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)."
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...
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
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.
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?
Yes, let's try to create massive worldwide algae blooms, cause the one's were getting already have been fantastic.
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
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.
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)
"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?
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
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.
I'm pretty sure dumping massive quantities of iron into the ocean and causing algal blooms is not "insurance", it is pollution.
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?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
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?
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.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
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.
No sig today...
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Because you've got to make your strawman look really ugly before people will want to set fire to it.
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."