2 ms·
No, because climate change is made up of dynamic, layered, cyclical activity and influenced by volcanism (and stratospheric SO2 injections in particular), solar
by chrisco255 6y ago
No, because climate change is made up of dynamic, layered, cyclical activity and influenced by volcanism (and stratospheric SO2 injections in particular), solar activity, cosmic rays, aerosol emission from humans, forests, and volcanoes, geothermal influence on sea temps (ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc), geomagnetic activity, orbital cycles, axial precession, albedo, and cloud cover.
What does it mean to even "reverse" a non-linear dynamic system that is unpredictable in its thrashing as an exponential function of time? Reverse it to what? The 1960-1990 average and hold it there? Good luck.
- R0b0t1 6y ago... yes, it could, because the excess energy could be used to capture carbon. All combustion is an exchange of electrons; providing electromotive force can reverse the reaction.
- chrisco255 6y agoYou can just plant trees to capture carbon. But of course, the ~400ppm carbon in the atmosphere is still far below natural levels that have occurred in history (as high as 7000 ppm). I'm not even convinced that removing carbon using heavy machinery is a good idea, as it would presumably reverse the fertilization effect of CO2: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... Nuclear is promising for other reasons, namely that it's a virtually infinite source of energy with no downsides if we can master a technique for producing it without meltdown risk.