James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
We have to nip this idea in the bud: Shell is reviving the notion of liming the oceans. Why?
...because adding lime to seawater creates an increase in alkalinity, which in turn improves the water's ability to scrub the air clean of carbon.Right. We know everything we need to know about ocean ecosystems, so there shouldn't be any problem with dumping millions of tonnes of limestone into them.
The project's coordinator, Gilles Bertherin, cites potentially massive ecological benefits from adding limestone to the waters. "Adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment," according to Bertherin.It's hard to believe anyone would say such a thing with a straight face.
When it comes to illustrating just how much we don't know about the planet's carbon cycle, all you need do is look at the last week's worth of news and science reportage.
Item 1: A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds the tropical Atlantic is sucking up much more carbon that we thought. Some texts will have to be rewritten there.
Item 2: A study just published in Geophysical Review Letters (doi:10.1029/2008GL033573, 2008 ) finds that the stratosphere and troposphere are interacting in hitherto unpredicted ways.
Item 3: Another GRL study reports casts a little light on the question "How are human-made aerosols changing clouds?" but leaves us with many more.
And on and on. When the journals stop running papers that highlight ocean-atmosphere mysteries, then and only then will be time to start thinking about geo and marine engineering schemes. But for now, let's focus on how to stop burning fossil fuels, instead of finding ways to tinker with the planet that might allow Shell and other petroleum giants to stay in business.
Comments
My impression is that the goal of pushing geoengineering schemes is not so much to actually get them implemented, but to convince people that they don't need to cut CO2 emissions.
Posted by: silence | July 23, 2008 3:40 PM
On the slightly less dim side, an admission of guilt is implicit.
Thanks for the blog. Keep it up!
Posted by: Islands First | July 23, 2008 4:20 PM
Kalkasser, German for Limewater, is a popular name among reef aquarium enthusiasts. Adding Calcium Hydroxide to the system benefits coral growth by increasing overall calcium levels, the pH and buffering capacity (alkalinity)of seawater. So there is precedent for this little experiment.
But that's just it. What Shell is proposing doesn't sound like some small experiment in a closed system. I only hope they proceed cautiously.
Posted by: gillt | July 23, 2008 4:44 PM
I tend to agree. It sounds like introducing nutria to Louisiana to help the fur industry. A few escaped. Now the nutria are undermining the levees down there, and have succeeded in becoming the greatest pest in the state (except for Gov.Bobby Jindal).
On another topic, I would love to see an article called "The ABCs of Climate Change." It could be a summary of the reasons climate change is a real change. I know I would love to be able to discuss this with my brother (BS in EE) who is convinced it's leftist propaganda designed to make tons of money for Al Gore, et al.
Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2008 12:16 AM
You put the lime in the Coconut, not the ocean.
Posted by: LaDaida | July 24, 2008 2:19 AM
Big Oil will support any damned plan, no matter how harebrained, in order to avoid answering tough questions about their business, its impact on Earth, and its future.
Posted by: Chaos Motor | July 24, 2008 3:50 AM
I remember hearing about an experiment where they dumped plankton grown in labratories into the ocean and that had a major increase in the amount of CO2 processed into O2.
Unfortunately, the carbon emission theory has been debunked long ago by the person who originally created the theory. CO2 has a cooling effect anyway, how come we're so blind to elementary science?
Not to say that the issue is elementarily basic, however we need to start using our brains in order to understand the supposed threats we're scared with.
Posted by: Vitali | July 24, 2008 4:24 AM
Mike,
I think your suggestion should be expanded into a "ClimateWiki" much like "Evowiki". Is it possible to develop such a thing in a politically neutral way?
***
Let's evaluate the POV of the posts above:
silence: Political. Speaks to the motivations of the oil companies.
Islands First: Same
gillt: Not political. Points out science and risk mangment issues.
Mike: 1st paragraph - Not political. Points out science and risk mangment issues (except for comment about the Gov. )
2nd paragrpah - Political! Your motivation for the summary to convince your bro that his political views are incorrect. However, you might take the approach of asking your bro what scientific evidence would convince him, and making an agreement to research the science together.
LaDaida: Party on, dude!
Chaos Motor: Political. Speaks to the motivations of the oil companies.
Vitali: 1st paragraph - Not political.
2nd & 3rd paras - Political. Speakes to the motivation of the other posters, that they are ignoring the scientific truth.
And of course, our host: Science through most of his post, but politics at the end.
My hypothesis - no, less than a hypothesis - my conjecture is that politics is the primary motivator as to what the laity decides is ture or untrue about AGW.
Why does it matter if my conjecture proves to be true? Because most people are rationally self-interested, and when given reasonable, objective arguments that answer the question of "WIIFM?" will make the best choices for themselves.
Posted by: Spike | July 25, 2008 1:02 PM
LaDaida:
Yes, you call me in the morning
If you call me in the morning I'll tell you what to do
Posted by: Harry | July 29, 2008 8:44 PM