10 ms·
This fails the most basic physics analysis so badly, it isn’t even worth the cost of the electricity used to transmit the message. Step one: Calculate what it
by robomartin 4y ago
This fails the most basic physics analysis so badly, it isn’t even worth the cost of the electricity used to transmit the message.
Step one: Calculate what it would take to warm up the oceans a couple of degrees.
Step two: Calculate how close that would get to killing half of all living things on earth, if not 90%.
- laurencerowe 4y agoI think the implication is that global warming would heat up the oceans so you don’t need to put more energy in. However I don’t think warming the ocean is necessary for iron fertilisation to promote plankton growth and thereby remove CO2 from the atmosphere. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
- donkarma 4y agothis is a joke
- abrax3141 4y agoWhich is the joke? I assure you that OIF carbon capture is no joke. Nor is utilizing alga as a source for fuel oil, food, and plastics. (I’m a marine molecular biologist, as well as a computer scientist.) I was joking about warming up the oceans, but it would make the process more efficient, and it’s happening anyway. But as pointed out by others, it’s not strictly necessary. Granted, screwing about with the ocean ecosystem is a terrible idea, and shoukd be considered as a last resort, but it’s not a joke. Quite the opposite.