we’re teetering here. I do respect all of your opinions. I think its all broadly relevant to why we would invest so much in something incredibly complicated and financially risky like fusion rather than snatch up all the lower hanging fruit by maxing out renewables, overhauling the energy and transportation grid and building codes. Im not sure if it’s because governments and industrial leaders are stupid, craven, corrupt, or some combination of all three but like it or not thats where these fundamental structural changes need to be made and I just see no evidence they’re likely to make the right decision anytime soon. Certainly not without immense pressure from voters. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[SunlitZelkova]

25 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think its all broadly relevant

It is, it's just that not only on this forum but everywhere, climate change presents something of a grey zone as to what qualifies as "science/engineering" and "practical planning/policy (which can then slide into politics)".

[Davi SDF]

My only guess would be no, Fusion power is the called the power of the future for a reason, we are far from taking a lot of energy out of it.

To help stop climate change we would need to start investing heavily in replacing all our fossil fuels energy sources with Nuclear or Renewables (most likely a mix of both)... But that would take a loooong time, and that's something we are lacking.

[Pixophir]

Again, yeah, I am simplifying to avoid further teetering ;-) As a high level overview, and probably most of us are aware:

There is for one the physical level of climate change. It goes deeply into geo-science, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics for modelling. Many people are studying and working and collaborating worldwide to gather knowledge and publish it. The gist of this work is: burning fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change.

For the other, there are policymakers who fell decisions.

As a bridge between the two there is the IPCC whose task is to prepare outlooks for the policymakers by browsing publications and compiling them into a high level presentable form to support decision making. Their motivation, and their reports, are on their website.

There's a discrepancy between the projected outlook and what's actually happening on the one side, and the amount of action taken on the other. Thus projections must adapt. That's how the IPCC gets to up to 6° warming by the end of the century, they are accounting for the failed action proposed in earlier reports

Climate change is manifesting itself now, any future technology, like fusion, may be nice to have if it works as assumed, but it can't help stopping or even slowing climate change now.

So, back to 0, and yes, simplifying, but I see no other way when my premise is to transport the important stuff. The only way to slow it down now is to stop burning fossil fuels, and hope that other means like GHG extraction are available and applicable one day. This can be done on any level down to the individual, removing the need to blame others.

Peace in a free and hopefully not too hot world !

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pixophir

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Pixophir said:

There's a discrepancy between the projected outlook and what's actually happening on the one side, and the amount of action taken on the other. Thus projections must adapt. That's how the IPCC gets to up to 6 warming by the end of the century, they are accounting for the failed action proposed in earlier reports

God they're at 6° now? Those are like Eocene levels. 

What makes me so sad for the whole thing is we'll all be dead before the worst of it happens. It's our kids and grandkids who will suffer for our failures here. 

Edit: Yeah....Damn.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[DDE]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

why we would invest so much in something incredibly complicated and financially risky like fusion rather than snatch up all the lower hanging fruit by maxing out renewables, overhauling the energy and transportation grid and building codes

Even the number of words should clue you in as to the scope of changes being suggested. Emotionally it's simpler to just build a better powerplant. Building codes, it starts to get administratively and politically complicated. Once you get to the overhaul of all energy and transportation, you enter "sticker shock" territory.

Ever wondered why snake oil is such an attractive remedy?

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, Pixophir said:

Climate change is manifesting itself now

Yes, it is. This summer was wonderfully cooler thanthree previous ones, and it was raining almost every second day.

Just like in my childhood, when the summer rain was a usual daily routine.

Like the climate is changing cyclically...

Wait... Oh, ...!

8 hours ago, Pixophir said:

There is for one the physical level of climate change. It goes deeply into geo-science, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics for modelling.

Also hydrology, cosmology, mineralology, and quantum physics for understanding the depth of processes.

Listing them still doesn't conjure their power and doesn't make the slogan more argumented.

8 hours ago, Pixophir said:

Many people are studying and working and collaborating worldwide to gather knowledge and publish it. The gist of this work is: burning fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change.

And many people do not think so. For example, many of those ones who actually mines and refines.

But arguing against the human-hating mainstream can cost them career and money, because the human-hating accusations are in trend, and everyone disagreed is a heretic.

While the arguments that the "green" energy can produce even more exhausts and wastes are ignored.

Also still nobody has answered the very simple question.
I'll repeat it again.
As the coal is the distilled carbon of the plant cellulose, and nothing more, how can the carbon in form of coal be more dirty than the same amount of carbon from the holy, innocent, blessed "energetic plants"?

[Codraroll]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, it is. This summer was wonderfully cooler thanthree previous ones, and it was raining almost every second day.

Just like in my childhood, when the summer rain was a usual daily routine.

Personal anecdotes aren't scientific arguments. Pick a series of actual measurements instead. Such as these:

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Also hydrology, cosmology, mineralology, and quantum physics for understanding the depth of processes.

Listing them still doesn't conjure their power and doesn't make the slogan more argumented.

Care to find any national or international scientific bodies or institutions of any reasonable merit that actively argues against the anthropogenic theory of climate change?

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

And many people do not think so. For example, many of those ones who actually mines and refines.

Fossil fuel companies are funding denialism to protect the status quo for another few years of immense profits. And again, why would those who mine and refine be better qualified to answer whether carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, than the people who actively monitor the atmosphere? The former are just using the atmosphere as a dumping ground, not a field of study. But at any rate, the fossil fuel companies caught on to the idea quite early. Here's a memo from Exxon from 1982, outlining a depressingly accurate assessment of the rate of warming in the coming (which is to say, as of November this year, the past) 40 years:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

But arguing against the human-hating mainstream can cost them career and money, because the human-hating accusations are in trend, and everyone disagreed is a heretic.

Again, this is so wrong I don't even know how to begin to refute it, and it speaks volumes that you aren't substantiating it despite already being told that it's inaccurate. At least, please do consider how many people go into rather poorly paid jobs in the sciences with a dream of finding something that would upend the status quo rather than maintain it.

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Also still nobody has answered the very simple question.
I'll repeat it again.
As the coal is the distilled carbon of the plant cellulose, and nothing more, how can the carbon in form of coal be more dirty than the same amount of carbon from the holy, innocent, blessed "energetic plants"?

It's about the long and short carbon cycles (also called the slow and fast carbon cycles). In very basic terms: At any given time, there's X amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere. Plants suck up carbon from the air as they grow, and release it back to the air as they burn or otherwise decay (sometimes going a detour via animal life). The value of X changes extremely slowly, as carbon is only removed from this cycle when dead plants (and animals) are buried in geological strata instead of releasing their decay carbon back to the atmosphere. This is a tremendously slow process.

However, there's also a large amount of carbon (let's call it Y) trapped in geological strata due to aeons of buried plants and animals. The tremendously slow process mentioned above, accumulated over time. This long-cycle carbon is the fossil fuels we keep digging back up and releasing into the atmosphere. We're causing X to grow at an alarmingly fast rate by unleashing carbon from Y. What took millions of years to bury, we're putting back in the span of decades.

So coal is long-cycle carbon which otherwise would not have interacted with the atmosphere at all. Plants use short-cycle carbon, taken from the atmosphere and destined to be released back there without changing the value of X at all.

Most of this tremendous increase of the amount of carbon in the short/fast carbon cycle makes it directly to the atmosphere, as there is only so much biomass to store carbon in after all. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere also increases its thermal capacity, hence global warming.

Wikipedia has a good article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Edited August 4, 2022 by Codraroll

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Once again... It's always interesting to see how temperature has risen since the Little Ice Age. 

At least that chart has the 'zero' line in the 1900-1975 era. 

[Gargamel]

7 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Once again... It's always interesting to see how temperature has risen since the Little Ice Age. 

At least that chart has the 'zero' line in the 1900-1975 era. 

It's also compressed, almost logarithmic.   If they had the entire chart on the same x axis scale as the right most block, that graph would be many kilometers wide, showing how the vast majority of the time it's been relatively flat, with occasional bumps, and the current projected increase is a major bump. 

[Codraroll]

2 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

It's also compressed, almost logarithmic.   If they had the entire chart on the same x axis scale as the right most block, that graph would be many kilometers wide, showing how the vast majority of the time it's been relatively flat, with occasional bumps, and the current projected increase is a major bump. 

I like XKCD's visualization, which uses a linear scale to show the temperature variation over the last 22,000 years.  Gives you an impression of how slowly it used to change, and how fast it's currently going.

[Gargamel]

32 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

I like XKCD's visualization, which uses a linear scale to show the temperature variation over the last 22,000 years.  Gives you an impression of how slowly it used to change, and how fast it's currently going.

Yeah I had that one in mind when I posted.  It's format doesn't translate well to our forum though, so that link will do nicely. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Gargamel
typo

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Personal anecdotes aren't scientific arguments.

What "anecdotes"?  Should I believe someone's graphics or my own eyes, speaking about my own local weather?

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Care to find any national or international scientific bodies or institutions of any reasonable merit that actively argues against the anthropogenic theory of climate change?

When only the climate alarmists have the right to speak? No.

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Fossil fuel companies are funding denialism to protect the status quo for another few years of immense profits.

So, the opponents are by definition greedy, while the proponents are by definition right?

What makes you think that the capitalists selling "green power" are less greedy than absolutely same capitalists selling fossil fuel?
Especially in the world of cash and profit where noone of them is nailed to his type of business, and free to invest into any industry bringing profit.

Arent' the windmills made of same mined fossils?
Why do the silly fossil companies not switch their production from burning the fossils to making plastic turbines from them, if the windmills are really so much effective as this infographics tells?

I believe , if the things were so good for windmills and solar panels, the first corporations selling the green power were Solar Shell, British Plantoleum, and Exxon (the latter would not even change the brand name).

I believe in money rather than in charts painted for money.
The objective fact is what the rich people put their own money into. The charts and theories always were for sale.

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Again, this is so wrong I don't even know how to begin to refute it

It's enough even to look at the so-called "dark matter" story.
An absolutely thin-air and controversial hypothesis is trying to explain the observable facts by adding a magic substance which we can't detect by definition.
And what's with any voice contradicting this phlogistonish mainstream idea? They are weak and sink. They are considered as clowns. And it's not good for their career and wallet.
While there is (and can't be) absolutely no evidence of its existence, so it's a matter of interpretation. 
It's safer to cry for the mainstream louder than others than to have a different opinion. Because noone will quote you, and (magic!) your quotation rank falls down, so you are not a real scientist.

The continental drift theory is a nice example. Seventy years ago the author was treated as a freak, but now same academic crowd calls freak everyone who contradicts it, lol.

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It's about the long and short carbon cycles

Then define, what do you need, "renewable" or "low footprint"

You can't extract same energy from less amount of carbon,

You produce absolutely same amount of carbon dioxide per joule from same amount of burned carbon.

You want to extract the carbon dioxide from exhaust? The plants don't do that for free.
They just convert the solar energy (which they absorb instead of reflecting back into space as light or as infrared).
Because CO2 needs same energy to be splitted back into C and O2. The plants don't provide the energy, they just convert it. 

The more plants you have, the lower is the Earth albedo, the greater is its warming from the sun light.

And they need fertilizers, whose production needs fuel and chemicals, and produces same toxic exhausts.

In case of coal all this poisoning has already happened hundreds of millions years ago, and you just get this carbon for free.

So by proposing the "ecofuel plants" instead of coal you just try to poison the air once again instead of using the thing you have for free.

The only way to extract the carbon dioxide from exhausts is to store this carbon dioxide as is or turn it into some stable solid compound.
And this is absolutely opposite to "grow more plants".

It's just elementary physics.

Edited August 5, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Codraroll]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

What "anecdotes"?  Should I believe someone's graphics or my own eyes, speaking about my own local weather?

Human memory is a fickle and fallible thing, especially concerning things that happened gradually in the background of your life decades ago. At least back it up with some weather statistics.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Arent' the windmills made of same mined fossils?

Umm ... no.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why do the silly fossil companies not switch their production from burning the fossils to making plastic turbines from them, if the windmills are really so much effective as this infographics tells?

Because transitioning to a different production is more expensive and a higher risk than simply sowing doubt among policymakers to protect the very profitable status quo.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The continental drift theory is a nice example. Seventy years ago the author was treated as a freak, but now same academic crowd calls freak everyone who contradicts it, lol.

It's amazing what actual evidence can do. Do you have any?

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

When only the climate alarmists have the right to speak? No.

This again. Another unsubstantiated claim. 

Consider, then, how much money fossil fuel companies would pay for actual hard evidence that fossil fuels weren't accelerating climate change. They'd build statues of the guy who proved it. They'd definitely help spread the definitive arguments.

Instead, what are we seeing? Heaps and heaps of the same bad science that was refuted in the 1980's. Repeating the same tired old lies, misrepresenting datasets, and spreading conspiracy theories about the research instead of presenting research of their own. The best arguments they've got against anthropocentric climate change is to spew non-arguments. If they had been able to substantiate their claims, they would have done so to great effect. The fact that they aren't suggests they don't have any evidence. Hence the consensus among researchers who actually look into the subject.

That's also one of the key arguments brought forth by a merited meteorologist I've spoken to about the issue. There simply aren't any good alternative explanations being put forward. The denialist "science" is hopelessly lacking in quality and they have no data to back it up. If you have any data or good theories that explain the observed increase in temperature without involving the increase of atmospheric radiative forcing caused by human CO2 emissions, then please present them. Keep in mind that it would also involve overturning pretty much everything we know about the thermal properties of CO2 (since we know how much of it has been released to the atmosphere), and that's stuff we can measure pretty easily, and a whole host of industrial processes depend on the gas behaving exactly like we think it does. You might as well try to overturn glaciology by claiming water freezes at 282 Kelvin. 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Then define, what do you need, "renewable" or "low footprint"

You can't extract same energy from less amount of carbon,

You produce absolutely same amount of carbon dioxide per joule from same amount of burned carbon.

You want to extract the carbon dioxide from exhaust? The plants don't do that for free.
They just convert the solar energy (which they absorb instead of reflecting back into space as light or as infrared).
Because CO2 needs same energy to be splitted back into C and O2. The plants don't provide the energy, they just convert it. 

The more plants you have, the lower is the Earth albedo, the greater is its warming from the sun light.

And they need fertilizers, whose production needs fuel and chemicals, and produces same toxic exhausts.

In case of coal all this poisoning has already happened hundreds of millions years ago, and you just get this carbon for free.

So by proposing the "ecofuel plants" instead of coal you just try to poison the air once again instead of using the thing you have for free.

The only way to extract the carbon dioxide from exhausts is to store this carbon dioxide as is or turn it into some stable solid compound.
And this is absolutely opposite to "grow more plants".

It's just elementary physics.

This meaningless word salad shows one thing, and that is that your grasp of the elementary mechanisms at play is very weak at best. I suggest you read up on some literature on the subject before taking such a rigid stance in what you believe about it.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Codraroll

[Gargamel]

Thread locked for review