Slashdot Log In
Global Warming Stopped By Adding Lime To Sea
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:00 AM
from the but-then-nobody-can-have-a-good-gin-and-tonic dept.
from the but-then-nobody-can-have-a-good-gin-and-tonic dept.
Antiglobalism writes "Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today."
Related Stories
[+]
Geoengineering To Cool the Earth Becoming Thinkable 419 comments
johkir writes "As early as 1965, when Al Gore was a freshman in college, a panel of distinguished environmental scientists warned President Lyndon B. Johnson that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels might cause 'marked changes in climate' that 'could be deleterious.' Yet the scientists did not so much as mention the possibility of reducing emissions. Instead they considered one idea: 'spreading very small reflective particles' over about five million square miles of ocean, so as to bounce about 1 percent more sunlight back to space — 'a wacky geoengineering solution.' In the decades since, geoengineering ideas never died, but they did get pushed to the fringe — they were widely perceived by scientists and environmentalists alike as silly and even immoral attempts to avoid addressing the root of the problem of global warming. Three recent developments have brought them back into the mainstream." We've discussed some
pretty
strange
ideas
in the geoengineering line over the last few years.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Mitch said it best (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mitch said it best (Score:5, Informative)
I'm kind of surprised you know enough to know that it sounds like him but haven't heard it. It's from his CD, Mitch All Together, on the track titled, oddly enough, Saved By The Buoyancy Of Citrus.
Parent
Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
This couldn't possibly have any additional side-effects, right?
Next they'll want to add tequila and filter the salt to the coasts.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Your account should be banned. (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno what the hell you're trying to babble about. The proper reference for /. readers goes like this:
Skinner: Ahh, but as it turns out the lizards were a godsend since they've eaten all the pigeons.
Lisa: Isn't that a little short-sighted? What happens when we're up to our ears with lizards?
Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needlesnakes.
Lisa: Then what about the snakes?
Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
Lisa: Well what happens when we're up to our ears in gorillas?!
Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.
Parent
Cause and effect (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
If only CO2 actually was the cause for global warming! Every ice core sample taken shows that CO2's only relation to warming is that as sea water gets warmer, it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 rises lag behind temp rises by decades/centuries in all samples taken.
Yes, and then the increased CO2 causes increased warming, resulting in more CO2. It's a feedback cycle, and just because CO2 isn't the initial driver in historical cases does not mean it doesn't cause warming. It's just that in the past, it was always something else that caused the increase in temperature with the CO2 increase following.
If you were to directly introduce CO2 into the atmosphere before any other warming occurred, then it could become the driving force for the feedback cycle.
The ice cores are also unanimous in showing that CO2 levels have not been higher than they are now for hundreds of thousands of years, and that the change has occurred rapidly since the industrial revolution. So while in natural cases of warming, CO2 levels were not the initial impetus, our current situation is anything but natural. The ice cores do not imply in any way that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work, so unless you have some other reason to think it doesn't, then this is cause for concern.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
This couldn't possibly have any additional side-effects, right?
It remind me of another idea: to add iron particles to the ocean in order to stimulate algae growth, which absorbs quite a lot of CO2.
But what happens then? Do the oceans get clogged with algae? Do fish eat them so we get to make the fishing industry happy at the same time? Do the algae release the CO2 when they die? Or does it sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking the carbon with it?
Lots of possibilities for side effects, lots of things to research.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a way of hardening the water, which in turn increases its ability to absorb CO2 without increasing the acidity of the water. The basic chemistry is used by aquarium hobbyists to keep their acidity stable.
Many fish keepers go to great lengths to keep their water in a tight range to mimic their fish's natural environment as close as possible, but empirical evidence suggests that fish can tolerate a wide range of hardness and acidity provided that changes are made slowly. Additionally, it should increase the growth rate of coral.
However, many types of fish may only breed within a given hardness range, so this may end up being a big problem.
Parent
Obligatory Futurama quote (Score:5, Funny)
Adding lime to sea water.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know...
Based on the success of introducing the cane toad, tamarisk, the bark beetle, the banana slug, the mongoose, or the brown tree snake!
Any time humans screw something up, the best bet is for humans to go double-or-nothing.
Sure beats efficiency, responsible building practices, responsible reproduction rates, or simply riding a bike to work! Surely, changing the pH, salinity, disolved o2, and turbidity of the oceans will have no unwanted effect.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite is the coral reef some geniuses made out of... used tires.
Its now considered an ecological disaster.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/tires.php [iht.com]
Parent
"There's a mouse in the house!" (Score:5, Interesting)
You're absolutely correct. There's no end to the number of environmental "solutions" that led to far greater problems down the road. And the sad thing is that they were not unforeseen problems. The people who thought up the solutions figured it was easier to let subsequent generations deal with the mess; they were more interested in a quick fix for political expediency.
Anyone else of a certain age remember the animated bit from The Electric Company [wikipedia.org] (then-unknown Morgan Freeman was one of the cast members) wherein the wife is freaking out about a mouse in the house? To cut a long story short, as the problems cascade, the husband gets a cat, then a dog, then a tiger, then finally an elephant to scare away the tiger. When the wife complains about the elephant, the husband says "Everyone knows elephants are afraid of mice" reintroducing the original problem and losing an entire wall of the house in the process as the panicked elephant stampedes through it. The punch line is the battered husband lying on the ground saying to himself, "You know...maybe I should have just gotten a trap...". I think that little cartoon is one of the great cautionary tales of environmental engineering.
Parent
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:5, Informative)
You actually need both things... Because all of it has an impact.
That bicycle? It produced as much or more pollution as the car burning the gasoline to produce it unless you're making it entirely out of wood. The same goes for most of the other ones you brought up.
By themselves, they don't accomplish much of anything- and actually in some cases are worse than the "fixes" we've done in the past (Something else you mentioned...).
You've got to take in an even bigger picture than you're doing- otherwise you're no better than the people you're tarring with that brush of yours.
Uhm no?
Making a bike produces a negligible amount of CO2 compared to driving a car, your statement is downright false.
Parent
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bicycle production uses the same amount of energy to produce as driving the car how far? If the bicycle's parts used that much energy to mine, smelt, cast, assemble, and transport then how much more did the parts of the 1,200 kg car take?
Parent
Calcium hydroxide, not the fruit (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think it'd be obvious, but at slashdot, you actually do need to point that out to people.
Natural carbon sequestration via coral? (Score:5, Interesting)
On a chemical level, how does this differ from growing coral?
A coral bred / genetically modified to grow in a wider variety of climates could also scrub CO2 from the air. Though the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' crowd might be concerned with over scrubbing by the GM coral.
Re:Natural carbon sequestration via coral? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, coral (and shellfish) can sequester carbon, but this only works as long as the water is sufficiently non-acidic. The problem is that as atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, some of it becomes carbonic acid -- and the acidification of the water means that corals, and shellfish shells, dissolve.
One nice effect of adding lime is that it lowers the acidity of the water, thereby allowing coral and shellfish to continue sequestering carbon.
Parent
Whoa there... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more sensible and cost effective for mankind to use technology to adapt to climate change rather than to try to change the climate. After all, some climate change isn't caused by man and can't be stopped. Witness the last little ice age, and the last ice age before that that glaciated much of the northern hemisphere.
Eventually some idiotic scheme like dumping X in the oceans is going to cause a truly great disaster. We need to stop screwing around with the Earth. Climate science is still in its infancy.
Nevermind the obvious unknowns here (Score:5, Insightful)
But what happens when one nation decides this is a great idea while another fervently disagrees? Water doesn't obey boundaries.
I Am A Chemist (Score:5, Informative)
And this appears to work. I'm sure some not-rtfa'ing people above me will have got in with a quick "making lime generates carbon dioxide hur hur" but the process already takes this into account. By increasing the pH of the seawater, they claim that it will absorb two moles of CO2 for every mole released in the manufacture of lime. I'm not an environmental chemist so I can't comment on the adsorption gradient of seawater, but if they think it'll work then it'll work.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water:
CO2 + H2O H(+) + HCO3(-)
As does Calcium Oxide (lime)
CaO + H2O Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
I'd imagine that various equilibrium constants shift around to prove that there's a net increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air. It's pretty elementary science - so elementary, I've forgotten how to do it. by simply ascribing a token amount of competence to the scientific background of the people in TFA, it can be shown that they probably know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, there's no doomsday scenario where a drop of lime juice makes the ocean boil pure CO2 and kill us all. As far as I can see.
Chemical Description (Score:5, Interesting)
In case anyone was wondering:
Lime = CaO
CaO + H_2O Ca(OH)_2 + 63.7kJ/mol of CaO
Ca(OH)_2 (aq) + CO_2 (g) -> CaCO_3 (s) + H_2O (l)
CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) -> Ca(HCO3)2(aq)
Some of these compounds are strong bases that may be dangerous for both human consumption and wildlife contact. If this were done in segregated water areas, however, it may be possible to utilize the properties of the first reaction to produce energy via a heat engine.
Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Funny)
There are two forces in this world keeping the pirates in check: ninjas and scurvy. If the seas were suddenly full of lime, scurvy would be vanquished. The balance of power would be horribly altered, and no one's booty would be safe.
Please, everybody, write your congressman about this!
So this is stage three, "bargaining"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the speed at which the we are progressing through the Kubler-Ross model of grief, the world governments should hit "acceptance" sometime around 2025. Then maybe we'll start hearing some sense out of people.
Re:Anonymouns Coward (Score:5, Informative)
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.
RTFA. FTW. My acronyms are more powerful than your anonymity.
Parent
Re:Anonymouns Coward (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Anonymouns Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Science ignorance on the rise
I love it when people think they know everything and don't even see if these scientists even considered the issue.
So, correction:
Reader ignorance on the rise.
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm hoping that next they'll add some gin.
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Informative)
A solution to nasty-tasting seawater! Lemonade oceans FTW!
Except...it's lime.
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Yum! Salty lemonade, my favourite!
Gatorade Marine will be marketed for its unique patented electrolytes.
It's got what plants crave!
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
But it's got elec-tra-lites.
Definitely an under-appreciated movie.
Parent
Add lime? (Score:5, Interesting)
You might not be in Margaritaville - but you might still get plastered. [wikipedia.org]
WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong?
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
The only problem is the dolphins are asking for Corona or Tequila....
Screw those stupid dolphins; always laughing at us humans. Just to spite them we should fill the ocean with Bud Light!
Parent
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
>>The only problem is the dolphins are asking for Corona or Tequila....
>Screw those stupid dolphins; always laughing at us humans. Just to spite them we should fill the ocean with Bud Light!
Speaking of pissing in the ocean...
Parent
Re:Ocean of Acid (Score:5, Informative)
And then all these fish die because of too much acid in the water! Epic Fale.
Uh, not really - Calcium Oxide reduces the acidity of water: Calcium Oxide [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Ocean of Acid (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh... Because of the CO2 we already have in the atmosphere, it's too acid right now. All they're doing is a process mother nature already does (Much like Thermal Depolymerization does with biomass and plastics to break it down into natural gas and sweet crude...). Strange as it seems, it might actually do some good- but it's a bold thing they're proposing.
Parent
The Wisdom of the Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
This sounds a lot like that episode of the Simpsons where Bart unleashes some lizards that spread all over and end up killing off the pigeons which annoyed the town:
Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Parent
Re:The Wisdom of the Simpsons (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately doing nothing isn't the answer either. Nor is anything that I've seen most of the people suggesting (Suggested alternatives to the polluting vehicles, etc. end up producing their own global warming inducing pollution, either at only a slightly LESS rate than we are now or at the same or higher levels- you just don't have it happening locally...) including the seeding of the oceans with iron filings to produce algal blooms, etc.
While I'm not 100% on board with this, on the first reading, it's the first relatively "sane" thing that someone's suggested so far about the "global warming problem"- which is not to say I think we need to do it right away or that this is the sole answer.
And, for the record, we've been doing the old saw about the lady or the Simpson's gag since the earlier days of man. Just being on this earth, we cause a disruption like no other... I don't see us doing any less anytime soon, I'm afraid.
Parent
Re:Ocean of Acid (Score:5, Informative)
TFA says they did think of this years ago but the problem was back then they wanted to do it on a truly global scale and, with the exception of a few places, getting the lime out of limestone and to the ocean generally puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the lime would help the ocean take back out of the atmosphere.
IOW, "net negative". Somebody seems to have had the genius thought that just because it can't be done everywhere and act as a "silver bullet" for global warming doesn't mean it isn't worth getting what help it can provide by doing it in those places where it doesn't produce more CO2 than it scrubs.
Parent
Re:Ocean of Acid (Score:5, Informative)
This is why we RTFA:
There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.
Lime is an alkalide.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide [wikipedia.org]
Also here: http://www.cquestrate.com/ [cquestrate.com]
Parent
Re:Ocean of Acid (Score:5, Funny)
Epic Fale.
What's that? Like a really big Samoan thatched roof house [wikipedia.org]?
Parent
Re:Chemistry 101? (Score:5, Funny)
Lime (or calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is a base, which is the opposite of an acid.
So the ocean will be all like 'All Your Base..'
Ok, I'll stop now.
Parent
Re:Riiight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm not saying this is a great idea, but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people bashing scientific findings simply because of who sponsored them. Why is Al Gore's sponsored research any more compelling than Shell's?
Instead of a knee-jerk attack on the messenger, why don't you discuss what's wrong with the research, like every one else ("lime" jokes aside) is doing?
Parent
Re:Riiight. (Score:5, Funny)
I wrote a real quick firefox extension to filter out everything that's a lime joke.
Sorry, your's is the only post left ;)
Parent
Re:This scares the hell out of me (Score:5, Informative)
> I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now
Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif [nasa.gov]
[TMB]
Parent
Re:This scares the hell out of me (Score:5, Informative)
Despite the political rhetoric we have no proof as to how much human activity is contributing to any warming trends, and even less of an idea on the possible side effects of any direct intervention. Other scientists have actually proposed putting more particulate pollution into the air to create a mild 'nuclear winter' style cooling in order to offset any rising temperatures.
I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now, but I will point out in closing that hair brained schemes such as this one remind me of a five year old child trying to rebuild a Formula 1 engine with a pair of chopsticks. We are so very ignorant of how and why we have or can effect the climate. The sheer hubris of some people today who assume we have such great control over climate just amazes, and scares, me.
I agree that the climate is extremely complex, and that while we cannot understand all of the factors involved, we can draw some simple conclusions about some of the effects we are having on the environment.
You probably already know that humans produce a lot of carbon dioxide. We breathe it out, we burn things, and our agricultural and industrial processes create even more.
You probably also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gasses increase warming due to sunlight.
You may or may not know that the ppm of carbon dioxide has been increasing [swivel.com] over the years.
I propose that you cannot prove that we aren't increasing the temperature of the planet
Parent
Re:This scares the hell out of me (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey. This is not global warming, this is ocean acidification. The rise in CO2 in the last two centuries coincides exactly with the burning of fossil fuel. The acidification, which will kill of corals and other shellfish is an easily derived consequence of rising CO2.
If you want to dispute the effect of CO2 on climate, fine. I disagree with you, but there are valid questions. There are no valid questions on ocean acidification.
Parent
Re:Depends on HOW the Lime is made... AND... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on /. does this:
"Remembrances of my chemistry classes tell me this is not practical... "
magically make one person more qualified than dozens of environmental scientists with PhDs.
I feel better knowing that the /. crowd is on the job.
Parent