Slashdot Mirror
Plan to Slow Global Warming By Dumping Iron Sulphate into Oceans
ananyo writes "In the search for methods of geoengineering to limit global warming, it seems that stimulating the growth of algae in the oceans might be an efficient way of removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after all. Despite attracting controversy and a UN moratorium, as well as previous studies suggesting that this approach was ineffective, a recent analysis of an ocean-fertilization experiment eight years ago in the Southern Ocean indicates that encouraging algal blooms to grow can soak up carbon that is then deposited in the deep ocean as the algae die. Each atom of added iron pulled at least 13,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging algal growth which, through photosynthesis, captures carbon. The team reports that much of the captured carbon was transported to the deep ocean, where it will remain sequestered for centuries — a 'carbon sink' (abstract)."
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.
It involves vast bowls of hot grits!
Right....lets do random crap to solve a problem that may not exist.
This is NOT SCIENCE!
This is a RELIGIOUS CULT!
Where's the good-luck-with-that what-could-possibly-go-wrong tag?
Algae in my pool, bad.
algae in the ocean, good.
whatever.
I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..i.e. when the algae has covered all the oceans we have no pollution...but also no fish....
anywho...maybe we can just set fire to the algae if it gets out of control...
I'm not going to lie..things with clock speeds turn me on...
Sounds like a terrorist weapon. Temperatures are likely headed lower according to some solar physicists, due to the sun's rapidly declining magnetic field, a precursor of the Little Ice Age.
If it works, it would be used by GW deniers as proof that there was no problem to begin with.
Seems no more far-fetched than the current plan, which is assuming world leaders of developed and developing nations can all agree to limit the economic function and development of their respective countries, and not fall into a prisoner's dilemma.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It must take a lot of guile to fool hoi polloi into buying into this global warming nonsense.
as you are that a problem does exist. Really does it? Ready to turn the world's economy on it's head to to fix this supposed problem? Of course you are, because you are SURE.
--
Why spend time and resources changing what is a natural cyclical phenomena? Such an exercise can only end badly.
-Mike
P.S. to moderators: this is only a troll to the politically-motivated.
This needs a quote. " You don't know what you are doing!", " This whole place him, you, everything is gone, you are the one living the dream sullian!, It happens!" T2 Sarah connor..
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Of course, because the greenhouse gasses are still building up, it takes more and more iron sulphate each time, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Before we have to drop giant blocks of ice in the ocean...
...welcome our new algae overlords.
Don't do it. Global warming is a nuisance at worst (and probably a boon as-is.)
But accidentally overshooting and inducing an ice age, which may come on in as little as a year or two, will indeed kill billions.
Don't do it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
We could find a way to trigger a super volcano. This would also help to curb global warming.
We could create a nuclear winter by setting of several giant nuclear weapons over the countries of choice. This would also reverse global warming.
There are lots of things which we could do, but doesnt mean we should.
Considering that we do not know the extent of the oceans impact on global weather patterns, we may do well enough to leave them alone until we do.
"[...] He describes how mankind has been underground since 1989, when the atmosphere grew “toxic” after the growth of poisonous algae in the Indian Ocean. Because “science and government stood by while everything died,” the business community of the United States took over control of the country, drafting a “Corporate Constitution” that gave all surviving citizens shares in America, Inc. [...]"
http://johnkennethmuir.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/cult-tv-flashback-130-the-name-of-the-game-l-a-2017/
(cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._2017)
LoL
that in a few billion years the sun will reach the end of its life span and incinerate the Earth.
So if we don't leave between now and then, there won't be any humans left to argue about a few degrees and higher water levels.
Since everything we do destroys something on the planet, I'm gonna go ahead and call this one right now. Algea blocks sunlight below, kills seabed plants in shallow areas and kills...I dunno, Nemo or something in deep water by lowering the temperature, making automatic frozen fishsticks.
This did sound like one of the better theories for fixing the problem extremely quickly and cheaply when I heard about it on TV though.
not being able to order cheap hard drives from Thailand is more than a nuisance! Florida sinking into the ocean is a nuisance but don't touch my hard drives, damn it.
climatological warfare
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Do you people understand what I'm saying?
If I were a corporate shill, I'd be like, "Ya, do it. Dump away baby!"
Don't fucking do it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Having to move back from the ocean over the course of a century or three is indeed just a nuisance to a powerful economy.
Having an ice ace lock up most of the plantable land in permafrost will lead to the deaths of billions.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Here's the National Solar Observatory, in case you missed it: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/
DO NOT WANT. obviously a dumb idea.
Yes, let's try to create massive worldwide algae blooms, cause the one's were getting already have been fantastic.
We should just drop a big ice cube in the ocean once in a while...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y
This line reminded me of plans to store radioactive waste in remote areas, keeping us safe from it for centuries.
Nobody seems to have a lot of faith in those plans I notice.
Surfer is eaten alive by sentient algae blob. Story at 11!
This is one good reason NOT to support CAGW. Even if it were true (it's not), the cost of doing nothing is less than what the panic driven fucktards with a hero complex will do to "save us".
Let's convert carbon dioxide to methane,that's sure to help...
Excessive growth of algae (influenced by global warming and fertilizers washed down to the sea from farmlands) is a part of the problem, not the solution.
The problem with algae is that while, true, they convert CO2 to oxygen, they do so, by growing - building their own mass.
There's only so much of ocean surface where they can grow by absorbing light. The excess algae not receiving enough light die and rot. And they produce methane by rotting.
I'm pretty sure as greenhouse effect gas, methane is quite a bit stronger than carbon dioxide...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Based on a theory with NO confirming experimental evidence, and with NO idea what the side effects will be, let's fill the oceans with a huge algae bloom!
Because THAT could never have unintended consequences!
I'd like to make a prediction: This plan will not be tried.
This is because the premises of environmentalism are:
The second premise leads to the conclusion, that all human manipulations of reality is evil. And adding iron sulphate to the oceans is very manipulative. The only plans against global warming that will tried are those plans which limit human manipulation of world to suit his existence and happiness. All kinds of restrictions and obligations which limit human well being will be implemented. And we will be asked to accept the sacrifices for the ideal: i.e. a world were we do not exist. A more anti-human philosophy cannot be imagined.
Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
Yep, lock up our atmospheric carbon at the bottom of the oceans where we can't get to it. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to directly capture it from the air (through electrolytic deposition or something) so that it can be used by the impending graphene and carbon nanotube industries?
I took a course on oceanography a few years ago, and we actually studied this. I'll summarize my professor's powerpoint notes as best I can.
Iron is a limiting nutrient in phytoplankton growth. This is not in dispute. However if we are to add iron to the ocean in order to increase phytoplankton counts, and thus to increase CO2 uptake then we must consider several things. Firstly, how much CO2 will be semi-permanently transported to the ocean floor. In terms of percentages, if increased phytoplankton counts caused a CO2 flux in the surface layer of 50 Gt Carbon / year, the corresponding CO2 flux to the ocean floor would be about 0.7 Gt Carbon / year. This is due to the fact that the mechanisms of carbon transport from the surface to the sea floor (the "biological pump") is quite inefficient. Thus the increase in phytoplankton at the surface would have to be HUGE to transport meaningful amounts of CO2 to the sea floor.
Secondly, there may be dire unintended or undesired consequences of increasing the surface phytoplankton counts. Imagine we put significant amounts of iron in the ocean and imagine that surface phytoplankton counts increased significantly. At the surface we could get increased CO2 uptake and O2 production. But what happens when those phytoplankton die? They sink. And when they sink to deeper layers, other organisms would decompose them. Those decomposers would be oxygen breathers and would consume oxygen at the deeper layer. If their numbers increased due to increased dead phytoplankton, the decomposers could deplete the O2 levels in that level, creating anoxic zones at deeper levels in the ocean. In addition, some of these decomposers might be methane producing bacteria, especially in the absence of oxygen. That methane might make its way into the ocean. The worry is that the imbalanced increase in phytoplankton might result in an anoxic jellyfish ocean that would be rather unfriendly to fish like salmon, tuna, and the other common species that currently exist.
Unless the above arguments have been refuted, I don't know why iron fertilization is still being pushed as a realistic option. It seems to me that many decision makers are nearly completely illiterate in science.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
In many places of the world, nutrient-rich deep-ocean water rising to the surface causes natural algal blooms. Algae eating fish like sardines flock to them and breed up in huge numbers, and form the basis for many of the world's fisheries.
Indeed, practically all fish either eat algae, or eat marine life that eats algae.
So fertilising the oceans is just as likely to produce schools of fish and new rich fisheries to harvest as fish kills. In reality, it would probably cause both: overpopulation of fish that then die as food or oxygen dries up. But that is part of the solution: Algae feeding a massive bloom that collapses, and the bodies of all that marine life gets all the way to the bottom because they are not consumed by other life, as the water is oxygen-deprived.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I can't believe presumably intelligent people are this stupid.
See those mountains of coal that get shovelled into our power stations every day? Can you use that much carbon nanotubes and graphine?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
With the P being taken out of circulation - what about the limiting effect of that?
The team reports that much of the captured carbon was transported to the deep ocean, where it will remain sequestered for centuries - a 'carbon sink'
This sounds like a good quick patch (in the ecological time scale), but do we need that carbon? Seems like moving carbon from the Earth's crust to the deep ocean could have some long-term ramifications. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject even to qualify as an amateur, but it seems like it would be more profitable in the long run if we could grow plant life that would feed plankton or fish in the ocean example, other flora or fauna in general, or be harvested to make fuel. Turn the carbon back into a productive resource. Maybe harvest the algal blooms with a tide generator or wave generator powered filtration system.
But again, it sounds better than having steadily worse hurricanes for the time being, until we can figure out how to capture that carbon for production. Not criticizing -- just noodling.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
My God, you people are retarded.
Sorry...I meant "...the methane will end up in the atmosphere" (where it will act as a greenhouse gas...as well as producing sulphur gas which as poisonous).
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Climate change is but one of the problems we face. Pollution, loss of species, erosion and depletion of natural resources are all big problems as well.
The sad fact is that all of these have a single cause: humans, or rather, too many humans.
As of right now, the average Chinese person emits as much carbon as the average European -- and there are many more Chinese people.
The rest of the developing world is going to follow this pattern. Soon we'll all be emitting high amounts of carbon, but even more, each of us will require a lot of land for our lifestyles. Not just our homes, but roads, hospitals, shopping, parking, schools, storage, government buildings, etc.
For every person we put on this earth, there's less space for the natural world and its forests and oceans which renew our air and water. Earth is finite; humans are acting like its capacity to have new humans is infinite.
We're all in denial of how simple this is. There are too many people. We're making even more. At some point, we will have used up enough land so that pollution, species loss and loss of renewable resources makes us get a Darwin award as a species.
Futurist Traditionalism
A few years back, scientists pointed out there was evidence that ice ages could come on in as little as a couple of years, and that it required centuries or millenia of cooling was wrong.
All it takes is a couple of what would be severe winters in a row from random chance, combined with a big volcanic eruption or two (Krakatoa I think made London snow in summer.) All it takes is for one summer where the snow pack doesn't melt, and that summer the Earth, thanks to the albedo, never gets much summer energy, then the winter is utterly frigid, starting from a much cooler level, and then the snow pack never melts for 10-50,000 years. Each year then adds to the never-quite-melting snow of summer.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Fundamentally nobody is willing to do what it takes to deal with carbon emissions...it's perceived as too expensive.
On the other hand, geoengineering solutions (if they work) would be cheap. I heard an estimate that a fleet of small autonomous ships spraying seawater into the air (to seed clouds and increase albedo) would cost ~6 billion. That's nothing in comparison....there are individuals that could afford that.
I hate this. Everyone is swearing that global warming is an issue. I'm not going to deny that pollution is a problem. I'm not even going to deny that it may affect the earth in a negative way. HOWEVER, We are breaking records that were set 40-60+ YEARS AGO PEOPLE! This is a WARM year, nothing more, nothing less. The last record high temperature in MY area was set in 1954. If we are experiencing global warming, why hasn't the temperature been shattered every year since then? Why did it take almost 60 years to break a high? Oh i know why! Because there is no such thing as global warming! Because we are experiencing a fluke in what is otherwise a cooling of the earth. Because these so called scientists, which are all funded by various questionable means are trying to promote political agendas whether then back the facts up. Give me 20+ years of climbing temperatures (a mere drop in the bucket considering how old this planet is) and i'll change my mind...wait what? You mean scientists can't actually PROVE that global warming exists?!?!?!
Causing an algae bloom is good now?
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
.. Futurama where they keep collecting huge blocks of ice from Halley's comet and dump it into the ocean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVyRa1iuMc
Didn't I just recently hear about the idea to seed iron to fight global warming. Right, it was the Panchaea project in Deus Ex Human Revolution. Well I just hope it works out better than it did in the game though :P
Cherry pick your data.
Now, what was it you were saying about being current?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Much fewer fucking people.
www.climatedepot.com
Seeing as how 1/3 of the earth is made of iron and we've assuredly been rained upon by some iron meteorites that probably popped somewhere in the atmosphere, something tells me that iron-rich moments in the ocean's history have not been unknown. Does the fossil record have anything to say on the subject?
What they've said is "We shouldn't have done this." Ok, fair enough, nothing wrong with that but that isn't a solution. Telling someone that what they did to cause a problem shouldn't have been done is all well and good, but doesn't solve the problem, it isn't really that useful.
It would be like going to the doctor because you'd broken your arm and having him say "Well you really shouldn't have fallen off your bike, had you not done that, your bone wouldn't be broken. You shouldn't ride your bike at all in the future. On your way then." While he's right that it would be better to avoid the situation in the first place, that doesn't really help fix it. Also supposing your bike is your own form of transport, his recommendation might not be so easy to just do.
In Egypt there was a priestclass claiming the sun was eaten every night by a snake. This priestclass employed a technique to save the sun from being eaten by the snake every night. Ofcourse, they needed to be paid for this.
The CO2 global warming story is the same, it's a hoax, a story that enables a small group of psychopaths that rule the world, to tax our breathing. Think about it, you breath out CO2 with every exhalation. If we buy into this hoax, we will be taxed for breathing. And this tax will go to the same privately owned Rothchild bank in Switserland as the current CO2 tax goes.
Wake up people, consensus != fact and the science against the CO2 story is becoming overwhelming.
There is NO such thing as Global Warming, and No Such Thing as a Greenhouse Gas, just bad physics from Sagan, promoted by Chicken Littles fronted by Gore ... it is all a huge SCAM.
The only thing about the Iron seeding is 'It can't be enough' so is unlikely to do REAL harm, by also wont have any effect except to waste tax-payers money.
MFG, omb
But not too expensive for this???
We dump stuff into the ocean to get read of stuff we have dumped into the atmosphere. What do we dump where to get rid of what we have dumped into the ocean? Shouldn't we rather stop dumping stuff? Or at least think a little more before we dump?
There are nut jobs out there that think the condensed water vapor high altitude jets leave behind in the sky is nothing but the government trying to sedate and control the public. Check out YouTube for all the people who thinking spraying vinegar into the air causes the chemtrails to dissipate.
They're also not too happy with water fluoridation.
So now you want to boat around the worlds oceans dumping this iron stuff under the guise of countering carbon emissions? Oh boy they will have a field day with that.
Algae respirate (absorb) oxygen at night.
Light penetration of water
# only 73% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 centimeter (less than a half inch) .... this doesnt count light blocked by algae closer to the surface.
# only 44.5% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 meter (3.3 feet)
# 22.2% of the surface light reaches a depth of 10 meters (33 feet)
Bacteria that eat dead algae use up oxygen (and often multiply faster than the algae does).
Unstable system sucks all the oxygen out of the water and everything else dies.
The 'scientists' (academics pretending to be scientists??) who have come up with this should be strangled slowly if it causes a catastrophe.
> a plan to stop whatever by dumping whatnot into oceans
Wasn't something like this described in Fred Hoyle's 1960s sci-fi novel and TV series, the "A for Andromeda"? The oceans were seeded by a form of artificial microbial life and the effect turned the whole atmosphere into one huge typhoon, decimating the global population.
The events happened due to a conspiracy by aliens, who radio-telecommunicated an avatar to earthling boffins and her super IQ fooled Blighty into handing over all power. The aim of the aliens was to force mankind to turn themselves into computer hardware based, stationary and passively observing eternal beings, as prior experience of galactic history suggested all active and organic races inevitably exterminate themselves soon after entering technological civilization.
An experiment to evaluate this concept has been performed years ago by a team of scientists on the Polarstern in the Indian Ocean. The results were devastating. I do not know why this stupid idea comes up again every now and then. As the article above already shows, this idea and similar other ideas have all failed. Instead of fooling around to fix another result caused by a foolish behavior, it might be logical to start to stop being foolish.
These ideas are fueled by the idea we can go on as we did in the past. Well the truth is: We cannot.
Time to start working on the Futurama solution. Mine a comet and dump a block of ice in the ocean every couple of years or so.
I know we shouldn't be screwing around with the environment but it looks like we'll be getting desperate by the time we get off our butts to do something. And anyway, as other posters have mentioned, we've been running an uncontrolled experiment into the release of many gigatons of CO2 for quite some time now.
So, while their are undeniable risks that this entails, are there any benefits? If these phytoplankton aren't snapped up by noxious jellyfish* (and all of them don't sink to the bottom although that wouldn't be all bad) could this bolster the food chain? I mean wouldn't this cause an increase in the productivity of the whole food chain? They don't call some parts of the ocean (the southern pacific I think) a "desert" for nothing. We are basically fertilizing the ocean, if done right that might be a very good thing! (sushi)
Did the researchers look into the fish/krill/higher predators populations? Did they see any noticeable increase (or decrease)?
*even this might not be too bad, don't pelagic sunfish and sea turtles eat jellyfish? Turtle soup anyone?
It will be sequestered for centuries ... a nuclear sink.
Out of curiousity, after centuries, what happens?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
We're headed for an anemic solar max, late and low on sunspots. Perfectly in line with the NSO paper.
When are we going to send the team to Halleys Comet to mine for ice to drop into the ocean on a regular basis?
Seeing as how 1/3 of the earth is made of iron and we've assuredly been rained upon by some iron meteorites that probably popped somewhere in the atmosphere, something tells me that iron-rich moments in the ocean's history have not been unknown. Does the fossil record have anything to say on the subject?
Banded Iron Formations.
There will be a lawsuit for every weather event on earth, from hurricanes to rain spoiling some kid's pool party....
Seriously?
Someone is destroying your entire ecosystem, and telling you "we can't stop doing that, because we would lose money." And someone else says, "well, maybe if we cause a corresponding rapid radical transformation in ocean ecology it will offset the other catastrophe". And your answer is "hmm, yeah, that might work."
Take something that is not a pressing problem (CO2) and toss in some mega-energy mass-manufacturing of chemical compounds, transport and dissipation of said compounds, for some pet project whose net-effect is insubstantial compared with the volumetric magnitude of biosphere, ocean and NATURAL climate. And call it a day, without doing a lick of useful work.
But if clubbing poor baby plants to death by regulating CO2 is what pops your cork, a really bitchin' way to get yer "algal sink" on would be to ring the equator with floating OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) platforms. The nutrient-rich cold water upwelling around these would spurs algal growth without the use of nasty chemical additives. Then you could either pack and sink the algae to choke the little plants, or manufacture the fluorescent green algae powder that gives Soylent Green its lovely bright color that complements the yummy taste of its Secret Ingredient.Oh yeah -- and gain limitless energy.
Shouts to Marshall T. Savage for his amazing work, Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps (get the book!)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does anyone recall the Lake Nyos Cameroon event induced by lake turnover (overturn) ? Are there not already vast CO2 and Methane sinks at various levels of the oceans? Would another Ice age would seemingly release some of these compressed gas sinks?
I think this issue needs to be approached on two levels. 1. Continued reduction in carbon emissions. 2. Let mother nature do her job. We can help her by planting more trees, ie replacing the ones that have been removed/destroyed through deforestation. I don't know, call me crazy, but that seems more logical then dumping a crap load of iron in the ocean. The rise in CO2 levels did not happen over night, therefore we should not expect a decrease in levels to happen overnight either. Seriously, if people truly want to help this planet, go home and plant 5-10 trees in your yard.
Isnt there already tons of it at the bottom of the oceans/seas? I seem to remember hearing that there was already so much down there if by some chance it were released to the surface it would be catastrophic to the earth's environment.
Seeing as how 1/3 of the earth is made of iron and we've assuredly been rained upon by some iron meteorites that probably popped somewhere in the atmosphere, something tells me that iron-rich moments in the ocean's history have not been unknown. Does the fossil record have anything to say on the subject?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation
1. Plant Trees
2. If you don't have a family yet, don't have more than 2 kids of your own
3. Don't drive a vehicale that is bigger than you need.
If we stimulate algae blooms like this now, does it mean we get oil from those dead blooms later?
Wow, maybe these tests are the cause of the Algal Blooms that some countries have been experiencing? I don't think we want more and bigger algal blooms either. Action-> reaction, duh.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
This seems like a Really Bad Idea (TM) to me.
Up there with:
Skinner: ahh, but as it turns out the lizards where a god send since they've eaten all the pigeons.
Lisa: Isn't that a little short sighted, what happens when where up to our ears with lizards?
Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needles snakes.
Lisa: then what about the snakes?
Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
Lisa: Well what happens when where up to our ears in gorilla's!
Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.
Stop being a doomsday. There is no global warming.
Clean the atmosphere while fucking the ocean.
The issue here, is that people are not interested in true, long range, sustainable projects, they want to fix everything with nukes. At this point it may seem wiser to just let it roll and nature do its job, either, we all die (humans) and Earth heal by itself, or 90% of humans die, and the rest learns to play nice with the ecosystem (untill they fuck up again).
Methane is hundreds of times bigger problem than carbon dioxide. Methane is forming a dense cloud over the North Pole all the way to the north coast of Russia. Methane is 25x the strength greenhouse as CO2.
Need to use CO2? Capture it and feed it to industrial algae. Plant and replant forests and plants.
Need to capture, liquify and ship Methane?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading
Or we can try this on a trial basis, and scale it up if it seems to be working.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm to discover how trials did not yield meaningful results whe using pure Fe, which does not have the risk of generating sulfuric acid.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
The oceans are already dying off at an alarming rate due to dissolved carbon dioxide, creating carbonic acid.. hell this was even in the NEWS recently.. Where's the proof that by algae pulling even more carbon in, we wouldn't have an even HIGHER level of CO2 saturation?
Great idea. Then in 20 years when we have another unexplained period of global cooling maybe we will have some glaciers form in Scotland and Germany.
Who will make money from this BS and will the people that depend on the fish in those same southern oceans be amused?
Stephen King wrote a wonderful novel where an apocalyptic event occurred due to an inbalance in the ocean and algae growth.
Worth a read by these morons.
No, if you honestly think multiple degrees of global warming would probably be a "boon", I don't believe you know that you are a corporate shill. Possibly, on this issue, a bit of a fool.
However, I do agree that an ice age would be worse than global warming.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
that just freezes the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then we can figure out what to do with it...
This is my sig.
Finally, manufacturers of titanium white will be able to make money on their waste byproduct instead of paying for its disposal:
http://www.jazdchemicals.com/chemyellowpages/leaf/Dyes-And-Pigments/Pigments/Titanium-White-Titanium-Dioxide.htm