Pipes hung in the sea could help planet to 'heal itself'

zod

seems a bit far fetched!

clicky

prospect

zod wrote:

seems a bit far fetched!

clicky

And what will be the long term effect of removing massive amounts of nutrient rich water from the deep ocean? Surely it will have an effect in itself.

cavedave

Move nutrients == move c02

The point seems to be if you lift up the nutrients for the plankton you also lift up c02 which might just fix back into the atmosphere.

zod

cavedave wrote:

Move nutrients == move c02

The point seems to be if you lift up the nutrients for the plankton you also lift up c02 which might just fix back into the atmosphere.

The Co2 is taken from the atmosphere (which is what you want .. not more of it )

"In their letter, the two scientists focus on the fact that the surface layer of the ocean, where algae and other plankton live, is increasingly starved of the nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates which help them grow. The nutrients exist in colder water lower down but as the surface water warms, it is allowing less mixing with the nutrient-rich layers beneath.
They suggest using free-floating or tethered vertical pipes, perhaps 100 to 200 metres long, 10 metres in diameter and with a one-way flap valve at the lower end for pumping by wave movement, to increase the mixing. That would fertilise algae and encourage them to bloom, taking up much more CO2, which is eventually locked up in the tiny shells of plankton when they die and fall to the ocean bottom."

prospect

The idea is moving nutrients up from the bottom to feed the CO2 consuming organisims near the top. Keep those guys happy and multiplying will reduce the overall volume of CO2.

My point is, there must be a knock on effect of suddenly drawing oll these nutrients up from the bottom, they are there for a reason. Don't forget, as these guys say themselves the earth is a organism, and they are going to be upsetting the balance a bit with this plan.

zod

prospect wrote:

The idea is moving nutrients up from the bottom to feed the CO2 consuming organisims near the top. Keep those guys happy and multiplying will reduce the overall volume of CO2.

My point is, there must be a knock on effect of suddenly drawing oll these nutrients up from the bottom, they are there for a reason. Don't forget, as these guys say themselves the earth is a organism, and they are going to be upsetting the balance a bit with this plan.

I think that due to our warming - the warm layer on top of the sea has gotten thicker thereby lessening the natural mixing, this would restore the natural mixing. Although it would make the seas more acidic which is detrimental to the very organisms encouraged by the mixing ( along with all other sea life i'd imagine )

cavedave

The Co2 is taken from the atmosphere (which is what you want .. not more of it )

So you do not believe the evidence that the opposite would happen? http://nouseforadave.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/bunk-gaia-originator-suggests-emergency-treatment-for-the-pathology-of-global-warming/

bonkey

I must say, whatever about the idea itself, this whole notion of "help planet to heal itself" I find distasteful.

The planet is in no danger.
Life on the planet is in no danger - certainly not in comparison to, say, the K-T Extinction event or other such notables.
Man as a species almost certainly isn't in danger. It certainly won't disappear as a result of Global Warming.

What is potentially in danger, is modern so-called civilisation, particularly the various ways of life of the developed nations.

So when I see headlines like the one the OP borrowed, I generally find it somewhat dishonest.

Then again, if we were to suggest "pipes hung in the sea could help prolong the lifestyle we believe caused this problem", no-one would really listen, would they.

Mellor

zod wrote:

I think that due to our warming - the warm layer on top of the sea has gotten thicker thereby lessening the natural mixing, this would restore the natural mixing. Although it would make the seas more acidic which is detrimental to the very organisms encouraged by the mixing ( along with all other sea life i'd imagine )

The warmer water would be thinner not thicker. Warm water is also less dense

sarahirl

bonkey - if you're looking for an argument, go to a pub, it's generally a basic assumption that no one here is going to agree with your 'the planet is in no danger'

anyway, enough time wasted on that. one of the scientists i believe is the man who coined the gaia theory. he is an old hand at suggesting radical ideas and in the face of any better suggestions i think this is probably a runner (with more research of course). the world is screwed, human nature is not going to change unless we use up all oil, coal, etc and cows, pigs and other agricultural livestock suddenly all drop dead and those industries are collapsed (which i hope doesn't happen cos i like cows and all other animals). but basically my point is that there is nothing short of a natural/manmade disaster that is going to avert the train wreck we are speeding towards so we better use all of the human ingenuity we keep harping on about and figure something out quick!

BendiBus

sarahirl wrote:

bonkey - if you're looking for an argument, go to a pub, it's generally a basic assumption that no one here is going to agree with your 'the planet is in no danger'

But the planet isn't in any danger. That's the thing about gaia theory. The planet will sort itself out. It's only human arrogance that equates the end of our civilisation with the end of the planet. Even in a doomsday scenario, life on earth will go on. It will just go on without us. It may be a hotter place. Other species might also die out. But the earth will continue on.

bonkey has a very valid point. This proposed solution is an attempt to clean up our mess on an ongoing basis so that we can continue to pollute. A better, or at least parallel, solution may be to stop making such a mess in the first place.

fits

BendiBus wrote:

But the planet isn't in any danger. That's the thing about gaia theory.

I find it weird personally that Lovelock is endorsing an idea like this. Its kind of contradictory to the whole Gaia theory, in my mind anyway. Very surprised at him.
I'd agree with Bonkey that the planet isnt in danger, but our hugely over-inflated human population certainly is, and I'm very worried about global food supply in the coming years.

bonkey - if you're looking for an argument, go to a pub, it's generally a basic assumption that no one here is going to agree with your 'the planet is in no danger'

Bonkey is probably the most well-informed and articulate poster on boards.ie on the subject of climate change. Bonkey's posts are always a pleasure to read, and I think you've misinterpreted him/her here. Look in the weather forum for climate change threads and you'll see what I'm talking about.