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)."

Comments

Ending badly?

[eisonlyme]

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...

Re:Ending badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what we need is gorillas. They'll kill the snakes, then die off in the Winter.

Problem solved.

Re:Ending badly?

[ShanghaiBill]

.. maybe we can just set fire to the algae if it gets out of control...

Or we can try this on a trial basis, and scale it up if it seems to be working. When the algae sinks, carrying the carbon to the bottom of the ocean, it takes the iron with it. So when we stop putting the iron in, the amount of algae returns to normal, so it is unlikely to "get out of control." Sure, there might be some side effects, but there will probably be even bigger side effects if we do nothing. And the side effects are not all bad: it should increase the amount of fish that can be sustainably harvested.

Re:Ending badly?

[aXis100]

It's not a new thing - iron dust has been blowing into the oceans for millenia.

Recent urban development around our coastlines have significantly reduced this natural nutrient source, so projects like this are really just restoring balance.

Re:Ending badly?

[Black Parrot]

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...

The underlying problem is, people are willing to consider anything - except addressing the cause of the problem.

Re:Ending badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic problem I can see is that the ocean is a complex set of currents that moves nutrients around. Dumping a compound into the ocean at one point to encourage algae blooms may sequester carbon in that location but it also locks up other nutrients as well that would have normally travelled to another part of the ocean. Now maybe such an action will disturb the proliferation of jellyfish somewhere but it's more likely that the missing nutrients will simply impede the growth of algae in another location where, instead of simply dying and sequestering carbon at the bottom of the ocean (from which it will eventually bubble up as methane at some future time) the algae would have provided the base of some local food chain. SO, in short, we lock up both carbon and nutrients in some normally unused part of the ocean while starving another part of the ocean for nutrients.

Yeah, terraforming is an interesting science but it's a risky one when you only have one test case and every bit of life you know of in the universe lives in that single test case.

But, I did see reports of the earlier test case and the motivation behind it. It wasn't really all about saving the planet as much as it was about creating a measurable amount of carbon credits that had a solid monetary value. That was the real motive, creating a way to manufacture carbon credits for sale. The test was done to see if they could find the ratio of carbon sequestered per ton of iron compound dumped into the ocean. That way they could dump a known amount of iron in the ocean and then sell a calculated amount of carbon credits on the carbon credit exchange.

Re:Ending badly?

[saxoholic]

These ideas always sicken me, we will be paying corporations out of our tax dollars for the air we breathe, hmm, that's going to work out well, 'NOT'.

Quick! Someone trademark the brand name Perri-Air

Re:Ending badly?

[phantomfive]

And the side effects are not all bad: it should increase the amount of fish that can be sustainably harvested.

Indeed, it could overall be a GOOD thing for the overall biosphere.

As you said, I'd suggest trying it in a small region first, and if no negatives are found, try it in a slightly larger area.

Re:Ending badly?

[phantomfive]

The underlying problem is, people are willing to consider anything - except addressing the cause of the problem.

The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current technology. According to Hansen et al, we need to get the CO2 levels down to 350ppm if we want to be safe. This means, not only must we immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we also need to remove some of it.

So think of all the things you do that add CO2 to the atmosphere (of course breathing doesn't count because it is net neutral). That is pretty near everything. Imagine if we stopped all that immediately. Not only would we have to switch over to nuclear, we'd also have to stop driving. And flying. Good luck at that, it would be economic suicide.

No one is willing to do that, so the only proposals are things like Kyoto, which did little, or Copenhagen, which would have done nothing.

Re:Ending badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the side effects are not all bad: it should increase the amount of fish that can be sustainably harvested.

The 2 side effects mentioned in the article both kill fish. Toxic algal blooms poison fish, either causing them to grow abnormally or death. Depleted oxygen levels does the same thing to the fish as it does to you, suffocation.

Re:Ending badly?

[Jane Q. Public]

"I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..."

Mod parent up.

Without any doubt. FAR more study would have to be done, over a LONG period of time, before any direct messing with the ecology should be attempted.

I live near a lake that was once called, by National Geographic, one of the 12 most beautiful lakes in the world (and it is a rather large lake, as such things go). And there were wonderful fish in the lake; salmonids, plentiful and tasty.

Local businesses, recognizing that fishing was a major tourist attraction, pressured the state Fish & Wildlife Commission to "improve" the fishery.

I could go on for a long time. But suffice it to say that they did one thing that was well-intended, and supposed to help the fish population. But it had unintended consequences. Then they fooled with the ecology again, to try to fix their first fuckup, but THAT had unintended consequences. Then they did it AGAIN, to fix that one, and THAT had unintended consequences.

The long and short of it is: they averted total disaster from their first mistakes, but the fishery is nowhere near as healthy and strong and plentiful as when they first tried to intervene. And yes, it is all directly attributable to their actions.

BE VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU FUCK WITH THE ECOLOGY. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS LIKELY TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.

We have seen this in so many different ways. These people should have their heads examined if they propose to do it anytime soon. Long-term study is needed, even if things get bad. Anyone who tries it before thorough long-term studies are done is probably deserving of being taken out and shot.

Re:Ending badly?

[Jane Q. Public]

"No one is willing to do that, so the only proposals are things like Kyoto, which did little, or Copenhagen, which would have done nothing."

It's not that they're UNWILLING to do that, at all. It's that it would be so enormously expensive, they want SOLID proof before going down that road. Evidence that has so far not been forthcoming.

Seriously: the cost of sequestering enough carbon dioxide to prevent 0.5 degree C warming over the next hundred years, has been estimated to be about the same as the cost of completely eliminating world hunger, even after considering inflation.

Which is the better investment?

I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to do, but we HAVE to consider the question of what is the better expenditure of resources. And at this point we don't have an answer.

Re:Ending badly?

[TapeCutter]

The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current political will. Nobody is suggesting we change everything overnight but considering we burn 5 billion tons of coal/yr and that every fuctioning coal plant on the planet has been built (and in many cases rebuilt) since I was born, 50yrs is plenty of time to convert to renewables. If it wasn't for vested interests this would happen in a similar way to how the current FF infrastructure was built (hardly noticable to the casual observer). If you want more evidence of what a determined government can build in that sort of time span then just compare 1970's China to it's current status as an economic super-power.

BTW: The top two sources of CO2 emissions are coal and oil in that order, concrete and land use come a distant 3rd and 4th. However we don't have to stop all emissions, what we need to do is get them back down to the 3Gt can be safely absorbed by the biosphere. This is where the "cap" in "cap and trade" comes from.

Re:Ending badly?

[khipu]

The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current technology. According to Hansen et al, we need to get the CO2 levels down to 350ppm if we want to be safe. This means, not only must we immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we also need to remove some of it.

Hansen is someone who spreads FUD to gain notoriety. Read the IPCC instead. It contains a lot of scary imagery too, but ultimately, you can find a simple cost/benefit analysis, which sums it up:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-7.html

For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3ÂC above 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to produce market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time, imposing costs in other places and sectors. Global mean losses could be 1 to 5% of GDP for 4ÂC of warming, but regional losses could be substantially higher.

Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the global costs and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.

The idea that we should dump vast quantities of iron into the ocean in order to mitigate a potential problem that amounts to little more a slight reduction in global GDP is ludicrous. Algal blooms and tinkering with iron content of the ocean is far more dangerous than rising CO2 levels, Hansen's cataclysmic fantasies notwithstanding.

Re:Ending badly?

[Jane Q. Public]

"In all seriousness, why do you feel the need to keep the name of the lake a secret? Is it because you are pulling your entire story out of your ass? The environment is quite an important thing to say the least, but lying does not help your agenda if you truly support serious environmental evidence and action."

In all seriousness, it's because I don't want YOU to know where I live, dumbshit.

Re:Ending badly?

[DerekLyons]

Or we can try this on a trial basis, and scale it up if it seems to be working. When the algae sinks, carrying the carbon to the bottom of the ocean, it takes the iron with it.

Well, it's not that simple. The algae we cause to bloom consumes nutrients that would have been consumed by other algaes. Nor is the ocean bottom dead - dumping that massive amounts of iron and algae into them is not going to be without effect.

Re:Ending badly?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Is it because you are pulling your entire story out of your ass?

That seems almost certain, because there is no such lake ranking published by NG. It's like all the hills in England and Wales being known for sure by the locals as the site of the battle of Mount Baden. Popularity never hurts, does it?

Re:Ending badly?

[aurispector]

This. The falling sky proponents love to pretend that it's all a done deal yet the entire model fails to adequately account for previous warm periods, nor the fact that CO2 is merely plant food. (photosynthesis, how does it work?)

Even if you accept the premises that 1) the climate is warming and 2) that human produced CO2 is to blame, taking the entire thing a step farther to say that we can effectively mitigate the problem by radical geoengineering means is a step way beyond credibility. That we SHOULD do such a thing is absurd in the extreme.

The law of unintended consequences patiently waits.

Re:Ending badly?

[jandersen]

No economist will say, "the economy can grow indefinitely." They WILL say, "we don't know how much it can grow."

Which effectively amounts to the same thing, since it inevitably gets interpreted that way by the numbskulls that lead Western nations. There is a huge difference between accepting that "theoretically" growth is limited (but implicitly assuming that any limits are a very long way off) and understanding that we are now close to the limit, even if we don't know exactly how close.

It's like the difference between saying "We don't know and we don't care" and "We don't know, we'd better find out ASAP".

Re:Ending badly?

[zolltron]

This. The falling sky proponents love to pretend that it's all a done deal yet the entire model fails to adequately account for previous warm periods, nor the fact that CO2 is merely plant food. (photosynthesis, how does it work?)

Even if you accept the premises that 1) the climate is warming and 2) that human produced CO2 is to blame, taking the entire thing a step farther to say that we can effectively mitigate the problem by radical geoengineering means is a step way beyond credibility. That we SHOULD do such a thing is absurd in the extreme.

The law of unintended consequences patiently waits.

You think it's a bad idea to seed the oceans with iron, because our interfering with the natural ecosystem might have unintended consequences. So instead, you're suggesting that we should do nothing to stop our interfering with the natural ecosystem by pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air.

Seems consistent.

Re:Ending badly?

[tgibbs]

The falling sky proponents love to pretend that it's all a done deal yet the entire model fails to adequately account for previous warm periods, nor the fact that CO2 is merely plant food. (photosynthesis, how does it work?)

In fact, modern climate theory quite well account for climate over the period for which we have reliable information on both global temperature and drivers of climate such as solar radiation and CO2, including the impact of "natural experiments" such as volcanic eruptions. Estimating climate further back in the past is fraught with numerous uncertainties, and depends upon the use of indirect "proxies" such as measurement of tree rings, which are subject to a variety of artifacts. However, a curious characteristic of many self-styled "skeptics" of global warming is that they become amazingly credulous regarding any claim that can be interpreted as a challenge to global warming theory. So the same people who insist that the evidence for global warming from CO2 is weak will then enthusiastically accept third party accounts of agricultural practices in northern Europe as ironclad evidence of an unexplained period of global warming during medieval times.

Re:Ending badly?

[khipu]

Yes, I should consider the opportunity cost, and so should you. The annual cost of global warming and the annual cost of mitigation are comparable according to the IPCC. But global warming costs only start having to be paid decades from now, while mitigation efforts have to be paid for now, on a massive scale.

If we mitigate, that money is available for economic growth around the world and the development and deployment of new technologies. That's the opportunity cost we pay, namely the opportunity for the world to develop to the point where most nations are so rich that even dealing with global warming isn't a big deal.

What the West should do is promote free trade and immigration around the world, and stop messing with the energy markets. Because if we stopped subsidizing oil, gas, and coal and invested a bit more in STEM education and research, carbon emissions would largely disappear on their own within a few decades anyway, faster than through any heavy-handed government program.

Far-fetched

[LordLucless]

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.

Re:Far-fetched

[phantomfive]

The sad thing is, even if we'd met Kyoto, it would have made little difference to the overall human CO2 emissions. Kyoto wasn't anywhere near enough to turn things around, and anything more would have caused economic damage.

Re:LIA

[Anonymous Coward]

(Haruchai posting as AC due to previous mod)
Sorry. Not bloody likely.

The denialist throw a lot of bullshit at the theories and observations of global warming, one of which is how little we know because we only have reliable info for ( pick one ) 20, 30, 50, 70, 100 years.

And then, they dream up a bunch of half-baked, cockamamie predictions based on scanty data, weak facts, implausible records, oh, and simplified models ( that's a good one, considering how much they think climate models are unreliable) of stuff that happened centuries ago.

Hope you're not putting too much faith in Piers Corbyn

Re:WTF

[rebelwarlock]

How about the fact that we don't want to all die? Global extinction is a natural phenomenon, but I'd rather not witness it.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

There is only one way to be sure, but unfortunately it isn't available to us. Outer Space Treaty prohibits deployment of nuclear weapons in orbit. But the scientific evidence seems to at least strongly imply that the problem exists and may not be entirely harmless.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

It is a risk management issue. We know there is a risk of global warming. We know it can potentially bring massive (earth altering amounts) losses if unmitigated. The question is do we wait uninsured, or do we consider an insurance policy of some sort.

To give you a car analogy, the situation is a bit like driving in a thick fog with high speed. You know that there may be obstacles ahead of you. You know it will be deadly if you hit one. You know you'll have a very short time to react when you clearly see one. What is smarter to do, slow down until the fog clears, or keep pressing the accelerator just because you enjoy high speed?

Algae Blooms

[Albinoman]

Yes, let's try to create massive worldwide algae blooms, cause the one's were getting already have been fantastic.

But will it really be safe down there?

[SeaFox]

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 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.

Convert CO2 to methane

[SharpFang]

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...

Re:Just as sure

[Anonymous Coward]

It was good up until that part where people "enjoy high speed". It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.

This is so common it is like a meme. You have arbitrarily set the cost of global warming to infinity, and the cost of "fixing it" near zero, thus leading to a useless cost-benefit analysis. Meanwhile you think you are more informed and intelligent than the "deniers". Read the IPCC AR4, they do a pretty good one.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.

What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?

You have arbitrarily set the cost of global warming to infinity, and the cost of "fixing it" near zero, thus leading to a useless cost-benefit analysis.

No, it is you who arbitrarily sets the cost of the consequences of global warming to zero and the costs of mitigation policies to infinity. I am ready to admit the outcomes are uncertain, but I also think the risk estimates we have do necessitate a mitigation strategy of some sort.

Unlike mine, your attitude is not constructive.

The Risks of Iron Fertilization

[catchblue22]

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.

Re:The Risks of Iron Fertilization

[techno-vampire]

It seems to me that many decision makers are nearly completely illiterate in science.

You're just figuring this out? I realized decades ago that the type of education needed to become a successful politician is completely different from that needed to understand science and that almost anybody planning to go into politics would regard studying science to be a complete waste of their time.

Re:The Risks of Iron Fertilization

[Dunbal]

Unless the above arguments have been refuted, I don't know why iron fertilization is still being pushed as a realistic option.

Politics.

It seems to me that many decision makers are nearly completely illiterate in science.

No, they are completely illiterate, and not just in science. Here is a shining example of the people that get elected.

On the plus side, most algal blooms produce fish

[robbak]

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.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

I am not seriously considering the solution in the article. I think there was already an experiment that showed quite conclusively it isn't going to work

Actually, I don't believe I've heard of any other engineering solution that has a good enough probability to work.

Sheer Volume

[robbak]

See those mountains of coal that get shovelled into our power stations every day? Can you use that much carbon nanotubes and graphine?

Errata

[catchblue22]

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).

Re:Just as sure

[SuricouRaven]

"What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?"

A return to those hellish days when people had to repair broken things rather then throwing out and buying new, and not everyone could afford to take a holiday on another continant?

We're all in denial

[hessian]

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.

Re:We're all in denial

[JDG1980]

So cutting down the trees that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, expending energy to turn them into disposable goods, driving them across the country in polluting vehicles, then disposing them in the trash is helping the environment?

The trees wouldn't be grown in the first place if not for the demand for these consumer products. The majority of lumber in the US is harvested not from old growth, but from tree farms.

And trees absorb more CO2 when they're in their fast growth phase. So cutting them down and re-planting when they reach full size is best from that perspective.

Re:Just as sure

[gl4ss]

*What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?*

death and shit, in that order. even ddt was meant to prevent death.

Re:Just as sure

[mysidia]

What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?

Hunger for food, and a desire for the things necessary to live, and a desire for products that make life easier, reduce work, and extend quality of life.

Re:Just as sure

[khipu]

It is a risk management issue. We know there is a risk of global warming. We know it can potentially bring massive (earth altering amounts) losses if unmitigated.

According to the IPCC report, the losses are not "massive", they amount to a few percent of global GDP, comparable to how much it would cost to mitigation. The losses for the US and Europe are even smaller.

Global warming is something we can live with: it causes changes, will impose some costs, but it is not a civilization killer. (Global cooling, on the other hand, is a huge problem. The US and Europe would be in deep trouble if climate went back to the way it was a few thousand years ago.) And carbon emissions will abate over the next couple of decades anyway, as solar and other technologies become more attractive and cheaper.

The question is do we wait uninsured, or do we consider an insurance policy of some sort.

I'm pretty sure dumping massive quantities of iron into the ocean and causing algal blooms is not "insurance", it is pollution.

Re:Just as sure

[Lord Kano]

It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.

What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?

Starvation. If we were to de-industrialize, we'd have even more people starving all over the planet.

LK

Re:This will turn into

[khipu]

Most of these "climate warfare" projects require massive engineering efforts that are, shall we say, very susceptible to cheap, more traditional military intervention.

Re:Just as sure

[Kell Bengal]

This always confuses me. Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it. And yet, many arguments against global warming measures seem to claim that that is what is being proposed. Wherefore this misconception?

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

they amount to a few percent of global GDP,

This is the lower bound.

dumping massive quantities of iron into the ocean and causing algal blooms is not "insurance",

Nice strawman there.

What does the fossil record have to say on the su?

[ddt]

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?

More or less

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Just as sure

[nusuth]

Because many arguments comes from environmentalists, who frequently argue for human suffering if the alternative is environmental problems, rather than climate scientists. They cannot fathom just how much depended we are on current industry and how impossible it is to replace it with something even marginally less efficient without huge amount of human suffering.

Re:LIA

[TapeCutter]

So in other words the IPCC is "yucky", did you come up with that devestating critique all by yourself? - Or did a 3yo give you some tips on how to defeat rational arguments?

Re:Hey!

[Joce640k]

Better to do small-scale experiments now than to try large ones when the emergency is here.

Because let's face it, CO2 reduction ain't gonna happen. Talk to the people: Every single one of them has an excuse for not reducing their CO2 output.

Politicians don't care much because it doesn't gain votes and by the time the shit hits the fan they'll be retired in a cozy mansion on a mountain.

Like it or not, all that's left is geoengineering.

Re:Just as sure

[evilviper]

Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it.

It's generally the environmentalists yelling about global warming the loudest, and shortly thereafter telling everyone that the solution is to go back to living in caves (quite literally).

But it's not a complete misconception... Scientists don't quite say it, but it's clearly implied, because seriously reduced consumption and activity is currently the only way to make as big of a dent in CO2 production as they advocate.

There are major things like cement production, which alone emits about 6% of total man-made greenhouse gases, for which there seems to be absolutely no possible option to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions, other than simply stopping cement production. With cement being one of the most important construction materials, this directly translates into stopping most large building construction, and a severe economic crash.

Re:Just as sure

[TapeCutter]

Since when is it economic alarmism when someone wants to shutdown the economy?

So who is this someone? - Other than the "tear it all down and start again" types who turn up at tea party rallies and OWS sit-ins, I don't know of anyone who wants to "shutdown the economy"? If you are so certain about your basic assumption, surely you can give us a name and point to their published economic analysis? In fact if you are certain your claim is not alarmisim I would expect you would would also be able to point to an overwhelming consensus among working economists. AFAIK published economic modelling generally predicts a worst case senario of a 0-10% drop in global GDP over a 50yr period. To put that into perspective global GDP has more than doubled since 1995.

A real skeptic questions their own assumptions which is how (over a 30yr period) I became convinced that burning all known FF deposits would be a catastrophic course of action, as a grandfather of three toddlers I am seriously fucked off that burning every last bit of coal, gas, and oil we can find is exactly what we are planning to do for no other reason than preserving the bussiness model of some very rich and powerfull luddites

OTOH: I'm probably talking to a young "free market" ideologue who didn't hear the FF industry "cry wolf" when Nixon introduced the clean air act, or Reagan introduced cap and trade on sulphur emissions, or whoever it was that took the lead out of petrol. So I don't really expect my little rant will persuade you to question yourself. Besides being wrong would imply you have been recruited as a "useful idiot" by someone you already trust, and nobody likes to admit they have been fooled by what others see as obvious propoganda.

Re:Just as sure

[dbIII]

Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation?

Because you've got to make your strawman look really ugly before people will want to set fire to it.

Same thing for nucear waste ... sink it.

[fygment]

It will be sequestered for centuries ... a nuclear sink.

Out of curiousity, after centuries, what happens?

Re:What does the fossil record have to say on the

[Guppy]

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.

Re:Just as sure

[tbannist]

Actually, I've found it's the people doing the polluting who claim that polluting less would mean everyone would have to go live in caves, I can't say I've ever heard a serious environmentalist argue we should do so*.

* Excepting the one group that advocates building homes in caves, but to be faire, the caves they want people to live in are better than the houses that most people live in now.

There are major things like cement production, which alone emits about 6% of total man-made greenhouse gases, for which there seems to be absolutely no possible option to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions, other than simply stopping cement production. With cement being one of the most important construction materials, this directly translates into stopping most large building construction, and a severe economic crash.

The goal is to reduce overall emissions to a sustainable level, they don't need to be cut to 0. Imagine for a moment that we were rational creatures, we could use taxes levied on carbon emissions to fund carbon sequestration, to achieve a net-0 emissions rate. We also don't need to cut every industry identically. For instance, if the will existed, we could switch the world to mostly electric vehicles in a generation. That would greatly cut transportation emissions while potentially increasing power generation emissions, while still reducing overall emissions.

There are alternate methods of concrete production that produce lower emissions, they aren't used because they are more expensive than the cheapest methods and CO2 emissions cost the company nothing. That's one reason why taxing emissions makes economic and environmental sense. If CO2 emissions have a cost, it makes the processes that emit less CO2 comparatively more cost-efficient (and it spurs more research into making those processes more cost-effective).

Re:You do not know what you are doing....

[Rei]

Not true. The world was on a cooling trend until the industrial revolution.

And the Earth has been far hotter on average than it is today

So? Who cares what the temperature was like at some arbitrary point in the distant past? Species change, ecosystems change. What matters is the *rate change*, because adaptation doesn't occur instantaneously. It's the rate change that's concerning. The last time Earth saw this sort of rate-change was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The world was left as uch a different place that we call it a different era (the Eocene).

"it was us that scorched the sky"

[stigmerger]

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."

Re:Just as sure

[Penguinisto]

What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?

I know of at least one: Starvation.

Without technology (currently-petroleum-based) to run the tractors and fertilize the soil, the 1.6-to-2 acres requirement per person becomes a minimum of ~20 acres per person.

The whole "organic" thing is cool and all, but there's a reason that shit's expensive: spoilage, crop losses before harvest (no pesticides/herbicides), lower yields, greater labor intensity, etc...

So unless someone can cough up sufficiently cheap electric/hybrid tractors and a fertilizer that's just as good as Anhydrous Ammonia, stopping that nasty evil petro-based ag industry is going to starve a whole lot of people off.

Seems legit.

[h4z3]

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).