• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Solving Global Warming

AtaraX

Scholar
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
59
Okay, here is a solution to global warming I dreamed up when I was a grade school student. It is a very rough idea but I think there might be something to it and I am surprised I have never heard anything like it in the media. I am hoping to toss it out to those many a wiser than me in the JREF forums and see how it could be polished or shot down completely.

I am going to start with the preconceptions that lead to the idea.
1. The efforts of billions of years of photosynthetic life forms are responsible for the oxygen rich atmosphere we enjoy today and almost all of the carbon fixed in petrochemicals.
2. We are rapidly undoing the hard work of the photosynthesizer by releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere.
3. Most of the carbon fixing currently being done on Earth is not done in the Rain Forests but actually in the shallow parts of the Ocean and Seas by photosynthetic algae and aquatic plants.
4. Most of the Earth's surface is deep Ocean where no appreciable photosynthesis occurs.
5. Photosynthesis does not occur in the deep ocean because the surface is in constant motion and the heat and light of the sun is lost to the depths.

So here is my idea: We terraform Earth much in the way that has been proposed to terraform planets like Mars and Venus. We set up large rubber booms like the ones used contain oil spills in the deep ocean. At an optimal depth we place a rubber bottom in the area contained by booms. Think of a rubber dingy the size of a football field filled with sea water and you get the idea of what I am talking about. Now inside these ocean fields we have created we cultivate massive blooms of algae, of varieties selected for their ability to grow quickly and photosynthesize, fixing carbon from the atmosphere. This is done on an epic scale.

Afterwards we can sink the algae blooms to the bottom of the ocean to have nature once again change it into oil. Nations and companies who undertake this venture can receive carbon credits which are now a commodity thanks to the Kyoto Protocol. Or potentially, we could turn the algae to oil ourselves using a thermal depolymerisation process and use the algae as an energy source. I know this would be a huge engineering feat but certainly much less so than the solution entertained on the Skeptic's guide to the Universe to build a massive sun shield for the Earth in space. If we think algae is the key to changing the atmosphere on Mars or Venus why don't we consider it as a method of fix our atmosphere problems here on Earth?
 
I like your innovative thinking, but there are serious environmental concerns. How can you ensure that none of your algal blooms escapes - especially at the stage of sinking them to the sea bottom? Such a massive change in the balance of species is likely to be damaging. And you will need thousands of square kilometres of rubber sheet.
 
Also, how would you get the U.S. involved in such a project, when the official government policy is "global warming doesn't exist?" (It would take involvement of the U.S. to implement such a program on a large enough scale to have a reasonable effect.)

Theory is great, but putting it into practice is the real b##ch!
 
According to this source, Seeding The Ocean by The Greek Geek, if we restored the lost plankton by providing it with needed nutrients then the ocean would adsorb half of the industrial carbon dioxide emissions and lock it up long term as chalk at the bottom of the ocean floor. Of course finding a low cost way to provide those nutrients will be the hard problem to solve.
 
I think algae farming for biomass is definitely a growth industry (oops) for the future, whether on the heroic scale you suggest is another question.

What I would question is the assumption that global warming is a bad thing about which we must "do something". That may be so, but I don't see that it must be so.
 
Responses

I like your innovative thinking, but there are serious environmental concerns. How can you ensure that none of your algal blooms escapes - especially at the stage of sinking them to the sea bottom? Such a massive change in the balance of species is likely to be damaging. And you will need thousands of square kilometres of rubber sheet.

Well, I am not going to pretend there is a way of preventing a microorganism like
algae from escaping when you are growing it in thousands of kilometer stretches in a place where current and flow can take you anywhere in the world like the oceans.

But if you are engineering algae for the job you can not only breed in strength but also weakness. Since the deep desolate ocean is an isolated place you don't have to worry about large (relatively large, this is algae) predators you would find abundant in complete ecosystems. Build in a susceptibility to these predators. In other words make the super growing algae super delicious and super easy to digest and complete ecosystems should be able to defend themselves from it.

As for the rubber sheets, rubber is easy to produce. And eventually the whole process could be almost self replicating. If you can make oil from the algae then you can make more complex polymers like artificial rubber for more algae fields.

Also, how would you get the U.S. involved in such a project, when the official government policy is "global warming doesn't exist?" (It would take involvement of the U.S. to implement such a program on a large enough scale to have a reasonable effect.)

Theory is great, but putting it into practice is the real b##ch!

Well I agree that putting it into practice is a real bitch, I don't agree that the U.S. government has to be on board for the engineering feat to be achieved. The project can start out on a relatively small scale and if it is profitable more will come, sort of an algae field of dreams.

Also the rest of the world is doing a pretty good job of filling (and profiting from) the innovative void left by current trends in the US. Off the top of my head, the Japanese and their hybrid cars, the European Space Agency, The Chinese with materials and civil engineering and the Koreans and Indians with, well, everything.

Where the Americans are really needed would be in protecting such a venture. International waters are still lawless: As Homer Simpson discovered it is the only place in the world you can still have monkey knife fights. The Americans protect the trade routes in international waters and keep the goods flowing. Without American protection I am sure there would be pirates not above pillaging an algae farming operation.

There first step on getting any sort of political will for an idea like this is to make sure it is out there and on the table as a possible solution when people talk about global warming.

According to this source, Seeding The Ocean by The Greek Geek, if we restored the lost plankton by providing it with needed nutrients then the ocean would adsorb half of the industrial carbon dioxide emissions and lock it up long term as chalk at the bottom of the ocean floor. Of course finding a low cost way to provide those nutrients will be the hard problem to solve.

You’re not the first one to think of using algae Atarax.
Here’s a good wired article which weighs some of the pro’s and cons of using iron to induce algae blooms: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohacking_pr.html

That's great news! I am not so vain as to want to have a completely original idea. I am more interesting in encouraging the spread of good ideas than being part of their pedigree.

I think algae farming for biomass is definitely a growth industry (oops) for the future, whether on the heroic scale you suggest is another question.

What I would question is the assumption that global warming is a bad thing about which we must "do something". That may be so, but I don't see that it must be so.

I agree the problems of global warming are often vague and short term consequences are often overstated but I am convinced there is a problem. As long as we are releasing more carbon than is being fixed, we are regressing our world back towards a time when it was not suitable for human life. We only have to look at our nearest neighbor, Venus, to see what excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do to a world.
 
But Venus lacked a giant moon when most volcanic outgassing was going on. It's a lot closer to the sun.

There have been far warmer times on Earth, including some when there was little or no photosynthesis or carbon cycle in progress. The Earth never entered a runaway greenhouse stage. One aspect of warmer climates may well be increased vegetation in many areas.

Still- we've had many threads on the pros and cons of GW. The trick is to make algae farms profitable. I've long thought the Gulf and Red Sea would be ideal areas.
 
But Venus lacked a giant moon when most volcanic outgassing was going on. It's a lot closer to the sun.

There have been far warmer times on Earth, including some when there was little or no photosynthesis or carbon cycle in progress. The Earth never entered a runaway greenhouse stage. One aspect of warmer climates may well be increased vegetation in many areas.

Still- we've had many threads on the pros and cons of GW. The trick is to make algae farms profitable. I've long thought the Gulf and Red Sea would be ideal areas.

I don't understand how the moon is related to valcanic gassing. Could you explain a little more please.
 
A creative solution, AtaraX. Kudos for it. More creative thinking is needed- I expect that a number of different solutions will be combined into something that will reduce the problem to manageable proportions; I anticipate that both reduction in output, and increase in fixing, will be needed in many different ways in order to make a solution whose effects won't be worse than those of the warming problem itself.

I'm no more interested in bankrupting us all than anyone else- and we do, after all, have some pretty impressive achievements behind us. I really don't get why all the whining about how it's going to destroy everyone's economy to fix this. I'm sure some individual companies are going to suffer; life is hard. What I object to more than anything else in this entire mess is the fact that those companies think it's OK to try to convince people there's no problem until it's too late to do anything about it and they've ripped us all off for everything they can get. Screw 'em; new companies will rise up and take care of the problem, and the energy company shareholders will make less than obscene profits. Wow, isn't that freakin awful!

Sorry. /soapbox.
 
Oh.

I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.
 
I don't understand how the moon is related to valcanic gassing. Could you explain a little more please.

Volcanic gassing happens regardless of the presence of a moon. A nearby large moon helps gas from a planet bleed off into space. Our atmoshpere is much thinner than Venus' largely because we have a nearby moon and Venus does not. Venus has so much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not because it got hot, but because it kept outgassing (as the earth still does) via volcanic erruptions over a few billion years but didn't have a moon to suck any of that atmosphere away. This difference means that we cannot really look to Venus as a predictor of what "runaway" carbon dioxide buildup on earth might look like.
 
There's probably an easier way to get the same effect than using rubber sheeting. Create artificial upwellings from the bottom. Nutrients in the deep oceans don't cycle quickly. They basically sink to the bottom and stay there. Pump water up from the deep ocean in currently nutrient deprived areas (there's a lot of that apparently) and you've got more biomass.
 
I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.
I haven't the slightest interest in what Paris Hilton holds in her vacuous skull, or that of any other celebs. I am interested in what the majority of informed scientists think, which is based on what the evidence tells us.
 
I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.

By the same reasoning, the best evidence that it isn't BS is that you believe it is.
 
the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling.

evidence that some nontrivial cooling "fad" actually happened please? (and is not a "70-'s fad" fad)

scientific article, or an informative popular article?

so far i see that there was a discussion, but most scientists seem to have been saying we did not know enough to know...
 
Last edited:
According to this source, Seeding The Ocean by The Greek Geek, if we restored the lost plankton by providing it with needed nutrients then the ocean would adsorb half of the industrial carbon dioxide emissions and lock it up long term as chalk at the bottom of the ocean floor. Of course finding a low cost way to provide those nutrients will be the hard problem to solve.

The deep ocean floor isn't a good place to lock up carbon as chalk (calcium carbonate) because it will dissolve. Probably none of it will ever hit bottom.

Of course, that doesn't mean biological concentration of atmospheric carbon for sequestration somewhere else might not be a good start, only that some sequestration other than letting it rain down onto the abyssal plain is probably needed.
 
I guess we solved the '70's sky-is-falling fad of Global Cooling a little bit too well? So now we've got, what, Global Warming? Why don't we just undo a bit of the Global Cooling fix?

Hint. The French Government believes in Global Warming. Al Gore believes in Global Warming. Major Hollywood movie stars and rock stars around the world believe in Global Warming. Even Paris Hilton and Britney Spears believe in Global Warming. Yeah there's plenty of proof against the whole "George Bush is being paid off by Halliburton to let Global Warming continue" thing, but the best proof it's BS is who DOES believe in it.

Still not convinced? Okay, the heavy ammo... CHER believes in it.

All in, All done.

Oh and every serious climate scientist believes in it*
Don't let the overwhelming scientific consensus impede your political rhetoric though.






* the questions are, what is causing it and what is to be done about it.
 
Oh and every serious climate scientist believes in it*
Don't let the overwhelming scientific consensus impede your political rhetoric though.

* the questions are, what is causing it and what is to be done about it.
Exactly. The data shows that yes, the Earth is slowing warming. But what is the root cause, and how to we stop it? Or should we stop it? Earth's climate has changed drastically before without mankind's help. Perhaps by attempting to stop global warming we may cause an environmental disaster worse than the one we are trying to prevent.

It goes both ways of course. Where I live (Vancouver, BC), we've had a couple of nasty wind storms the last 2 months. A large number of trees were blown down in Stanley Park, and some provincial minister made a comment on the news about how "this is the kind of thing you have to expect with global warming". Wha?! Where's the connection?

There needs to be a lot more science and a lot less speculation on this particular topic.
 

Back
Top Bottom