Nutty Story of the Day #2: whitewashing the ocean

Is there no sanity left in this World.
Scotty, “beam me up”

Par’me., but, uh, where does the lime in those bags come from.
Oh, wait, silly me, you wouldn’t put in those bags, would you? You’d put it in ships to get it out past, the….oh, wait, what if somebody doesn’t want it dumped in their … oh, gosh one problem at a time.
Where does that stuff come from? Rocks, doesn’t it?
Can you just throw the rocks in the ocean? How much fuel and all that does it take to get the rock to the ocean?
And don’t you have to bake the rocks or something? what will that cost?
I don’t think I understand.

Carbon dioxide is now the new DDT and Thalidomide rolled into one. What evils cannot be blamed upon it and what ludicrous schemes hatched to try and reduce it?
Bob Dylan recorded a song called “World Gone Wrong” and I can’t help but feel it is very appropriate in this case.
Neil

Anthony Extremely important article:
Compo,G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, in press.
The abstract reads
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”

It would take a lot of money to manufacture all that lime (and to construct the energy plants to produce the required energy to manufacture the lime in out-of-the-way places). That means someone would make a lot of money. It also means a lot of people would have to pay a lot of money to do this. Could that be why this idea even sees the light of day?
Here is an article at “New Scientist” that indicates we still don’t know what the natural carbon cycle is doing in areas where the oceans are fed nutrients by large rivers:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14375-plankton-turn-tropical-atlantic-into-a-huge-carbon-sink.html

Even if CO2 was a problem, and this *was* a feasible idea to remove it, the environmentalists wouldn’t accept it because it doesn’t fit in with the socialist world goverment they are trying to achieve while at the same time trying to move the western world back to an 18th century lifestyle. Any technological fixes suggested by private industry will be shot down before they get out of the box.

People who talk about “acidifing” of the oceans have no idea what they are talking about. The maximum amount of carbon dioxide taken up by the ocean is controlled by the solubility of carbon dioxide in the ocean, which in turn is the function of the ocean temperature. The lower the ocean temperature the more carbon dioxide it can take up.
If the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is less than the ocean’s solubility then the ocean can respond by taking up more carbon dioxide, but only up to its limit of solubility. Since carbon dioxide in geologic times was orders of magnitude higher than today and possibly took up sufficient amount of carbon dioxide to reach its limit of solubility. It probably is not at the solubility limit today, because it can still take up carbon dioxide. As crosspatch pointed out, higher past concentrations of carbon dioxide in the geologic past did not prevent numerous creatures with calcium carbonate based shells to develop and prosper.

Is this the time to say: ” Goodbye and thanks for the fish”?

“Does anyone have any idea when the general public will revolt against this epic insanity that embarrasses our species?”
They haven’t revolted against epic insanities before; why should this be any different? eg. carbs are good, fats are bad; carbs are evil, fats are good, eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good (again). Look at religeous wars: one person’s god is another person’s myth and we’ll go to war over it.
The current epic insanity is Zimbabwe. Where are the protests in the streets over that? Why are embassies not being demonstrated against every day? Where are the boycotts, the demonstrations?

I believe that ABC’s own John Stossel says it best, “Give me a break!”
All these looney tunes hustlers come crawling out of the woodwork with schemes in response to looney tunes science. Thirty+ years ago, in response to a different flavor of looney tunes science, the looney tunes solution was to place soot on Arctic ice to stop the new Ice Age. Just recently, another looney tunes scheme was to fire rockets or whatever to inject sulphur in the stratosphere, to cool the climate. And all this in response to a looney tunes hypothesis buttressed by computer models that are more likely wrong than right.
The public needs to wake up and smell what’s cooking and it ain’t fish!
Give me a break!

Jennifer Marohasy had an interesting short piece on C02 concentrations and coral reefs (July 2nd 2008 – look in the July archives on her blog). The two photos in the article show coral and seagrass flourishing in an environment quite literally “bubbling” with C02.
I guess the ocean acidity/toxicity crowd haven’t told the coral here that it can’t possibly exist according to their models.

Lime is manufactured by heating limestone rock which drives off CO2 gas.
CaCO3(s) –> CaO(s) + CO2(g)
The amount of CO2 taken up by lime cannot exceed the amount of CO2 produced in its manufacture and is almost certainly less.
Having said that, I think I understand the rational behind this, which doesn’t mean I agree. Produce lime and CO2 in an industrial process. Capture the CO2 use it for say oil field injection. Then use the lime to capture atmosphere and ocean CO2.

“All technology is therefore bad, and we must address this problem only by behavioural change.”
As long as said behaviour is being smug because they’ve bought a Prius (instead of a more CO2 friendly car) or thrown out all their working lightbulbs to replace them with “energy efficient” bulbs.
Why is it that the real believers still refuse to give up the trappings of modern life and revert to a more pastoral existence? Don’t they realise they are killing the planet?

Two points about lime. It is made from limestone (CaCO3) by burning it, producing quick lime (CaO) and CO2. So there is no net gain in the amount of CO2 in the air/ocean system. Also, the reaction between hydrated lime (made by mixing quick lime with water) and dissolved CO2 raises the pH to over 9, which is the toxic limit for most fish. Hence Grovesmuk use of lime to kill fish.
By the way, the iron experiment has been tried on a small scale, and it failed.

I can think of a lot of uses that I could put lime to, and a lot of people that could could get adapted quickly

Here in Sudbury where the lakes are acidic from sulfer emissions due to smelting, we have limed our lakes to reduce their acidity. It has helped to bring life back to some near dead lakes.
The liming the oceans idea is horribly ignorant.
John M Reynolds

Spectral analysis of infrared emissions from earth show two large CO2 notches where very little energy gets through, one at 4.3 um and one at 15 um. Doesn’t the existence of these notches indicate that all energy that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed, and that any increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly result in any additional greenhouse effect? It seems to me that the whole effort to halt the rise of atmospheric CO2 is an exercise in absurdity, given that the only remaining effect it can possibly have is to benefit plant growth.

These people appear to be getting funding for their lunatic idea. It would be quite interesting to set up some fake anti C02 technology company and see how easy it is to make some money.

this is the most unthinkably destructive scheme I’ve ever heard of, not only from an economic standpoint but from an ENVIRONMENTAL one!!! The previous poster who mentioned lime and dead fish had it right – water creatures are all very sensitive to PH levels. Change them up or down, and most life in that water dies. As another previous poster noted, that’s why acid rain (sulfur compounds) are so damaging to lakes. In that case, lime brings the pH balance back towards normal. This moronic plan would lay waste to the oceans. Unbelievable to think that anyone could be fool enough to even suggest this.

So let me understand this:
We heat limestone using a heat source (maybe natural gas) which releases CO2 from combustion which then releases more CO2 as limestone converts to quicklime.
Assuming that a certain amount of the lime settles out and never reacts with dissolved CO2, there would be a significant net increase in atmospheric CO2 not a reduction.
Seems brilliant to me!

Here’s a development of the Al Gore idea (inspired by something I saw on YouTube once). All the throngs of people worried about CO2 and ocean acidification could be invited to go on a Greenpeace-sponsored mass skinny-dip across the Pacific, having first coated themselves head to toe in eco-friendly lime-based white body paint. I even have a slogan for them: “Be A Lemming For Gaia”. Think of the benefits: Earth’s albedo is raised, the ocean’s pH balance is restored, no technology is used and any swimmers who fall to marine predators will contribute valuable protein to the food chain. Now that’s surely a win-win solution.

agree – the idea as such is nuts, but the business model is worth checking out (have been ruminating about something like that on deep-ocean understanding for years…)
cquestrate’s tag line says it all:
“Developing an open source solution to climate change” –
the foundation of the concept is the theory that climate change needs a solution. In other words, it’s their progression way beyond hypothesis, accepting the consensus of AGW.
I would think that most readers of this blog are quite comfortable with having falsified the original hypotheses – that man-made CO2 emissions are the main drivers of global warming or even climate change as such. We look at differentiated ways to refine climate science towards understanding of regionally observed phenomena (Roger Pielke Sr.’s excellent work comes to mind), and how they are forced by a multitude of factors and balanced by that huge hot water bottle (thank you, Stephen Wilde) which gets its heat from that big source out there.
In short: climate change is one of the real basics of life, driven by photons and cycled through complex interactions between the main compounds water, CO2 and O2, quasi-inert buffers as well as a myriad of critical trace contributors.
Rather than falling into the arrogance that we need and can change that, we should strive toward better and better understanding – embracing and celebrating these fundamental processes – so that we can adapt our societal metabolisms into these much larger dynamics of life.
Back to the business model stipulated by cquestrate – open source solution – this fits well into our wiki world (compare with Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics – how mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin Books 2006/07).
Any comments on how similar approaches can be used to create a pathway to sanity, beyond the “combat climate change” craze?
I am working on a specific subset (interactive deep-ocean explaration for the Net generation) and plan to re-launch once more within weeks. Towards this, I have started personal discussions with a few of you – thank you for responding – more to come as soon as the bread-and-butter stuff flows smoothly.
Anthony – thanks again for this terrific forum that fills the need for rational balance seasoned by healthy and civil discussion with a good dose of sly and quirky humor!
ulrich lobsiger
(the deepslope smart camera – vintage 1986 – non-invasive long-term observation of deep-sea processes at the millimeter scale; digital follow-through is underway carried by many others…)

Evan Jones (00:49:16) Why not paint Al Gore white to increase his albedo?
I want to know in advance, so I can buy stock in paint companies. The resulting shortage should drive the price through the roof.
The only really viable solution is for all true believers to stop breathing. Enough stupid ideas, and an angry (& starving) public may assist them in this endeavour.

Is this the time to say: ” Goodbye and thanks for the fish”?
“So long and thanks for all the fish.”
“Does anyone have any idea when the general public will revolt against this epic insanity that embarrasses our species?”
Let me check my infinite improbability generator…
Al Gore plans to get his hands deep into all our pocketbooks. I don’t know why you are complaining. The plans have been available to read for 15+ years now!

“The Nutty Professor” is beginning to look quite sane in comparison.
Seriously, it could be that this epidemic of deranged scientists and “intellectuals” is actually a byproduct of our energy-dependent wealth, so that letting them ruin it by returning us to the Bone Age might at least get get rid of them.
-Gotta think positively, and all.

This is unbelievable. When will we learn from all our past mistakes at trying to manage a “problem” we don’t yet fully understand. See this excerpt from a speech Michael Crighton gave:
To see what I mean, let’s take a case history of our management of the environment: Yellowstone National Park.
Long recognized as a setting of great natural beauty, in 1872 Ulysses Grant set aside Yellowstone as the first formal nature preserve in the world. More than 2 million acres, larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined. John Muir was pleased when he visited in 1885, noting that under the care of the Department of the Interior, Yellowstone was protected from “the blind, ruthless destruction that is going on in adjoining regions.”
Theodore Roosevelt was also pleased in 1903 when as President he went to Yellowstone National Park for a dedication ceremony.
It was his third visit. Roosevelt saw a thousand antelope, plentiful cougar, mountain sheep, deer, coyote, and many thousands of elk. He wrote, “Our people should see to it that this rich heritage is preserved for their children and their children’s children forever, with its majestic beauty all unmarred.”
But Yellowstone was not preserved. On the contrary, it was altered beyond repair in a matter of years. By 1934, the park service acknowledged that “white-tailed deer, cougar, lynx, wolf, and possibly wolverine and fisher are gone from the Yellowstone.”
What they didn’t say was that the park service was solely responsible for the disappearances. Park rangers had been shooting animals for decades, even though that was illegal under the Lacey Act of 1894. But they thought they knew better. They thought their environmental concerns trumped any mere law.
What actually happened at Yellowstone is a cascade of ego and error. But to understand it, we have to go back to the 1890s. Back then it was believed that elk were becoming extinct, and so these animals were fed and encouraged. Over the next few years the numbers of elk in the park exploded. Roosevelt had seen a few thousand animals, and noted they were more numerous than on his last visit.
By 1912, there were 30,000. By 1914, 35,000. Things were going very well. Rainbow trout had also been introduced, and though they crowded out the native cutthroats, nobody really worried. Fishing was great. And bears were increasing in numbers, and moose, and bison.
By 1915, Roosevelt realized the elk had become a problem, and urged “scientific management.” His advice was ignored. Instead, the park service did everything it could to increase their numbers.
The results were predictable.
Antelope and deer began to decline, overgrazing changed the flora, aspen and willows were being eaten heavily and did not regenerate. In an effort to stem the loss of animals, the park rangers began to kill predators, which they did without public knowledge.
They eliminated the wolf and cougar and were well on their way to getting rid of the coyote. Then a national scandal broke out; studies showed that it wasn’t predators that were killing the other animals. It was overgrazing from too many elk. The management policy of killing predators had only made things worse.
Meanwhile the environment continued to change. Aspen trees, once plentiful in the park, where virtually destroyed by the enormous herds of hungry elk.
With the aspen gone, the beaver had no trees to make dams, so they disappeared. Beaver were essential to the water management of the park; without dams, the meadows dried hard in summer, and still more animals vanished. Situation worsened. It became increasingly inconvenient that all the predators had been killed off by 1930. So in the 1960s, there was a sigh of relief when new sightings by rangers suggested that wolves were returning.
There were also persistent rumors that rangers were trucking them in; but in any case, the wolves vanished soon after; they needed a diet of beaver and other small rodents, and the beaver had gone.
Pretty soon the park service initiated a PR campaign to prove that excessive numbers of elk were not responsible for the park’s problems, even though they were. This campaign went on for a decade, during which time the bighorn sheep virtually disappeared.
Now we come to the 1970s, when bears are starting to be recognized as a growing problem. They used to be considered fun-loving creatures, and their close association with human beings was encouraged within the park:
Bear feedings were a spectacle in the 1930s. Postcards treated it humorously:
But now it seemed there were more bears and many more lawyers, and thus more threat of litigation. So the rangers moved the grizzlies away to remote regions of the park. The grizzlies promptly became endangered; their formerly growing numbers shrank. The park service refused to let scientists study them. But once the animals were declared endangered, the scientists could go in.
And by now we are about ready to reap the rewards of our forty-year policy of fire suppression, Smokey the Bear, all that. The Indians used to burn forest regularly, and lightning causes natural fires every summer. But when these fires are suppressed, the branches that drop to cover the ground make conditions for a very hot, low fire that sterilizes the soil. And in 1988, Yellowstone burned. All in all, 1.2 million acres were scorched, and 800,000 acres, one third of the park, burned.
Then, having killed the wolves, and having tried to sneak them back in, the park service officially brought the wolves back, and the local ranchers screamed. And on, and on.
As the story unfolds, it becomes impossible to overlook the cold truth that when it comes to managing 2.2 million acres of wilderness, nobody since the Indians has had the faintest idea how to do it. And nobody asked the Indians, because the Indians managed the land very intrusively. The Indians started fires, burned trees and grasses, hunted the large animals, elk and moose, to the edge of extinction. White men refused to follow that practice, and made things worse.
To solve that embarrassment, everybody pretended that the Indians had never altered the landscape. These “pioneer ecologists,” as Steward Udall called them, did not do anything to manipulate the land. But now academic opinion is shifting again, and the wisdom of the Indian land management practices is being discovered anew. Whether we will follow their practices remains to be seen.
See his full speech here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html
Sorry about the long post.

When Newsweek in 1975 ran the infamous article, “The Cooling World”, they mentioned how some scientists wanted to melt the Arctic ice cap by covering it with soot. I think too many people actually believe Star Trek was reality, not fiction. The idea that we can reengineer the planet is stunningly arrogant, in terms of both understanding and ability.

I am an economic geologist working for a private consulting company. Does anyone else wonder why the guys who concoct these totally wierd ideas continue to get paid ?

I am truly stunned….. Lime the oceans!….. These people are beyond belief.
I have no doubt now in my mind, that they are completely mad.
….. The only Lime I have in a belief in, belongs in a margarita…. And that’s th’ green sort off a tree!

My first thought was “Great, now the oceans won’t get scurvy!” but then realized it’s the wrong kind of lime!!!

Greenpeace will be all over this. Sometimes, I agree with them, such as would be the case here. In fact, in this case, maybe they need deck guns?

leebert:
1. Every cubic meter of seawater naturally contains about 6 pounds of sulphate ions. Nothing we can do is likely to change that significantly.
2. Nitrates stimulates growth of the symbiotic algae in corals, i e the opposite of bleaching.
3. Seawater is alkaline, not acid.

P. T. Barnum would have loved this.
I happen to think it’s brilliant:
Crush limerock
Heat in gas-fired kiln (making CO2)
Drive off CO2 from limerock
Add to ocean to absorb some of the CO2 released in production.
Charge the rubes an arm and a leg for doing it.
Repeat.
It’s an economic perpetual motion machine.
Brilliant.
i only wish I’d thought of it.

What? Star Trek isn’t real? You risk being phasered into oblivion. A couple of good lime-photon torpedoes would take care of this ocean acidification problem. If the fish die, well, we’ll just send the Enterprise back into time to retrieve them. I think somebody has been slipping lime into my drinks.

The military definition of “folly” is “redoubling your effort when you’ve lost sight of your objective”. For some, it seems, the objective remains forever elusive.

I think there isn’t enough oil or coal right now to grind up part of Australia, heat up the rocks into lime and dumping that into the ocean. And there is a nice ecosystem there, like snakes and kwalas, and maybe some Dingos.
I think maybe we should leave that ecosystem alone and not think about this anymore. For sure some politician will decide maybe it is worth nuking Australia just to dump the heated rocks into the ocean!
Rather, maybe it would be better if we ground up New Jersey and dump it in the ocean. The oil and chemical companies have made such a mess of part of Jersey, with Thoms River and all, it is probably bette to dump it.
I think humans have been devastating our eco systems and forests since the time of the Romans. They devasted forests to make wooden ships. Lebanese Cedars are practically gone, and they find boats entumbed in Egypt.
I think that by fabricating a lot of solar water pumps, puttting them in areas in the desserts of the world, where it used to be wet, and replanting these forests you might actually absorb that much CO2. Think of the entire Sahara becoming another forest, or Lebanon, or even the Middle East.
And, when water, humity and trees return to the area, guess what, probably no more fighting over resources.
Maybe a better idea then grinding up Autralia, or nuking it or destroying Nj.
Anyone