Slashdot Mirror


Global Warming Stopped By Adding Lime To Sea

Antiglobalism writes "Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today."

37 of 899 comments (clear)

  1. Mitch said it best by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Look at all the limes in this god damn thing! This fuckin' thing is tropical! Look at the limes, how they float. That's good news. Next time I'm on a boat and it capsizes, I will reach for a lime. Like I'll be water-skiing without a life preserver, people will say "What the hell?" and I'll pull out a lime. I'm saved by the buoyancy of citrus."

  2. Sure... by Deathdonut · · Score: 5, Funny

    This couldn't possibly have any additional side-effects, right?

    Next they'll want to add tequila and filter the salt to the coasts.

    1. Re:Sure... by Trails · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In deed this strikes me as the climatological equivalent to the following song: I know an old lady who swallowed a cow, I wonder how she swallowed a cow?! She swallowed the cow to catch the goat, She swallowed the goat to catch the dog, She swallowed the dog to catch the cat, She swallowed the cat to catch the bird, She swallowed the bird to catch the spider, That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her, She swallowed the spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly, I guess she'll die.

    2. Re:Sure... by mcvos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This couldn't possibly have any additional side-effects, right?

      It remind me of another idea: to add iron particles to the ocean in order to stimulate algae growth, which absorbs quite a lot of CO2.

      But what happens then? Do the oceans get clogged with algae? Do fish eat them so we get to make the fishing industry happy at the same time? Do the algae release the CO2 when they die? Or does it sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking the carbon with it?

      Lots of possibilities for side effects, lots of things to research.

    3. Re:Sure... by hardburn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a way of hardening the water, which in turn increases its ability to absorb CO2 without increasing the acidity of the water. The basic chemistry is used by aquarium hobbyists to keep their acidity stable.

      Many fish keepers go to great lengths to keep their water in a tight range to mimic their fish's natural environment as close as possible, but empirical evidence suggests that fish can tolerate a wide range of hardness and acidity provided that changes are made slowly. Additionally, it should increase the growth rate of coral.

      However, many types of fish may only breed within a given hardness range, so this may end up being a big problem.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    4. Re:Sure... by digitig · · Score: 5, Informative

      It isn't GW denying, it's that CO2 probably accounts for less than 25% of the greenhouse effect. If we're looking to manage the greenhouse effect ("manage" because if we overdo it we get a global cooling problem) then it's no good just looking at CO2. The fact that the effects of greenhouse gasses are often quoted in CO2 equivalent tends to mislead people into thinking that CO2 is the only gas that matters.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:Sure... by zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Sahara.

      Seriously; several thousand years ago (15,000ish, I think), the Sahara was a tropical jungle, with rivers, lakes, and gazillions of plants.

      What happens is the earth warms up to the point that there's so much moisture in the air off of the Atlantic and Mediterranean that it starts raining in the desert. Essentially, global warming eventually *cools* the sahara, which blooms, and absorbs the carbon dioxide. As the earth cools off, it becomes a desert (very rapidly). The last time this happened, it went from lush jungle to desert within 200 years, possibly within a human lifetime. Must have been quite a shock.

      ~Wx

      --
      sig?
  3. Obligatory Futurama quote by minasoko · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...thus solving the problem forever. FOREVER!

  4. Well... by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as they don't start putting the lime in coconuts and mixing it together, we haven't entirely lost our sanity.

  5. Oh yeah! Interference FTW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know...

    Based on the success of introducing the cane toad, tamarisk, the bark beetle, the banana slug, the mongoose, or the brown tree snake!

    Any time humans screw something up, the best bet is for humans to go double-or-nothing.

    Sure beats efficiency, responsible building practices, responsible reproduction rates, or simply riding a bike to work! Surely, changing the pH, salinity, disolved o2, and turbidity of the oceans will have no unwanted effect.

    1. Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. by lyml · · Score: 5, Informative

      You actually need both things... Because all of it has an impact.

      That bicycle? It produced as much or more pollution as the car burning the gasoline to produce it unless you're making it entirely out of wood. The same goes for most of the other ones you brought up.

      By themselves, they don't accomplish much of anything- and actually in some cases are worse than the "fixes" we've done in the past (Something else you mentioned...).

      You've got to take in an even bigger picture than you're doing- otherwise you're no better than the people you're tarring with that brush of yours.

      Uhm no?

      Making a bike produces a negligible amount of CO2 compared to driving a car, your statement is downright false.

  6. Calcium hydroxide, not the fruit by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'd think it'd be obvious, but at slashdot, you actually do need to point that out to people.

  7. Re:Anonymouns Coward by jeiler · · Score: 5, Informative

    The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

    RTFA. FTW. My acronyms are more powerful than your anonymity.

    --

    If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

    Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

  8. Re:And finally... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm hoping that next they'll add some gin.

    --
    I'd rather be lucky than good.
  9. Re:Anonymouns Coward by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA. The article claims this process sequesters twice as much CO2 as is released during the production of lime.

  10. Natural carbon sequestration via coral? by bobdotorg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On a chemical level, how does this differ from growing coral?

    A coral bred / genetically modified to grow in a wider variety of climates could also scrub CO2 from the air. Though the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' crowd might be concerned with over scrubbing by the GM coral.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:Natural carbon sequestration via coral? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      On a chemical level, how does this differ from growing coral?

      Well, coral (and shellfish) can sequester carbon, but this only works as long as the water is sufficiently non-acidic. The problem is that as atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, some of it becomes carbonic acid -- and the acidification of the water means that corals, and shellfish shells, dissolve.

      One nice effect of adding lime is that it lowers the acidity of the water, thereby allowing coral and shellfish to continue sequestering carbon.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  11. Re:Ocean of Acid by paazin · · Score: 5, Informative

    And then all these fish die because of too much acid in the water! Epic Fale.

    Uh, not really - Calcium Oxide reduces the acidity of water: Calcium Oxide

  12. Re:And finally... by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yum! Salty lemonade, my favourite!

    Gatorade Marine will be marketed for its unique patented electrolytes.

    It's got what plants crave!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  13. Re:Ocean of Acid by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is why we RTFA:

    There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.

    Lime is an alkalide.
    Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide
    Also here: http://www.cquestrate.com/

  14. I Am A Chemist by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Informative

    And this appears to work. I'm sure some not-rtfa'ing people above me will have got in with a quick "making lime generates carbon dioxide hur hur" but the process already takes this into account. By increasing the pH of the seawater, they claim that it will absorb two moles of CO2 for every mole released in the manufacture of lime. I'm not an environmental chemist so I can't comment on the adsorption gradient of seawater, but if they think it'll work then it'll work.

    Carbon dioxide dissolves in water:

    CO2 + H2O H(+) + HCO3(-)

    As does Calcium Oxide (lime)

    CaO + H2O Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)

    Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)

    H(+) + OH(-) H2O

    i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.

    I'd imagine that various equilibrium constants shift around to prove that there's a net increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air. It's pretty elementary science - so elementary, I've forgotten how to do it. by simply ascribing a token amount of competence to the scientific background of the people in TFA, it can be shown that they probably know what the hell they're talking about.

    Also, there's no doomsday scenario where a drop of lime juice makes the ocean boil pure CO2 and kill us all. As far as I can see.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  15. Re:Anonymouns Coward by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science ignorance on the rise

    I love it when people think they know everything and don't even see if these scientists even considered the issue.
    So, correction:

    Reader ignorance on the rise.

  16. Re:And finally... by D+Ninja · · Score: 5, Informative

    A solution to nasty-tasting seawater! Lemonade oceans FTW!

    Except...it's lime.

  17. Chemical Description by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In case anyone was wondering:

    Lime = CaO

    CaO + H_2O Ca(OH)_2 + 63.7kJ/mol of CaO

    Ca(OH)_2 (aq) + CO_2 (g) -> CaCO_3 (s) + H_2O (l)

    CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) -> Ca(HCO3)2(aq)

    Some of these compounds are strong bases that may be dangerous for both human consumption and wildlife contact. If this were done in segregated water areas, however, it may be possible to utilize the properties of the first reaction to produce energy via a heat engine.

  18. Re:This scares the hell out of me by TMB · · Score: 5, Informative

    > I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now

    Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    [TMB]

  19. Re:Chemistry 101? by thermian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lime (or calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is a base, which is the opposite of an acid.

    So the ocean will be all like 'All Your Base..'

    Ok, I'll stop now.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  20. Re:Riiight. by alta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wrote a real quick firefox extension to filter out everything that's a lime joke.

    Sorry, your's is the only post left ;)

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  21. Re:This scares the hell out of me by Daryen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite the political rhetoric we have no proof as to how much human activity is contributing to any warming trends, and even less of an idea on the possible side effects of any direct intervention. Other scientists have actually proposed putting more particulate pollution into the air to create a mild 'nuclear winter' style cooling in order to offset any rising temperatures.

    I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now, but I will point out in closing that hair brained schemes such as this one remind me of a five year old child trying to rebuild a Formula 1 engine with a pair of chopsticks. We are so very ignorant of how and why we have or can effect the climate. The sheer hubris of some people today who assume we have such great control over climate just amazes, and scares, me.

    I agree that the climate is extremely complex, and that while we cannot understand all of the factors involved, we can draw some simple conclusions about some of the effects we are having on the environment.

    You probably already know that humans produce a lot of carbon dioxide. We breathe it out, we burn things, and our agricultural and industrial processes create even more.

    You probably also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gasses increase warming due to sunlight.

    You may or may not know that the ppm of carbon dioxide has been increasing over the years.

    I propose that you cannot prove that we aren't increasing the temperature of the planet

  22. Unintended Consequences by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are two forces in this world keeping the pirates in check: ninjas and scurvy. If the seas were suddenly full of lime, scurvy would be vanquished. The balance of power would be horribly altered, and no one's booty would be safe.

    Please, everybody, write your congressman about this!

  23. Your account should be banned. by apparently · · Score: 5, Funny
    In deed this strikes me as the climatological equivalent to the following song: I know an old lady who swallowed a cow, I wonder how she swallowed a cow?! She swallowed the cow to catch the goat, She swallowed the goat to catch the dog, She swallowed the dog to catch the cat, She swallowed the cat to catch the bird, She swallowed the bird to catch the spider, That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her, She swallowed the spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly, I guess she'll die.

    I dunno what the hell you're trying to babble about. The proper reference for /. readers goes like this:

    Skinner: Ahh, but as it turns out the lizards were a godsend since they've eaten all the pigeons.
    Lisa: Isn't that a little short-sighted? What happens when we're up to our ears with lizards?
    Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needlesnakes.
    Lisa: Then what about the snakes?
    Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
    Lisa: Well what happens when we're up to our ears in gorillas?!
    Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.

  24. Re:Ocean of Acid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA says they did think of this years ago but the problem was back then they wanted to do it on a truly global scale and, with the exception of a few places, getting the lime out of limestone and to the ocean generally puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the lime would help the ocean take back out of the atmosphere.

    IOW, "net negative". Somebody seems to have had the genius thought that just because it can't be done everywhere and act as a "silver bullet" for global warming doesn't mean it isn't worth getting what help it can provide by doing it in those places where it doesn't produce more CO2 than it scrubs.

  25. So this is stage three, "bargaining"? by boyfaceddog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based on the speed at which the we are progressing through the Kubler-Ross model of grief, the world governments should hit "acceptance" sometime around 2025. Then maybe we'll start hearing some sense out of people.

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  26. Re:The Wisdom of the Simpsons by Svartalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately doing nothing isn't the answer either. Nor is anything that I've seen most of the people suggesting (Suggested alternatives to the polluting vehicles, etc. end up producing their own global warming inducing pollution, either at only a slightly LESS rate than we are now or at the same or higher levels- you just don't have it happening locally...) including the seeding of the oceans with iron filings to produce algal blooms, etc.

    While I'm not 100% on board with this, on the first reading, it's the first relatively "sane" thing that someone's suggested so far about the "global warming problem"- which is not to say I think we need to do it right away or that this is the sole answer.

    And, for the record, we've been doing the old saw about the lady or the Simpson's gag since the earlier days of man. Just being on this earth, we cause a disruption like no other... I don't see us doing any less anytime soon, I'm afraid.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  27. Cause and effect by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    1. Re:Cause and effect by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's too busy running an array of air conditioners outside trying to combat this warming trend to be bothered with any of that science crap.

      --
      Move all sig!
  28. Re:And finally... by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just to spite them we should fill the ocean with Bud Light!

    That would be pointless and redundant. The ocean is already filled with water.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  29. Re:And finally... by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nonsense, as anyone with sophomore chemistry and the ability to google up the quantities of CO2 we're talking about could tell you.

    That's why we ask people with more than a sophomore chemistry level.

    You are kidding... right? But look at that moderation! WOW! What really blows my mind is that all the climate change cultists that read here haven't even bothered to give the article a critical look and instead are content to make jokes about fruit flavoring. The article claims:

    The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

    Gee, do tell guys. How does reversing CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 magically use up twice as much CO2 as it releases? No chemical formula, no citation. Nothing. Jack squat. Hmmm, a little digging produces this.

    So... CaO + H2O + 2CO2 -> Ca + 2HCO3...

    Wait a second!? Doesn't 2H2O + 2CO2 -> 2H + 2HCO3...

    So they're really just substituting Ca(2+) for 2H(+) and this is just more cultist sleight of hand. "We can drop CaO in the water and be SAVED! It'll absorb twice as much CO2 as it releases! HEAL mother Earth and REJOICE!! Send your support for our computer modeling efforts in the form of a check to..."

    Besides, making lime takes LOTS of energy. Where is this pile of miracle lime going to come from??

    locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost 'stranded' energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit — like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts — and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.

    Great, the cultists are going to stripmine the F'in desert and haul it all the way to the oceans. I'm sure that process will be "carbon neutral." I'll bet it's really inexpensive and gentle on the desert ecosystem at the same time. <sarcasm />