Dissolving C02 in the ocean to reduce global warming

[Fingers]

...so we're going to raise the acid level of the water, and decrease the available oxygen in the water (both of which will certainly have a negative impact on marine life), in an experiment that "might" provide a solution to a problem that not everyone agrees even exists? http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/wink.gif

[BFlurie]

Sysopt, this thread seems bollixed. However...

Ditto Fingers. Additionally, wouldn't it be nice if the dissolved level of the deposited CO2 reached saturation somewhere, and the ocean "burped" up a bubble of CO2 that drifted over Hawaii and asphixiated people?

[SysOpt]

Thread fixed.

[daveleau]

Well, it would take a huge amount of CO2 to be pumped into the ocean to change the pH. Over centuries, it may make a difference. I still find that the greenhouse effect has not been proven though. I am not sure why everyone has jumped on the bandwagon to stop a threat that may or may not be there. In a book by a nobel prize winner (inventer of PCR), he denounces the existence of a greenhouse effect and also denounces the possibility of a hole in the ozone. I think it is absurd to act on things when we do not even know a threat exists.

[etcm]

There have been initial experiments that have shown that seeding iron (Fe) into the sea to absorb C02. The only 2 testings showed that sea-life abruptly increased (due to food ingrediants and algae increases)and CO2 levels went down significantly. This had the potential to globally lower CO2 levels and make the oceans more bountiful...as well as even neutralizing potential pH changes...except that the idea of us (man) lowering CO2 levels, instead of CO2 production, and makinge the oceans more bountiful is against the grain of certain interests that desire to minimize global population.

[dday]

I'm a licensed c-20 hvac contractor in the once great state of california. And on occasion in various a/c and refrigeration classes in college I would question the common political correctness and common wisdom about global warming , and on one occasion was nearly stoned in the student quadrent for even suggesting that there was no real science behind the hysteria.
Intellect and science has been replaced with rhetoric and emotionalism. A New Dark Age approaches!

[Illegal Alien]

I read somewhere that 98% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is done by natural sources (volcano's etc) so for all we know the thinning of the ozone layer could be a natural cycle of events that happens on the earth every so thousand of years. As environmental records only go back a couple of hundred years i can't see how people can say humans are the course.

[larrywho]

A great user of CO2 gas are plants. Why can we stop the destruction of all plant life and plant some trees, grass, bushes and the like.
Dumping our waste into the ocean has always been a bad idea. I am not an enviromentist. It just makes good sense to have a balance to decision making.

[BBA]

I read somewhere that 98% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is done by natural sources (volcano's etc)


So...lets build great big pipes over all the volcanos in the world and run them into the sea http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/smile.gif

I think it would fix a lot of problems like this, while also killing off marine life to provide the added benefit of allowing the environmentalist whackos to justify keeping their jobs! Eventually so they can turn the scope to save the fish they cause to die in the first place http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/biggrin.gif

[arjay13]

Putting excess CO2 into oceans may well be a short term solution (putting aside the issue of localized pH changes and their effect on the biota)to global warming. The problem is that eventually the CO2 will return to the surface and reenter the atmosphere.For you and me, no problem. We'll even be part of the global CO2 cycle by then. But our ancestors may well have hell to pay. I think mankind has a poor track record in this regard.
Why not slow down the generation of CO2 in the first place? According to recent DOE reports, China is doing well in this regard - better than the US in fact. If they can manage it, I think we should be able to with our technical expertise and some governmental stimulus.
By the way, a Nobel prize for PCR doesnt make someone an expert out of their field (ie - global atmospheric chemistry). Granted there are still doubts concerning the magnitude of the global warming effect. But there is sufficient evidence to be cause for concern.
The ozone hole DOES exist and you don't have to look far to find that data. Try Scientific American. Anyone who "denounces" issues out of hand doesn't sound very scientific to me.
However, the very fact that we are even having this discussion, particularly in this forum is encouraging.

[Phat Chickiller]

As a geologist, I don't necessarily see a problem with increasing CO2 in the oceans, however, to make the storage of CO2 semi-permanent, shell-producing ocean life needs to increase. Shells of reef-type animals form due to acidic excretions causing calcium carbonate (mostly) to precipitate out of the ocean water. When these animals die (or out-grow their shells,) the shells fall to the ocean floor and eventually solidify into limestone (i.e. calcite, calcium carbonate, or carbonate rock.) The production of calcite shells reduces the proportion of CO2 dissolved in the ocean, so more atmospheric CO2 will eventually dissolve into the ocean until equilibrium with the atmosphere is achieved. I don't know how long this process would take to occur naturally. The geochemistry of the ocean is very complex and not my specialty. More importantly, the chemistry of both the ocean and the atmosphere are changing due to natural cycles and events as well as increasing human pollution, so would be difficult to quantify.
Back to the point, if a reasonable, representative experiment was able to show that ocean life would increase to maintain equilibrium of CO2 and carbonate rock, then I support forced injection of CO2 into the oceans. Otherwise, I believe the action to be both foolhardy and a waste of resources.

If you don't understand my commentary about CO2 and carbonate rock, look up the carbon cycle as pertains to ice ages. http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/smile.gif

[milkchaser]

I seriously doubt the existence of the so-called global greenhouse effect, however, I would hate to see CO2 pumped into the oceans when it could be put to good use as the fizz in root beer. Of course, if it's not pure CO2 (ie. is adulterated by some other pollutant), then why would we want it in the ocean.

I suspect that the Earth regulates its heat within a fairly narrow temperature band and has done so over the aeons. Were this not the case, life would never have appeared or would not have survived. What a happy accident we all are.

I contend that this issue is little more than a scary story that irresponsible people have made up to advance their own political agenda. To the extent that the Earth is now in the warming side of a temperature cycle, it is most likely caused by the same factors that have always influenced Earth's temperature: increased Solar activity, Earth's inner heat.

Moreover, the current warming trend began in the 1800's -- well before the Industrial Age, well before the rise human output of so-called greenhouse gases.

[etcm]

Milkchaser is on track there about the political agenda as is chickkiller. One think that is frequently not stated is the vast quantity of CO2 contained in the sea now...so much that it really could drastically affect global warming if it were released. Iron is one of the limiting elements that allows the sea ife to use the CO2 that is there. The question of why not slow down CO2 production? That is a difficult issue. If you can get everyone in the world to willingly return to a third world nation status and not use combustion causing machinery (turbines, engines, smelting, cooking, etc.) then it could be possible. Think of the millions and possibly billions of lives will be lost due to lower standard of living and loss of electricity. Many Ammish and Mennonites willingly accept this lifestyle but most of thecomputing crowd will not. The comments saying we should take steps, now, to avoid unspecific consequences have an appearence of being correct, but with so many unknows and lack of earth chemistry knowledge the policies that directly harm people cannot be performed.