Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

oceana.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#111

Post by azernik »

ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

This is actually not at all what the paper is saying.

It's saying that a natural carbon-sequestration process we already knew about is more effective than we thought. It says nothing about the way seaweed growth changes with increased carbon levels.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#112

Post by ambicapter »

ianai wrote: post #30
akuji1993 wrote: post #18

Stupid question incoming. Does it really help us to trap even more CO2 under the surface? If something exposes that CO2 again, it will be back up in the atmosphere right? So it feels like this would be a "solution" like storing used uranium underground in lead containers - eventually it will become a problem. Or am I completely wrong here?

I don’t think it can truly use seaweed to sequester carbon unless we harvest the seaweed and entomb it underground - but it has to be somewhere the decomposition won’t leak carbon into the atmosphere.

I don't think carbon is that volatile.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#113

Post by rbanffy »

bumholio wrote: post #11
pjc50 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that there are a number of homeostatic (self-regulating) processes that affect the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere; if it wasn't homeostatic it would have drifted off to an extreme long ago. The key question is how well and how rapidly these mechanisms can respond to an increase in CO2 levels.

The homeostasis might work in a limited range under which the biological world evolved in the recent past. Exceeding that range could quickly turn to a runaway geological event of rapid climate change, a state transition in a complex and unpredictable system. Take for example the great oxidation event happening 2.5 billion years ago. As oxygen excreting algae began to take over methane producing organisms, oxygen sta…

> I have full faith life on Earth will eventually restore the feedback loops and get the temperatures back in the sweet spot.

Venusians thought that and look at where they are now.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#114

Post by Tharkun »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #110
Tharkun wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anyone claiming the existence of or holding their breath for a magic solution. All I see is people sharing discoveries that might contribute towards a solution. Reducing the emissions caused by cattle can be a part of the "huge concentrated effort across the world" you mentioned.

Sure, but there is a solution that is orders of magnitude more effective: don't buy meat, thereby allowing cow farming to end. Not eating meat is however seen as too 'inconvenient' a solution, so instead someone is trying to sell seaweed fed cows as a "partial solution" where it is really more of a gimmick.

Statements like "don't buy meat" are much more of a gimmick than tinkering with cattle feed. The latter is a realistic option -- which might not make a huge difference, but it will make a difference. The former is a pipe dream. Humans have been eating meat since before they were human. Good luck changing that in the timeframe we have before climate change becomes very painful.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#115

Post by benza »

azernik wrote: post #111
ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

This is actually not at all what the paper is saying. It's saying that a natural carbon-sequestration process we already knew about is more effective than we thought. It says nothing about the way seaweed growth changes with increased carbon levels.

Hy

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#116

Post by seren »

Tharkun wrote: post #114
SiempreViernes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is a solution that is orders of magnitude more effective: don't buy meat, thereby allowing cow farming to end. Not eating meat is however seen as too 'inconvenient' a solution, so instead someone is trying to sell seaweed fed cows as a "partial solution" where it is really more of a gimmick.

Statements like "don't buy meat" are much more of a gimmick than tinkering with cattle feed. The latter is a realistic option -- which might not make a huge difference, but it will make a difference. The former is a pipe dream. Humans have been eating meat since before they were human. Good luck changing that in the timeframe we have before climate change becomes very painful.

Not buying meat might be to hard to attain, but not eating lamb or beef, and only eating chicken is a step in the right direction.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-bigg...

However, to be fair, if you remove all pastures all together, there are probably other bad consequences on ecosystems (including people!).

(Disclaimer: I am still eating beef, but less that I used to, which in the grand scheme of things is probably useless)

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#117

Post by [deleted] »

rement wrote: post #102
samfriedman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, that's where I first heard that thought! Thanks, just a bit of cryptomnesia. https://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4?t=144 Side note: something I've never seen before on that Youtube video: it links the Wikipedia page for climate change right under the video. An attempt to battle misleading videos perhaps?

The Wikipedia links are a new initiative Google is doing to combat fake news and misleading information [0]. 0: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2018/07/building-better-news-...

[deleted]

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#118

Post by atourgates »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #98
nickkell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackernews loves these articles that give some kind of hope for a magical solution to climate change. It's easier than the thought that it will require a huge concerted effort across the world and changing the habits of millions

It's not individuals exercising bad habits that causes climate change. It's the fact that the current political, economic, and ecological landscape incentivizes behaviors that cause climate change. The deterrent of trying to give people a guilt trip for driving in a hurry or for eating beef is not sufficient to counteract the tremendous tragedy of the commons that makes those behaviors happen. Regulations that associ…

I'd even say that the focus on personal responsibility for climate change is creating unnecessary resistance.

I live in a conservative area, and I've been trying to be more proactive about trying to understand the viewpoints that cause people to be skeptical of things like climate change.

I recently had a conversation with someone who was skeptical of climate change - but had an education with a scientific background and the tools that should help him land on the side of clear science.

What it came down to is that he feels personally attacked by many of the personal recommendations for reducing CO2 emissions.

For example, when someone says that we need stricter emissions regulations for vehicles, what he hears is "you're a bad person for driving your old truck." In reality, if we could get people like him to emissions regulations for new vehicles and stop guilting them about driving classic cars, we'd be doing great things for the planet.

My impression is that there's a significant number of people who aren't opposed to the actual large scale changes that would make the biggest positive difference in the fight against climate change, but are put off by the "only you can stop climate change by switching your gas lawnmower to electric" style rhetoric that does more damage than good.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#119

Post by scythe »

pjc50 wrote: post #6
ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

We know that there are a number of homeostatic (self-regulating) processes that affect the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere; if it wasn't homeostatic it would have drifted off to an extreme long ago. The key question is how well and how rapidly these mechanisms can respond to an increase in CO2 levels.

The big cycle is caused by the reaction of magnesium silicate with carbon dioxide. Mg silicate is the chief component of Earth's mantle. As temperature increases, silicate rocks are worn away faster by rain and wind, and absorb more CO2. This CO2 eventually sinks down into the mantle as magnesium carbonate, where it is very slowly re-released by volcanoes (the majority of Earth's carbon is in the mantle). As CO2 is sequestered, the Earth cools, and the weathering of silicate rocks slows, especially when they are covered by glaciers. Then the release of CO2 by volcanoes starts to outpace the absorption by olivine, and the atmosphere warms up again.

Eventually as the Sun gets brighter, the equilibrium amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to drop below the requirements for plant life, and the Earth will die. By heating the atmosphere, we hasten the arrival of the next glacial cycle, but we are (thankfully) at low risk of starving the biosphere.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#120

Post by mbostleman »

enraged_camel wrote: post #103
jules wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is exceedingly unlikely that raised temperatures or sea levels would end humanity. Even if all ice melts there would still be a lot of land, and humans can and do currently survive in hot climates. The habitable zone will just shrink a bit, but it will also expand in other places. Siberia + 5 degrees is still cold.

No, this is very wrong. It’s not about having land to live on and being able to continue to breathe on it. Of course we would be able to do that. The issue is all the parts of the ecosystem we have come to rely on. Animals, plants, insects... the entire global economy and our ways of live are tightly intertwined with everything else and even small disruptions can have enormous repercussions, especially on more vulner…

This description is full of hyperbolic generalities. The available land example may or may not be comprehensive, but at least it's specific.

I think the biggest problem that I have about everything climate change / global warming is that we are making laws to force (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people regardless of the warm and fuzzy intentions used to sell it) entire populations and their economies in the absence of so much specific knowledge. That doesn't make me a denier because accept / deny is not really the issue. Just because I accept the general premise doesn't mean that I trust the depth of the understanding to the point that I am willing to turn a gun on my neighbor to either reduce their liberty and / or confiscate their personal property in the name of said premise.

Post reply on HN