Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Carnegie Researchers Say Geotech Can't Cure Ocean Acidification

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-it-with-a-ton-of-salt dept.

Earth 248

CarnegieScience writes "Plans to stop global warming by 'geoengineering' the planet by putting aerosols in the atmosphere to block sunlight are controversial, to say the least. Scientists are now pointing out that even if it keeps the planet cool, it will do almost nothing to stop another major problem — ocean acidification. The ocean will keep on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (making carbonic acid) and the water's pH will get too low for corals and other marine life to secrete skeletons. So this is another strike against a quick fix of our climate problems."

cancel ×

248 comments

What Climate Problem? (4, Funny)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376613)

I'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem.

Al Gore's manbearpig got another one. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376785)

Al gore and his manbearpig got to you too huh?

Seriously, though, anyone with half a brain knows global warming is complete and utter bullshit. How many "snowstorm in july" stories will it take to convince you morons?

Re:What Climate Problem? (0, Troll)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376835)

And what about Methane?

As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2. They tell us to not fart anymore.

And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth. I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth.

Now, take into account how many of these methane makers roamed the earth in their day and one wonders - if methane is the bigger problem - how life ever survived at all.

Re:What Climate Problem? (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377009)

A) Methane is fairly reactive, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere. CO2 is compartively stable.

B) The Greenhouse Effect isn't bad in itself. Without it, the Earth would be too cold, like Mars. Having too much of it, like Venus, is the bad thing.

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377263)

You, sir, are an idiot. The number of cattle in the world is approximated somewhere around 2 billion. That's a two followed by nine zeroes. It would have to be quite the herd of just about anything to match the consumption rate of our cattle. And since the methane production is proportional to food consumption, the total output of all herbivorous dinosaurs could not have been much more than the total output of herbivorous creatures now since there's only so much food available (and back then, of course there weren't people artificially increasing the number of herbivores and growing food for them).

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377291)

Who was the limpdick that modded parent troll - I thought it was a good question.

Re:What Climate Problem? (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377497)

As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2

You understand wrong. It is a large problem, but CO2 is larger by over threefold.

They tell us to not fart anymore.

Who, your roomate? Certainly not the scientific community. Most animal-based methane emissions come from ruminants. And not from "farting", but "belching" (the initial breakdown occurs in the rumen, and the bolus moves back and forth between the mouth and the rumen). "Farting" isn't even the second leading cause of ruminant methane emissions -- that goes to manure decomposition.

Livestock-sourced methane is only one significant anthropogenic component. Others include rice agriculture, peatland/wetlands development, the oil and gas industry, landfills, and biomass burning. Other significant human-sourced methane emissions, including ruminant raising, are nearly double those of natural emissions. Ruminants may be the largest single anthropogenic component, but they're less than a sixth of total human-sourced methane emissions.

And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth. I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth.

Little is known that could lead one to draw any conclusions about the large sauropods in terms of methane emissions. They weren't ruminants, although they did eat large quantities of plant matter. We don't know their herd size, and haven't even conclusively shown that herding behavior was significant for them. And more importantly, we don't know their total worldwide population. However, as large herbivores, one thing can be certain: they didn't have a particularly high global population density. It just wouldn't support them.

There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide. This is just cattle -- not counting other ruminants. These average about 1.5 tons at adulthood. An adult apatosaurus is estimated to weigh about 30 tons. If we assume a weight equivalence, that's the equivalent of 50 billion apatosaurus. It is extremely unlikely that there were that many apatosaurus -- or even total sauropods. We support this much cattle mass cattle via modern intensive agriculture and research.

Furthermore, your notion is based on a premise -- that either the atmosphere is static or it's always changing harmlessly. But that's not the reality. The atmosphere has changed dramatically over history. Generally these changes are very slow; that's not a problem. It's when changes are rapid that there are problems. The last atmospheric change similar to what we're forcing nowadays was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). The causes are still unknown, but one thing is known: over the course of hundreds or thousands of years (the blink of an eye by geologic standards), there was a CO2 and heat spike. This triggered a methane spike, which amplified the heat spike. The total warming input was approximately what we'll have locked in to if we continue the "business as usual" scenario through 2100. The results were dramatic and catastrophic. Entire ocean currents shifted. The climates of regions across the planet dramatically altered. Forests became plains became deserts became forests. The ocean became acidic, and most of the world's corals and carbonate-shelled plankton died, causing a massive upheaval in the oceanic food chains. The planet was left such a changed place that we give it a different name -- the Eocene.

Now, my question to you is this: do you really want to create the Anthropocene?

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376855)

This might be a dumb question, but where does all the extra energy required to raise the earth's temperature come from? Out of the back of my car? Why can't my car use it?

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376953)

Yes, it is a dumb question. for answers this and other dumb questions see google.com and wikipedia.com

Re:What Climate Problem? (2, Informative)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376961)

According to my layman's understanding of climate change theory, the energy comes from the sun. What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere. Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace, thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.

For more information: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming [lmgtfy.com]

Re:What Climate Problem? (1, Troll)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376859)

Weird, I'm using my reliance on actual [prisonplanet.com] figures [telegraph.co.uk] to support my conclusion that it isn't. I understand, however, that not being able to blame society for destroying the planet in some way doesn't allow lefties to feel enlightened and judgmental or convince the public to accept increased government control over their lives.

Re:What Climate Problem? (3, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377823)

Wow. Your source is Bob Carter, one of about two dozen (out of the world's several thousand professional climatologists) who is a public skeptic. And actually, he's not really a climatologist; he's a paleonolotist -- but don't let that stop you.

FYI: 1998 was one of the strongest El Nino events in modern history. El Nino raises the atmosphere's temperature by slowing the upwelling of deep, cold water in the eastern pacific. La Nina cools it by just the opposite. It doesn't change the long-term picture, of course; the rate at which water cycles in the ocean has no bearing on how much total heat input there is into the system; ocean waters aren't magically decoupled from the rest of our atmosphere. It's just a source of white noise on top of the blatantly obvious signal [metoffice.gov.uk] .

But don't let that stop you deniers from picking it as your starting point.

And, also FYI: only one of the three major global climate databases lists 1998 as the hottest. The other two list 2005 (they were close). But again, don't let that stop you.

Re:What Climate Problem? (2, Funny)

blitziod (591194) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376869)

I only have one thing to say----------

Giant ROLAIDS!

Re:What Climate Problem? (1)

Cedric Tsui (890887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377079)

That is exactly what the standard solution to water acidification is.
They dump lime into whatever body of water they want to cure of acid rain problems.

The ocean is just a tad bigger though.

Re:What Climate Problem? (0, Offtopic)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377099)

God could change the CO2 atmospheric concentration with one fart...

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377131)

The one killing coral reefs and making poor polar bears homeless. Also the increase in extreme weather.
Maybe you can't see it in your home wearing blinders, but the effects are measurable.

Re:What Climate Problem? (2, Funny)

revjtanton (1179893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377473)

I've been in a coma for 12 years and i didn't even know there was a climate! Couldn't we just kill the climate and then it wouldnt be a problem?

Re:What Climate Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377711)

I'm more worried that the magnetic pole are going to shift shortly.

And the Core of the earth is cooling.

Volcanoes (2, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376615)

Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?

What effect does all that ash have on ocean acidity?

Is volcanic ash acidic or basic?

Re:Volcanoes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376649)

Acidic. Volcanic ash is very high in sulfur and results in quite a bit of sulfuric acid.

Re:Volcanoes (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376795)

Prior to the industrial revolution, volcanoes were the main source of acid rain.

Re:Volcanoes (2, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376889)

Prior to the agricultural revolution asteriods were the leading cause of mass extinction.

Humans! The leader in every field of industry!

Re:Volcanoes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377137)

Prior to your mom I was doing your grandma.

Re:Volcanoes (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376679)

Good thing you thought of that - you should probably send them an email right away! You discovered the missing forcing that will keep our planet cool and our oceans pH balanced! Turns out that in all this freaking out about climate change, nobody who was even somewhat competent got involved at all.

Re:Volcanoes (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377019)

Thank you for so hilariously summing up the deniers in one simple post. ;)

Re:Volcanoes (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376697)

Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?

Yes. And it's not the ash that primarily reflects the sunlight; it's the SOx. And the cooling is only temporary. And volcanoes also emit CO2. But a small fraction as much as humans release.

And yes, volcanic ash is acidic.

Re:Volcanoes (0, Troll)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376851)

...So volcanos are terrorists? Or is the Earth trying to Carradine itself?

Re:Volcanoes (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376873)

The amount of material eject by volcanoes is minuscule compared to what we put in the air, year after year.

Re:Volcanoes (1)

ElektronSpinRezonans (1397787) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377051)

Actually it's not. In 1850s (exact year evades me) a volcanic eruption caused a prolonged winter that caused Europe and North America to see snow in summer. No crops grew that year, there was famine... But again, this is temporary. What we are putting into the atmosphere causes long term damage.

Re:Volcanoes (2, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377179)

The average quantity of material ejected by volcanoes is small compared to human production, particularly when talking about greenhouse gases, which are long-term agents. Ash is a short-term agent, and volcanoes are well-known to produce their materials in short bursts. They can certainly cause dramatic short-term problems. In terms of greenhouse gas production, though, they are not a large force.

Re:Volcanoes (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377063)

In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary. In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release. They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth [wikipedia.org]

Re:Volcanoes (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377363)

It's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize. There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2. The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization. Deal with it. In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it's the most frightening. Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food. The extreme end of that scale is called night. Which is easier in the end, behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing? If we'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem. I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal, a trillion dollars! And that's just an estimate since it's also unproven technology. Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all?

Idea (3, Insightful)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376625)

Why don't they use something to up the alkalinity of the ocean, like, crushed coral? Oh, wait...

Re:Idea (4, Funny)

TnkMkr (666446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376801)

Wait... I have a better idea, lets engineer some sort of biological creature that will live off collecting the
carbon from our atmosphere and sequesting it into some sort of solid state. We should engineer it to be solar powered and
should be deployable over the entire surface of the earth.

Don't worry, I'm sure technology will save us by developing this totaly new and radical solution.

Re:Idea (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377083)

It's only a matter of time before my submarine patent on trees makes me a rich man.

Re:Idea (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377569)

It would be funnier if you had a patent on submarine trees.

if i remember well from high school chemistry (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376643)

the ocean is a sort of buffer solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_solution [wikipedia.org]

what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ [nasa.gov]

which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376677)

the ocean is a sort of buffer solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_solution [wikipedia.org]

what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2

http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ [nasa.gov]

which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria

You're probably right. I'm sure what you remember from high school is a good reason to dismiss the Carnegie Melon research team's results.

you must be new here (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376757)

random trolls on slashdot always trump learned academics ;-)

Re:you must be new here (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377087)

Hey Pot, have you met Kettle?

I think you guys are going to get along.

Re:you must be new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377169)

well a clever little troll. haha. love me. i'm lonely.

your observation: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377533)

1. i am a troll

logical conclusions:

2. i am trolling when i say trolls trump academics on slashdot
3. therefore, the actual truth must be that academics trump trolls on slashdot
4. therefore, i must be offering the opinion of a learned academic when i say trolls trump academics
5. therefore, i must be a learned academic, and you must be a troll
6. therefore... i really should get back to work now

Do not disturb the ghosts of the Mellon brothers (1)

dolphino (166844) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377103)

When you say Carnegie Melon you make me think of an industrialist sitting down to eat a cantaloupe.

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377155)

I'm sure what you remember from high school is a good reason to dismiss the Carnegie Melon research team's results.

I think the important thing to ask is, "Who paid for the study?"

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377201)

No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (0)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377817)

No, that's an Ad Hominem. The important thing to ask is, "Is the research scientifically sound?"

Is water from a poisoned well drinkable? Whenever a study has money involved, the first thing the scientists will buy is a Jump to Conclusions Mat. They've shown that increased temperatures causes a release of CO2, but they have NOT shown that CO2 increases temperatures, rather they can map almost direct correlations between CO2 levels and temperature levels. What does this data really tell you? If you're not brainwashed, working for the "green" industry, or running for office?

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377303)

Please.
CMU does not received grant money for this type of research if there is not a problem
There aren't any numbers in TFA.
CO2 is 370 ppm now. Pretty much an all time low over the last 500 million years.
Is CMU saying the more recent increase of 20-30 ppm over the average will acidify the oceans?
You think that small change could affect anything?
Whatever, it is all worth bankrupting our economy, right? Taxing air.
Good one.

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376767)

Clearly you don't remember well from high school chemistry. Le Chatelier's principle only reduces the effect of a perturbation to an equilibrium, it does not remove it. Buffering will only slow down acidification, not stop it.

"Buffering will only slow down acidification, (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376849)

not stop it"

which i already knew and doesn't refute anything i said

durrrr

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376937)

what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2

Wow! Amazing that all of those egghead boffins living in their ivory towers with their hoity-toity "science" missed that one! Thank you so much for pointing it out!

Except for the fact that most ocean life is not primarily constrained by CO2, but nutrients, especially iron. Whoops.

I never ceased to be amazed at people who insist that something must be wrong with the science on a subject when they haven't done even the most rudimentary amount to educate themselves on what the science of the subject actually is. You could at least start by reading the relevant sections of the IPCC technical reports [ucar.edu] to see what actually has been studied and how. I guarantee you, it's way, way more than you ever expected.

There's a reason why people go to college for years to get a degree in these fields. This isn't high school baking-soda-and-vinegar-volcanoes here. It's an incredibly complex science that you need a solid background in. At least spend a week reading peer-reviewed papers on the subject before you put fingers to keyboard. You're coming across like if someone who had never used a computer started talking about how programmers should make every piece of software be run by voice commands in spoken English sentences like "Could you open up the letter to my grandmother and edit out the part where I told her about my chihuahua?", and have the software figure out what you want it to do. You're broadcasting ignorance on the topic like a beacon.

academic research is cliquish (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377077)

it often follows dire preconceptions and focuses on hysterical predictions in spite of obvious mitigating factors, most notably time scale, that dull real implications. if you sound the alarm bell, you get press and you get funding. if you say something like "more CO2 will increase the pH of the ocean, but at such a tiny amount over such a giant span of time, it doesn't make any sense to worry about it right now" then you won't make the slashdot front page. its "the emperor's new clothes" writ large. good science and good education is being done by climate researchers all over the globe... and also a pretty heavy dose of indoctrination and mythology making

i believe global warming is a real force and we need to do something about it. but i'm hard pressed to worry about corals disappearing in an acid ocean on any time scale that is supposed to mean something

if we are going to mitigate mankind's effects, we need to lose the hysteria

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377007)

Pardon me sir/madam, your facts are not welcome here. You must take your hysteria-free reasoning and go call a right-wing talk show or something.

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377115)

I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.

pH doesn't only change due to increased partial pressures of atmospheric CO2. Nutrient loading to suface waters can cause pH in bottom waters to drop as well.

Whether or not the overall average ocean pH is changing - we cannot say yet.
But there are some regions, the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example, where pH has had clear downward trends over the last 50 years or so.
This effect, in combination with dropping levels of dissolved O2 is displacing a growing number of biota. In this case, much (but not all) of these changes can be linked to changes in ocean currents. I'll have to read the papers over, but for now I seem to remember that fertilizer runoff in the St. Lawrence river is another significant contributing factor.

absolutely (2, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377223)

eutrophication seems to be a much more worrisome human-created force than rising CO2 levels, at least when it comes to the health of ocean ecosystems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication [wikipedia.org]

but since its been known about for awhile, you can't generate headlines and hysteria and funding with dire predictions. the effects are real and sobering with eutrophication, and deserve far more study and mitigation than the notion of rising CO2 levels in the oceans on the timescales involved, that's for sure

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377125)

the ocean is a sort of buffer solution

If there's one thing I've learned about buffers, it's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.

If you'll excuse me, the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing.

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377177)

And with a vague memory from high school you managed to disprove hundreds of scientists who spend all of their time studying the ocean as an ecosystem. Bravo.

In all seriousness, some of the media reports are over-hyped, but the concern of ocean acidification has been around for at least a decade and you'd think that someone would have raised your objection during that time. Are some proponents hysterical? Yes. Is their concern valid? Yes.

Regardless, are you willing to gamble that what we do now has no real impact on the planet? Furthermore, are you willing to gamble that if we don't begin to limit our footprint on the planet our descendants will do so?

For instance, the widespread pollution of rivers by industrial chemical plants occurred rampantly throughout the US. Then we realized, "Hey! We have an impact on the environment!" It was a hard-earned and costly lesson, which fortunately we managed to clean up, for the most part. It could be argued that we didn't know any better at the time. But I think we know better now, and to argue that we don't have an effect on our environment is negligent. To argue that there's nothing we can do and we'll let future generations sort it out (in the meantime the situation worsens and the population continues to increase, compounding the damage) is downright evil.

By the way, it's already been published that even if the earth doesn't warm from human CO2, ocean acidification will still be a problem [sciencedaily.com] .

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377187)

Hey, why not go back and re-examine your textbooks from high school chemistry? It seems you slept through the second part of that lecture.

Remember the lab where you had to determine the concentration of a buffer in solution that had pH-sensitive dyes in it?

And how you could pipette huge amounts of an acid (or base) into the solution without a notable change in pH? But then you add one more drop and *presto* your solution was now purple (or orange, etc)? And with each drop added after that, there was no buffering effect?

Buffer systems in the ocean are like that, though more complex.

why do you think (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377333)

that saying the obvious

1. is somehow educational
2. modifies my point in any way

Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377275)

Oh, the ocean is very well buffered. There's no shortage of carbonate.

But the timescale of the buffering is way, way, way slower than the timescale with which the extra CO2 is going into the ocean.

So, over a couple million years, no big deal.

But over 100-500 years? Kind of a big deal.

Dream on. Chemtrails cause heating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376653)

http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/warming.html

http://www.carnicom.com/gwmodel.htm

A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result. The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere. Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics. To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation. It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet. These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.

The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem. The results are not encouraging. The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere. The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases. It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue, namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.

The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature. On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown. The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site. As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter). It will be seen from the graph, for example, that even a 10% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere. As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards. It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld. It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accountable air quality standards have been sacrificed some time ago with the advent of the aerosol operations.

A second axis on the graph is that of time in years. A point of zero time would be one that assumes no such artificial and increased concentration of barium particulates exists in the lower atmosphere. The graph is marked in intervals of 5 year periods, from 0 to 50 years. The time period of 50 years has been chosen only to demonstrate that the effects of these particulates upon heating is of serious and immediate concern; within a matter of decades the effects are pronounced and have measurable global impact. The variables of aerosol concentration and time can now be considered mutually with the above graph and model. Presumably, humans have a vested interest in protecting the welfare of the planet beyond the immediate future of a few decades, and the problem would be only more pronounced if a century of time had been presented versus a fifty year period.

The third axis is that of temperature rise presented in degrees of centigrade. This is the variable that should solicit the greatest concern. To give an example of usage, a concentration of 5ugms / m3 over an interval as short as 20 years would lead to heating of the lower atmosphere on the order of 0.6 degrees centigrade. This corresponds to approximately 1 degree of Fahrenheit. This is found by finding the intersection of 5ugms along the concentration axis with 20 years of elapsed time on the second axis. This point is then projected horizontally upon the temperature increase axis, where it will be found to intersect at approximately 0.6 degrees. This is a very real and measurable result in terms of global impact. Nobel Prize Winner Paul Crutzen, in Atmosphere, Climate and Change6 writes in 1997 that even conservative estimates of global planetary surface temperature change are on the order of 1 to 3 degrees centigrade over a 50 year interval. This temperature change will produce sea level changes on the order of 10 to 30 centimeters. It is stated, furthermore, that "much of Earth's population would find it inordinately difficult to adjust to such changes".

Readers may now notice that the recent CBS special report referred to above demonstrates that the rate of heating in Antarctica is already approximately 1.5 times greater than the predictions from the 1997 era.

It can be seen from this model that the results of artificial aerosol introduction into the lower atmosphere can be of a magnitude quite on par with the extraordinary impacts projected by even modest and conservative global warming models upon humans in the near future. As the model presented herein is intended to be reasonably conservative, the impact of the aerosol operations could be much greater than these results show. It is advised that the citizens consider the viability and merit of this model in the examination of the global warming issue, and that they openly take aggressive action to halt the intentional aerosol operations.

This paper is late in its offering, as my availability for continued research at this level is limited. I am nevertheless hopeful that the information can be evaluated and assimilated into the many rationales and arguments that have developed over the last decade to cease the intentional alteration of the atmosphere of our planet.

Clifford E Carnicom
April 13, 2007

straw man argument (3, Interesting)

Captain Kirk (148843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376669)

Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices. This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear. Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor. But does it paint the garage? No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"

Surely we deserve a more rational debate? Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.

Re:straw man argument (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377217)

Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.

"A technical solution will always trump a political one." -Me

The reasoning behind this is that political solutions never really address the root core of the problem and usually does not change the fact that some people say they will go along with the compromise and then not do it after all.

With a technical solution, the involved parties are made moot because their participation is no longer needed for a solution.

Re:straw man argument (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377437)

Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices. This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear. Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor. But does it paint the garage? No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"

Surely we deserve a more rational debate? Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.

Poor analogy. Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, tour analogy is trying to join 2 separate things (clean floors, painted garages) while their issue is trying to join 2 symptoms of the same problem.

If I'm reading it correctly: they're trying to use Geo-Engineering to solve one of the main concerns of greenhouse emissions: global warming. However the increased greenhouse emissions are also causing the acidity issue in the ocean due to the carbon in the atmosphere getting absorbed.

A better analogy might be:

There's this dark spot of rot on the wall of our house. We are going to sand it down and apply a new anti-fungal paint to the wall so it looks nice and so the spot doesn't get visibly bigger.

However, this doesn't address the problem that the rot is starting to eat away at the wood underneath, and if left untreated we'll have both structural and health problems.

That's not to say sanding and painting is a bad idea, but by simply taking care of one symptom of the rot we aren't addressing other less obvious symptoms.

Stop driving or die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376673)

We're all hollering about global warming, but I don't see anyone, even the ones hollering about global warming, ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. People keep driving to work, getting on cloud-belching diesel busses, hopping onto their 80cc motor scooters, etc etc. It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time, but that shift isn't happening. It hasn't even begun to happen.

Re:Stop driving or die (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376805)

I don't see anyone, even the ones hollering about global warming, ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

Well, the ones that DO get dismissed as dirty hippies, and then you stop looking at them.

Re:Stop driving or die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377129)

I, for one, have set my air conditioner at 70 degrees to help offset the extra warming. If everyone would follow my example, we'd have enough cooler air for everyone and completely reverse global warmin'

Re:Stop driving or die (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377133)

It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time

Most people don't do their jobs sitting in a chair. It would be pretty hard for a construction worker, barber, sales clerk, chef, mechanic, etc to telecommute.

What we need isn't to stop traveling, we need to develop technologies that allow travel without ruining the environment.

Stop global warming? (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376687)

And miss out on the Brazilian ice wine [wattsupwiththat.com] ?

It's a pity... (2, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376707)

... a few hundred billion metric tons of calcium hydroxide would be a really nice thing to have right about now.

I have the answer. (4, Funny)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376733)

http://image52.webshots.com/152/1/14/3/518111403JQgFmi_ph.jpg

It's the humans, stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376749)

Get rid of (a whole lot of) humans, and most of the problems will solve themselves.

Re:It's the humans, stupid (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376917)

I assume you mean people you don't know, or people you don't like. I bet if your government decided to apply your sweeping "kill humans" idea and started killing random citizens in your area (including friends/family), you probably wouldn't be behind that effort. Most likely though, you're just posting for "shock" value, much like those ASCII penises I see on here.

Re:It's the humans, stupid (1)

eric-x (1348097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377641)

AC is right. We're trying to fix the problem by throwing ice in a boiling pot while simultaneous heating it.
If humans are the cause of global warming then reducing population size is the most logical and long lasting fix.
You don't have to kill anyone, just stop them from reproducing. If selective breeding is applied then there may be additional benefits for everyone.

Global experiments with us as guinea pigs (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376831)

Ok, the whole solution of Geo-engineering is a WTF moment.

We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.

It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.

Look at most attempts to "fix" environmental problems by introducing others. The bio-sphere is just way more interconnected than we can account for.

The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can. And make sure it stays that way.

By all means. You first! (1, Insightful)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377075)

Stop: * Driving * Eating * Breathing * Consuming Water * Consuming anything

Re:By all means. You first! (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377521)

And this post pretty much sums up why we could potentially be screwed in all of this. The parent talks about some rational concerns and mentions a possible solution (also one that is in some ways obvious) which will require sacrifice and out come the posts about "you first".

It's not that reducing our footprint is impossible, it's just how do you get a society to change their ways when the trappings of modern life built around comfort are so hard to escape? The difficulty will really be convincing people that living a less convenient life actually will help later generations and the results of your sacrifice will never be tangible.

You're just a dick (2, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377669)

Don't be a fool. There are obvious things that everyone can do to reduce pollution at a personal level.

40% of all car trips go less than 2 miles. Get a bike and use it when it makes sense.
Turn up your AC a few degrees. You'll use less energy.
Get a reusable shopping bag and stop using plastic ones.

It's not perfect, but it's much better than doing nothing. If I can do it, so can nearly everyone. If everyone did, we'd be in less trouble than we are now.

Re:By all means. You first! (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377679)

Most important option missing : Stop making more than 1 baby per couple !

Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377253)

It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states. One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth. It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife, but pretty much everything else. They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants. Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem, though, has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least.

Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377281)

We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.

To be fair, once we start tinkering, we'll have a better understanding of what does what.

Its like those old 1960's films of the doctors who crack open patients skulls and put the electric prod onto spots of the brain saying "What does this do? How about now?"

Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377685)

I prefer this question......

Should the ultimate goal of an advanced civilization be to coexist 'naturally' with the planet? Meaning, should the purpose be to minimize, or exterminate negative impact to any and all ecosystems and life while progressing technologically?

Unfortunately, I find this idea to be implemented only after a catastrophic manmade event occurs that leaves only a small minority of the human population left.

Back then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28376911)

Hmm. Carbion dioxide levels were higher some 130 thousand years ago if you believe in ice core data. What happened back then? Did all the sea life die? Obviously not since there's fish in the lakes and oceans (and in my frying pan).

My Turn. (1)

TinFoilMan (1371973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376915)

Perhaps I have this incorrectly and someone can fix it for me, but now that I've got my tin hat on, please answer this:

IF the earth gets warmer, then that would create more water vapor - becoming clouds - and clouds prevent reflect IR (heat), thus cooling the earth back down?

Re:My Turn. (1)

LuvlyOvipositor (1578009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377229)

Not necessarily. UV light penetrates through clouds, and is partially absorbed/reflected off the ground as IR light. This IR light then is reflected back to the earth by the cloud cover, causing an overall increase in heat.

in for a penny in for a pound (1)

allawalla (1030240) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376923)

Couldn't we just then drop a bunch of limestone into the ocean to mitigate the acidification?

Re:in for a penny in for a pound (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377039)

Happen to know of a deposit large enough to dump in the ocean and make a global difference? It would be like taking a grain of salt and expecting it to measurably effect the salinity of a bathtub of water.

Re:in for a penny in for a pound (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377121)

Define "bunch"

Here's An Idea (2, Funny)

spoonboy42 (146048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376965)

We could dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) into the ocean. It'll neutralize the acid and release... carbon dioxide. Crap! We're doomed.

Noone is enthustiastic about geoengineering (2, Interesting)

amorsen (7485) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376979)

Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures. Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans, to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.

If this report [climatecongress.ku.dk] is correct, we'll need some quick hacks, because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time.

Simple solutions are possible (1)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28376983)

at least conceptually.

The solution? Plant trees and cut carbon emissions by a fraction such that old trees + new trees absorb and stabilize carbon levels. The problem? Major polluters are not taking bold steps; they are like the United Nations-- speak a lot, and hope speeches will accomplish something.

Why are we looking for esoteric ways to "heal the planet"? We have the answer, it is just a matter of someone with a lot of balls standing up and saying "listen, fuckers, we are going to cap the carbon emissions and every human family will plant a tree. If we don't do it we will be fucked, and I will not fucking allow that to fucking happen" (notice than my stereotype of "person with a lot of balls" uses the word "fuck" a lot).

Re:Simple solutions are possible (2, Interesting)

eean (177028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377309)

Dumping fertilizer into the sea would also work to absorb CO2 by promoting the growth of sea plant life.

But any of these more biological solutions aren't really as easy as they first appear. Some forests produce large amounts of methane due to rotting plant material. In otherwords, some forests might actually just be greenhouse gas neutral (which makes sense, ecosystems work because they don't mess stuff up).

So yea. Capping emissions is a good idea.

Re:Simple solutions are possible (2, Informative)

LuvlyOvipositor (1578009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377609)

Dumping fertilizer into the sea would also work to absorb CO2 by promoting the growth of sea plant life.

Which leads to algal blooms, which prevent sunlight from reaching submerged aquatic vegetation, which leads to plant die-off which leads to lack of oxygen production, which leads to fish kills. Look up submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) in the chesapeake bay for examples of this happening (and excessive oyster dredging).

Re:Simple solutions are possible (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377443)

I second your simple solution and salute you sir! There are only 2 problems (of human nature and society, which are the root cause of all this in the first place) -

1) Most people are too lazy to plant a tree.

2) Major corporations and Wall Street do not make a ton of money from this *solution*.

If you have proposed that it be mandatory for each family to buy a genetically altered tree that will absorb extra carbon and grow extra fast from the new super fertilizer from Mosanto, then, yeah, maybe the bureaucrats' ears will perk up. Then the subsequent soil and water pollution will kill us all anyway. Sorry to say.

Re:Simple solutions are possible (1)

juanergie (909157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377815)

We should avoid the "butterfly effects" of the proposed solutions. We don't know what will happen if we just dump shit in the ocean, it might be that the remedy is worse than the disease.

For the plant argument, I agree we cannot just plant whatever ficus we happen to like. However, planting trees of the same species we've cut in the same places where we've cut them would be a start-- they were already there, and nothing bad happened to us.

Pffft! Who are you going to believe? (4, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377035)

Micheal Crichton, whose best-selling techno-thriller disproved global warming hysteria with copious footnotes . . . or so called "scientists" working for a "university" producing "peer reviewed research?"

I tell you, these "facts" and "evidence" are trouble.

Where did all the non idiots go? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28377277)

Guess the bunch of sudo scientists here believe communism is a viable economic system also.

Just (1)

shelterpaw (959576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377435)

let nature take it's course!!!

Leave my world alone!!! (1)

char70ger (1234672) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377537)

I think if we just leave it all alone it will take care of itself. All this science is just a best guess anyways. If mankind is able to destroy the world it would have died a long time ago. It seems the more we try to fix things the worse they get. Give the environment some credit and let it fix itself.

Re:Leave my world alone!!! (1)

Acapulco (1289274) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377663)

I believe the worrying comes not from "destroying the world" per se, but destroyig human life.

I also believe, as yourself, that we can't *destroy* this world completely, i.e. blowing it apart or shifting it's orbit to collide the Sun (just yet...). What people mean when they say "we will destroy the earth" is "we will destroy all human (and possibly most of the other lifeforms as well) life". So the problem is not really "fixing the planet" as much as "fixing the planet for human life to continue being possible and/or comfortable".

Time to dump alcali metals into the ocean? (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#28377765)

That will raise the PH level, wouldn't it? What can possibly go wrong?!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...