>>7805575
If you can figure out how to build a machine big enough to filter the entire atmosphere, enlighten me.

>>7805575
Because if we committed all our resources to building such an ambitious project half the planet would starve.

>>7805575

The Earth naturally builds a greenhouse effect. It's just that we humans create our own to the point where the Earth is creating a much thicker green house effect than it should. If we build machines to college the pollution, we'd probably fuck it up and destroy the entire green house effect. It'd be cheaper and more cost effect by just replaying old technology with greener technology. The Earth will eventually take care of the rest.

>>7805575
This would be rather ridiculously expensive. Just cut down what more we put in and let nature brush off the rest. Eventually. It's pretty fucked up as of now.

>>7805594
>It's just that we humans create our own to the point where the Earth is creating a much thicker green house effect than it should. If we build machines to college the pollution, we'd probably fuck it up and destroy the entire green house effect.
It's not as if we're depending on those machines to fuel our society. We could just turn them off when we're done.

>>7805575
Nature will solve the greenhouse problem by itself. As humans we could try and stop to reproduce, but that's easier said than done. Western culture might find solace in this idea, but alot of other cultures simply don't care. What I think is, or what I am waiting for actually, is a mass extinction. Or thorium power plants (only 300 years of radioactive decay). I think we really consider the value of collective human life as too precious. So what if it goes extinct? Sucks for us, but the universe will do its thing just fine without us. Besides, meddling with nature will only fuck it up more. Just like when people introduce new species to areas. They can never anticipate the influence it has on the environment, and it always causes damage to native life one way or another. Trying to fix the greenhouse effect could fuck it up even more.

Also, most of humanity is fucking retarded (I do not exclude myself). Just keep on consuming, fully aware of the potential side effects. Just because it's easy and convenient. You could convince a bunch of people, but then they'd die, and their children do the stupid shit they did all over again. So yeah, I think I will see the demise, or the beginning of it at least, of the human race. Then again, I don't really care anymore either. What can you really do?

>>7805589
If we commited our resources to building such a project, climate change would go out of control, due to all the fissile fuel we would have to use, and we would fry before its completed.

>>7805641
>Nature will solve the greenhouse problem by itself.
After the mass extinction of course.

Also, question for /sci/.
Do you think it is possible for life to evolve that will feed on plastic as a primary food source in the future? Would be funny if life evolved that thrives on the pollution left behind by the human race.

>>7805575

>posting on /sci/
>believing in global warming

Pick one faggots. You can do the math on absorption and emission to figure out exactly what the temperature effects should be. Give it a try.

>>7805658
Nice meme friend. I really really really like it

>>7805660

you don't think you can actually calculate a pretty good ballpark for temperature effects from manmade C02? This is undergrad physics stuff.

>>7805658
Better off just studying the history and science of propaganda bombardments. You make a shitload of clerics and have them proselytize whatever it is you want people to believe, and call non-believers heretics or deniers. Eventually, if you get enough support, you can actually start setting people on fire and stuff, or if your really lucky, burn a lot of books then rewrite all of history to your liking.

>>7805641
Industrialization does not lead to out-of-control population growth. Human societies follow logistic population growth patterns, not exponential. Human population will increase for awhile and then decrease over time.

On another note, you sound like a real supreme gentleman.

>>7805575
Trapping pollution at its source is 1000x cheaper and that's too expensive.

Also you have no proof that doing any of this will be cheaper than just dealing with the warming.

Earth used to be hotter than it is now anyhow and life on earth loved the heat.

>>7805714
What does exponential growth and logistic population growth have to do with what I wrote? My point is that it has already grown to a point where the damage we cause is irreversible, and that natural forces will take initiative in restoring the ecosystem as it is, not us humans.

>On another note, you sound like a real supreme gentleman.

How so?

>>7805658
>>7805694
>there are people that haven't bought into the capitalist "muh heating" lie
>don't even pay extra for eco-friendly cars made of polluting plastics, rubbers, and polymers
>not buying the most liberally-endorsed organic anti-establishment food produced in the subarctic regions of anterior indochina to profit the homeless africa
i shiggy

>Why all this bureaucratic nonsense, why not just cleanup the pollution?
because it's technologically difficult

most of the processes we know of to remove carbon from the air are either expensive in their own right or face enormous problems in long-term storage. it's no good wasting shitloads of money pulling carbon out of the air if it leaks back up in ten years.

given our current technology it's far easier to just not make the carbon in the first place

>>7805740
>My point is that it has already grown to a point where the damage we cause is irreversible

Our damage isn't contingent on our population. Populations cause pollution because pollution is caused by energy production, and populations produce energy.

More efficient energy production is inevitable, and it'll happen far before anyone could manage to convince people to stop reproducing. The only way that population growth can be construed as the sole problem is if you think that it's going to keep growing without ever stopping.

>>7805649
>Do you think it is possible for life to evolve that will feed on plastic as a primary food source in the future?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mealworm#In_waste_disposal

Life can adapt to survive under any conditions.

>>7805575
Would you shit on the floor every time you had to go and just clean it up afterwards, or would you build a toilet, as in a way not to have shit all over your floor in the first place?

>>7805575
I don't know the math on this but I'm guessing the energy it would take to capture all the greenhouse gasses emitted would be on a similar order of magnitude to the energy produced when releasing them. Maybe we could ramp up the work until it reaches an equilibrium but then you have to figure out how to pay for energy B which is entirely devoted to cleaning up the byproducts of A+B.

>>7806056

back up, look at the actual physical effects of C02 absorption and decide if it is even a problem first.

>>7805575
Because capitalism and it's suicidal ideology.
Seriously, we should've stopped burning corpse goo by now.

>>7805714
>Human societies follow logistic population growth patterns
Is this valid for all cultures and religions?

>>7805589
>implying half of it isn't already starving, disease-ridden, bombing itself or worse

>>7805575
What exactly does a Greenhouse Gas Collector do with the gases it collects? Stores them? Changes them into something else?
Plus instead of trying to clean up a mess why not implement measures so you don't have to clean up the mess in the first place. Utilize solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources while weening off fossil fuels.

>>7805575
Pretty sure we are making massive Carbon scrubbers here and there. The problem is that you can only take carbon dioxide out of the air so fast, and there are literally billions of vehicles and factories on the planet pumping that shit into the air (not to mention the natural sources of CO2, such as human respiration). You can make all the Carbon scrubbers you want, but it's going to cost you 55 arms and 324.452 legs to get them all built, and even then you almost certainly won't be matching even just China's output of CO2. It's like being on a sinking ship: bailing water out with buckets is fine, but wouldn't it be easier, more efficient, and less stressful to just plug the damn leak?