Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[Woodbutcher]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

Of course the carbonate formation releases CO2 and increases the warming effect. The warming will decrease the iron brought in and decrease the upwelling of silicates from the open ocean. Since these minerals are required for fish food production, there is a decrease in fish stocks and your theory is kaput.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 06_3.shtml
Try to get your chemistry straight. There is a release of CO2 with algal blooms, not a net loss. Sheesh!

[Warren Dew]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

Example of government bureaucratic ineptitude:

In the mid 90's, somehow Lake Trout were introduced to Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park. These large (sometimes huge) trout are carnivorous and highly aggressive and the are decimating the native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout populations and may well render the species extinct. The Park Service spends up to 7 million dollars per year on a gill-netting program to catch and kill Lake Trout in the lake, setting the nets deep, where the Lake Trout hang out, and allowing the Cutthroat Trout to swim over the top of the nets. Fishing for Lake Trout is encouraged, and there is no limit, and you are REQUIRED by law to kill all Lake Trout caught but not kept.

In a typical year, they catch and kill more than 150,000 Lake Trout. They aren't making a dent in the population and it continues to grow. Biologists estimate that there may be six million trout in the lake.

But, what do they DO with all that lovely, tasty Lake Trout they catch in their nets?

They puncture the air bladder with a knife and dump the fish back into the lake.

Fucking idiots.

They could build a fish processing plant and freeze, pack and ship all those trout to restaurants across the nation. They could sell them locally and around the world. They could give them free to the poor. They could make fish meal and feed dogs and hogs. They could PAY FOR THE ERADICATION PROGRAM by selling the fish.

But no, because it's a National Park, those dumb motherfuckers just waste all that perfectly good, perfectly healthy food.

They're the government, they don't have to make a profit.

[mistermack]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

Of course the carbonate formation releases CO2 and increases the warming effect. The warming will decrease the iron brought in and decrease the upwelling of silicates from the open ocean. Since these minerals are required for fish food production, there is a decrease in fish stocks and your theory is kaput.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 06_3.shtml
Try to get your chemistry straight. There is a release of CO2 with algal blooms, not a net loss. Sheesh!

Sheesh indeed. Why don't you bother to read what you are replying to, and even read your own linked articles?

My suggestion was to artificially increase the upwelling of nutrients by pumping.
The article you yourself linked, was making the point that upwelling is the essential mechanism for long-term removal of carbon from the system.

Is it that you don't read what you are commenting on, or just that you can't understand it?

[Tyrannical]

I'm not so sure that artificial upwelling would be a good idea because you would want to seed over deep ocean. That's usually the most mineral deprived area, and the hardest to drag material from the bottom from since it is so deep. I suggest active seeding of the nutrients.
If tiny plastic particles floating in the ocean is one of the latest environmental scares, it should be easy to make tiny floating particles containing the few trace elements needed for plant growth. You could probably even use a biodegradable corn based plastic giving the fertilizer a limited time to work before breaking down and the heavier elements like iron just sink. Over deep enough water, the algae and other life will sink and remove themselves from the carbon cycle when they die.

Yes, some will be eaten by fish and fish / whale populations may increase.
May cause loss of oxygen in water, but we might also have ways to add oxygen back into the water

[mistermack]

I'm not so sure that artificial upwelling would be a good idea because you would want to seed over deep ocean. That's usually the most mineral deprived area, and the hardest to drag material from the bottom from since it is so deep. I suggest active seeding of the nutrients.
If tiny plastic particles floating in the ocean is one of the latest environmental scares, it should be easy to make tiny floating particles containing the few trace elements needed for plant growth. You could probably even use a biodegradable corn based plastic giving the fertilizer a limited time to work before breaking down and the heavier elements like iron just sink. Over deep enough water, the algae and other life will sink and remove themselves from the carbon cycle when they die.

Yes, some will be eaten by fish and fish / whale populations may increase.
May cause loss of oxygen in water, but we might also have ways to add oxygen back into the water

It's not as difficult to achieve arificial upwelling as you suggest.
Firstly, even though the oceans are deep, you are not actually "lifting" the water. Water is effectively weightless in water.
The only work done is overcoming the friction in the pipes, and for very large bore pipes, this is pretty low.

There have been designs that use the wave motion on the ship to power the pump, making it energy neutral in reasonable wave situations.

Also, because you have ocean currents, you don't necessarily need to suck up water from the deepest depths. You park the ship strategically in shallower places where the surface currents take the nutrients over the most depleted areas, letting nature do the work for you.

This is what happens naturally, when deep currents upwell when they meet the continental shelf. The current moves it on, and some ends up over the deeper ocean.

Man can pick and choose the very best place to position a pumping ship.

[macdoc]

Will wonders never cease - acknowledgement of the problem is ONE of the twelve steps

And actually discussing engineering solution no less .....sounds a bit like parroting Exxon head but we'll take the small steps - better than the dunderheaded denying.

Cloud ships and/or microbubble actually are a less expensive solution than seeding without the potential knock-on effects.

At this point we have to cope, mitigate the extent and carefully look at climate engineering which could lead to serious consequences for some nations by unexpected effects on local climates.

[Seth]

Will wonders never cease - acknowledgement of the problem is ONE of the twelve steps

And actually discussing engineering solution no less .....sounds a bit like parroting Exxon head but we'll take the small steps - better than the dunderheaded denying.

Cloud ships and/or microbubble actually are a less expensive solution than seeding without the potential knock-on effects.

At this point we have to cope, mitigate the extent and carefully look at climate engineering which could lead to serious consequences for some nations by unexpected effects on local climates.

I say we let Ma Nature resolve it by increasing planetary albedo due to increased moisture and cloud cover in the atmosphere.

As for "unexpected effects on local climates" I note that Northern Africa was a verdant and productive area within the span of human history, but now it's not. And yet humans abide.

Adapt or die.

[Jason]

I for one can't wait for post-apocalyptia.

[mistermack]

Will wonders never cease - acknowledgement of the problem is ONE of the twelve steps

And actually discussing engineering solution no less .....sounds a bit like parroting Exxon head but we'll take the small steps - better than the dunderheaded denying.

Cloud ships and/or microbubble actually are a less expensive solution than seeding without the potential knock-on effects.

At this point we have to cope, mitigate the extent and carefully look at climate engineering which could lead to serious consequences for some nations by unexpected effects on local climates.

In fact, I don't acknowledge anything of the sort. But I think that artificial upwelling would be a great idea, because it would produce vast quantities of food fish.
This would take the pressure off heavily over-fished areas, because it would knock the price of fish down, and make over-fishing uneconomic.
More fish on the world market would also affect the price of meats, reducing the incentive to destroy rain forests for beef etc.

If a bit of carbon was fixed in the process, I don't see any harm coming from it, but it's just a side issue to me.
The carbon fixing might make it attractive to governments though. Especially if money put into it could be used as offsets for CO2 production.

[Woodbutcher]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

Of course the carbonate formation releases CO2 and increases the warming effect. The warming will decrease the iron brought in and decrease the upwelling of silicates from the open ocean. Since these minerals are required for fish food production, there is a decrease in fish stocks and your theory is kaput.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 06_3.shtml
Try to get your chemistry straight. There is a release of CO2 with algal blooms, not a net loss. Sheesh!

Sheesh indeed. Why don't you bother to read what you are replying to, and even read your own linked articles?

My suggestion was to artificially increase the upwelling of nutrients by pumping.
The article you yourself linked, was making the point that upwelling is the essential mechanism for long-term removal of carbon from the system.

Is it that you don't read what you are commenting on, or just that you can't understand it?

You bring cold water from low productive area ie. deeps which warms up and releases CO2 acidifying the water. That lowers the carbonate content and thus the ability of organisms to make shells. What don't you understand?

[macdoc]

Don't think that's quite right as the C02 is already dissolved in the cold water so the PH is not going to change. The warming of the cold water will however release C02 as a gas at some point increasing the atmospheric load a slightly decreasing the acidity of the ocean. I suspect it would be on a whole a benefit if the plankton bloom was substantial but it's an awfully complex mechanism.

[Blind groper]

Actually, for a change, I quite agree with mistermack's suggestion. We already know that dust settling on the ocean is a valuable source of iron, which stimulates phytoplankton growth. One geoengineering proposal that has been taken to small scale trials is to spread iron into the ocean, to stimulate phytoplankton. This works. We do not know how much, if any CO2 is sequestered in this way, because it depends on how much of the organic material produced by the extra phytoplankton will make its way into the deep ocean to be stored long term as part of the deep sediment.

Pumping up deep ocean sediment to act as fertiliser for phytoplankton growth is a real possibility, and has side benefits also.

[macdoc]

There are better ways. Of course C02 is sequestered this way......hydrocarbons n'all ie FOSSIL fuels. Plankton would have a major role in that.

The more practical approach would be to use the gradient between the cold water and surface water to produce carbon neutral power.
http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html

[Warren Dew]

The more practical approach would be to use the gradient between the cold water and surface water to produce carbon neutral power.
http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html

Because the solution to messing with mother nature in one way is always messing with her in another way, eh?

[Blind groper]

Because the solution to messing with mother nature in one way is always messing with her in another way, eh?

Got news for you, Warren.

The whole history of humankind is messing with mother nature more and more. And as we do, we live longer, live healthier, destroy entire diseases, have more material wealth, have more mobility, better homes etc. etc.

This trend ain't gonna change any time soon.