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

Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

whoi.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#11

Post by frazbin »

omginternets wrote: post #3

Every time I read something like this, my hubris alarm goes off. We couldn't even get trans-fats right, so I don't see how we're going to cover all the contingencies for something like this.

'Terraforming' earth has never been easy but it has long been necessary to feed humans. Bulk addition of soluble/leachable nutrients (naturally depleted by rainfall, fractionation by gravity, and chemical transformation) is the primary novel intervention in modern agriculture. We've learned that biological systems can be made to cycle much faster by turning the crank in this way. The rewards are great-- used in land, 7 billion fed. Use of similar intervention in the ocean suggests proportionally larger rewards.

Further, we've already destabilized the global system by injecting carbon. It is now our responsibility to find a way to stabilize it again.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#12

Post by OneGuy123 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #10
OneGuy123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At some point you have to choose what to do , and that's always going to involve unknowns. For instance: 40 years ago, the USA could have chosen to continue building out nuclear power. Not accelerate the deployment, mind you, merely continue the roll out apace. If we had done so, we would be completely free of coal and gas today . Not maybe 30 years from now if we hustle, today . One could rage all day against the ri…

Potentially destroying the ocean vs spending money to reduce carbon emissions is a no brainer, and it's the job of these scientists to say that out loudly rather than to push for these extreme solution which can produce a blackswan disaster of epic proportions that even money won't be able to save.

The arrogance of scientists to "try out my method instead" is at fault since if these scientists were to actually want to save the planet they would push on politicians to spend money rather to try and implement potentialy extremely destructive solutions.

In short, you fail to understand that this might create a unfixable disaster, while global warming is obviously solvable by other means since we are far from any kind of an serious crisis, regardless of what "scientists" say.

The world is NOT burning yet, which means we can and HAVE TO avoid stupid solutions like dumping iron in the ocean while there are harmless solutions available.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#13

Post by mdorazio »

24gttghh wrote: post #7
greenonions wrote: post #4

There are so many lower hanging fruit for reducing emissions of and sequestering existing carbon. If you simply restored the majority of the US great plains back to a bison centered ecosystem instead of cattle, you'd produce a similar resource (bison meat) in large quantity while reducing emissions, and the tall grass would sequester an enormous amount of carbon.

I was about to say most of the plains are used for growing corn and not grazing land but I was wrong, partly. Its mostly cropland in the Northern/Central plains, but mostly grazing/pasture land otherwise. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/maps-...

Worth noting also is that major crops grown there, like corn and soybeans, are primarily used as animal feed [1][2]. A decent chunk of corn is also used for ethanol additives to gasoline. The best thing we can do for the environment by far is reduce consumption of beef and dairy products.

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgra...

[2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#14

Post by wongarsu »

boxed wrote: post #6
greenonions wrote: post #4

There are so many lower hanging fruit for reducing emissions of and sequestering existing carbon. If you simply restored the majority of the US great plains back to a bison centered ecosystem instead of cattle, you'd produce a similar resource (bison meat) in large quantity while reducing emissions, and the tall grass would sequester an enormous amount of carbon.

Would it though? I don't see how because if it did sequester a lot of carbon (not just a one time chunk but over time) then the world would have way less carbon in the atmosphere than it did before industrialization.

Most of the effect is just that plants are mostly made out of carbon, so having more plant mass means more carbon in plants and less in the atmosphere. It's the same for trees.

It's a sink of fixed size, not a bottomless barrel we can dump infinite amounts of CO2 into. That doesn't make it useless though.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#15

Post by baggy_trough »

greenonions wrote: post #4

There are so many lower hanging fruit for reducing emissions of and sequestering existing carbon. If you simply restored the majority of the US great plains back to a bison centered ecosystem instead of cattle, you'd produce a similar resource (bison meat) in large quantity while reducing emissions, and the tall grass would sequester an enormous amount of carbon.

"simply"

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#17

Post by SubiculumCode »

omginternets wrote: post #3

Every time I read something like this, my hubris alarm goes off. We couldn't even get trans-fats right, so I don't see how we're going to cover all the contingencies for something like this.

The original hubris was thinking we could put all these greenhouse gasses in the air and do climate change and fk the consequences.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#18

Post by JanSolo »

GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #2

It seems more and more likely to me that the general approach to climate change is going to simply be adaptation. We'll have to figure out ways to live and grow food in a hotter world that has more dramatic weather events. I think this will be expensive and could tragically lead to the deaths of many people who cannot afford to live in this new world. If a large country with many poor people are faced with this situa…

Adaptation will happen for sure. Here are some examples of things that we should expect to see in the coming years:

* No more building in flood-plains or low-lying coastal regions.

* Flood insurance in those areas will lose their subsidies and will become expensive.

* Areas in Florida, Louisiana, etc will become poorer as those who can afford to relocate do so.

* Farming will slowly move north; southern areas that are currently farms will dry out and become non-viable.

* Alternative energy might take the place of farming in the south. Solar farms? Wind Turbines?

* Inland cities will become more popular because of their reduced risk of climate-related events. Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, Washington, will likely all get net-positive migration.

* Conversely, the big coastal cities will become more expensive and cause people to start leaving. NY, LA, San Francisco, Boston, etc.

Re: Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron (2007)

#19

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #2

It seems more and more likely to me that the general approach to climate change is going to simply be adaptation. We'll have to figure out ways to live and grow food in a hotter world that has more dramatic weather events. I think this will be expensive and could tragically lead to the deaths of many people who cannot afford to live in this new world. If a large country with many poor people are faced with this situa…

If you're interested in adaptation in food systems I really enjoyed The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World.

I'm currently working through Whole Earth Discipline which calls for work on three different fronts: Reduction (of emission), Adaptation (to unavoidable change) and Geoengineering (to prevent the worst of it).

Without significant government ran/funded geoengineering projects we'll be living with at least ~1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. We'll need to do some adaptation as is.

Post reply on HN