Nick Pope
Contributor
A team of scientists is looking to dump chemicals into waters off the coast of Massachusetts this summer to research whether doing so could be an effective counter to ocean acidification and climate change, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The project would see researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) pour approximately 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide — a component of lye — into waters ten miles away from Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, in August 2024, according to the WSJ. The research project, estimated to cost about $10 million in total, will receive taxpayer funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signs off on releasing the chemicals.
The underlying concept is to see if the basic sodium hydroxide can reduce the acidity of ocean waters and make those waters more efficient repositories of carbon dioxide, according to the WSJ. Sodium hydroxide is a common ingredient in soaps and cleaning solutions, and it can be harmful to humans in high concentrations, according to the Tennessee Department of Health. (RELATED: Eco-Activists, Climate Scientists Quietly Met To Discuss Tinkering With The Sun)
Scientists Think They’ve Found A New Remedy For Climate Change https://t.co/OEPJDhVfXW
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 17, 2022
“When you have heartburn, you eat a Tums that dissolves and makes the liquid in your stomach less acidic,” Adam Subhas, a WHOI scientist who is poised to serve as the project’s main investigator, told the WSJ. “By analogy, we’re adding this alkaline material to seawater, and it is letting the ocean take up more CO2 without provoking more ocean acidification. Everything that we’re seeing so far is that it is environmentally safe.”
NOAA will provide some of the funding for the project, which is also being supported financially by private donors and two philanthropic organizations, according to the WSJ. Neither NOAA nor WHOI immediately responded to requests for comment, which included inquiries about the identities of the organizations and donors backing the project.
“EPA will follow the permitting process as described in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act regulations before reaching a final determination to approve or deny the permit application,” a spokesperson for the agency told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Once EPA receives a complete permit application, the agency will provide notice to the public and will invite public comment on the permit application and EPA tentative determination on whether to issue a permit.”
WHOI’s intention to test the efficacy of tinkering with ocean chemistry reflects a wider emergent trend of climate scientists pushing so-called “geoengineering” projects, according to the WSJ. The basic idea of geoengineering is altering some physical or chemical aspect of an environmental system in order to counteract climate change.
How do marine scientists find love among the all
test tubes and dive gear?@Capenewsdotnet tracked down three happy couples at #WHOI who share the secret to their (marine) chemistry: https://t.co/rZU1rrjz6h pic.twitter.com/ZKNBeVkzYd— Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) (@WHOI) February 14, 2024
Other geoengineering projects that are being considered or funded by the government, private sector or major donors include systems that shoot particles 60,000 feet into the air to reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere, and another project that aims to enlarge and brighten clouds to increase reflectivity, according to the WSJ.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the ‘tell’. Consensus climate is beginning to worry that global warming isn’t turning out to be a problem. They are also worrying (having caused to be spent $5 trillion on solutions that turned out to not work even if there had been something to worry about) and wreaking havoc, death and destruction with Policy-Caused global economic, agricultural, industrial disasters, all that can be laid at their feet, that they need to get ahead of the parade.
With geoengineering in place, when nothing bad happens re climate, they can claim they saved us all and the world in the Nick of time! Geoengineering is to “hide the real decline in crisis climate worry”.
We have to slay the environment to save it!
Why have the most ignorant people been allowed to play with the most dangerous toys with the government’s blessing?
Every time I read about some absurd liberal scheme, the phrase “unintended consequences” pops into my head.
6000 gallons is a miniscule bit of water, about 22 cubic meters. By comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool contains over 600,000 gallons.
I don’t think think this has anything to do with solving the so-called “ocean acidification” problem (contrary to what was stated above). I think the lye solution will merely absorb some CO2 and convert it into limestone and water. Not clear how they plan to measure the effects of this nano-experiment.
2 NaOH + CO2 → Na2CO3 + H2O
In drinking water treatment NaOH can be used, not just for pH adjustment but to remove carbonate hardness and non-carbonate hardness. (Calcium and magnesium bicarbonates or, say, calcium chloride.)
The end result of the chemical reactions to convert both types of hardness into relatively insoluble forms which will settle out. (Called “sludge” in the drinking water process.)
Any change in the pH is a result of a chemical reaction, not the cause.
At best they make some water more basic not less acidic … they can’t even get the scientific terms right …
The CO2 in ocean forms the very weak acid Carbonic Acid, H2CO3, which easily decomposes back into H2O water and CO2. NaOH is a very strong base, which will raise the pH much more than H2CO3 can lower it, even when added in equal amounts. I don’t know which scientists are behind this, but this has a lot of potential of killing marine life. I’ve always said that I will probably get arrested once people start pushing the environment to do what they think it’s right, and that it can be proven to be wrong. These people are operating outside the standards of doing extensive studies and are more likely to create a big environmental problem.
JBVigo, PhD
Environmental Science & Engineering
I wonder how the fish and other ocean dwellers are going to react to having a load of sodium hydroxide dumped into their environment for no good reason. They can consult the birds near the wind-turbines for advice.
“…to see if the basic sodium hydroxide can reduce the acidity of ocean waters…”
I guess I missed the announcement that ocean water is now acidic.
Have the researchers released any of the results from their lab testing? They did test, right? Right??
They did test. With appallingly bad methodology giving really crap results – the studies were laughably flawed.
G’Day Richard,
“They did test”
Thank you for the reply, much appreciated. I had a hunch, you confirmed it. No ‘positive’ lab test, so “Let’s just go full scale and see what happens”.
This is asking for trouble.
What could possibly go wrong?
Salt water is alkali. pH is about 7.7, depending on the ocean. Doing this will increase alkalinity, and perturb natural systems.
And keep in mind that the term “alkaline” is related to “alkalinity” but not the same.
Water with a pH below 7.0 is not “alkaline” but can still (and probably does) have “alkalinity”.
“Alkaline” and “Acidic” refer to the pH scale while “alkalinity” has more to do with a solutions chemical resistance to a change in pH. Buffering. If the free hydrogen (or hydroxide, OH) gets tied up in other chemical reactions then the pH is not affected.
LOTS of buffering in the ocean.
I know. Oversimplified.
Here comes a bad analogy. (Making this up as I type.)
Pour some water into a pan. Measure how deep the water is. Now pour in some sand. Level it out. Measure how deep the water is above the sand. It will be less than before the sand was added.
The sand will tie up some of the water.
The sand is the “buffer”.
6,000 gallons in the ocean????
Seems like homeopathy…
$10 million in total????
Seems speculative for dumping 6,000 gallons of anything anywhere (short of on the Moon).
Yeah. A little over 50,000 lbs.
How much does the water weigh in the targeted area? How much do the dissolved chemicals weigh in the water in the area targeted?
If they bother to do follow-up sampling, how will they account for ocean currents carrying their test run out of the application area?
Not like any of these schemes could ever go wrong, huh?
Well, first of all, we should say a prayer for every one of those poor, 10 million dollars being killed for the sake of sheer stupidity and foolishness. What a waste. But secondly, no real environmentalist would ever, in a million years sign off on this so-called “study”, due to the danger it would pose to the local flora and fauna. This would essentially create a toxic plume which would eventually disperse, but in the meantime, it could wreak havoc on the local environment.
6,000 gallons? $10MM? I’ll do it for $5MM. Half price, what a savings!!