Global Warming Stopped By Adding Lime To Sea 899
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."
Ocean of Acid (Score:0, Insightful)
And then all these fish die because of too much acid in the water! Epic Fale.
Adding lime to sea water.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And finally... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Calcium hydroxide, not the fruit (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:And finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Might be like a Margarita.
Then again, it might not.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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.
Re:sarcasm (Score:1, Insightful)
yeah you read the article that specifically addresses the pH issue /sarcasm
(cough) youdontknowwhatthefuckyouretalkingabout (cough)
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.
17 Gt per year. (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a lotta limestone.
Which, unless we're going to use carbon-neutral machines to dig out and transport will be a big loss of petrol...
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people are try to be responsible. The problem is that no two people seem to agree on what "responsible" is. The way I see it, "responsible" development means to do whatever some pompous personality says is good for us. That doesn't have a good track record either. At best, it only slows development, but it doesn't stop it.
This solution may actually reverse the effects. I'll concede that in many if not most cases where people tinker with the environment there are unintended consequences. But the alternative such as "responsible" practices aren't producing better results either.
It's easy to sit in an arm chair and say sarcastic things such as "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" and then use that as an excuse to do nothing. This may not be an ideal solution. But given the alternatives, it may be worth trying.
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.
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I guess, but we've really swallowed the cow already. Our best available science predicts dire consequences from current and future CO2 levels, so it's reasonable to look for potential fixes that may have other consequences that will need to be studied carefully.
It's certainly good to address the problem at its cause, by releasing less CO2 in the first place, but there are practical limits to reductions and many methods used to reduce CO2 will have their own side effects. Even wind/solar would have SOME negative effects, some of which would likely be unanticipated.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
You give away your bias too easily...
If you really think global warming will kill you all, then any side effects are of secondary concern - go nuclear, kill all the dolphins be damned.
If you think global warming is going to annoy us all, side effects are questions to be answered - go study, weigh the economics, look for good and bad in it.
If global warming is your religion, side effects must be zero - you will not accept any solution not your own.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Am A Chemist (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot seems to have eaten the arrows in your equations, so here's a try using HTML entities:
CO2 + H2O -> H(+) + HCO3(-)
CaO + H2O -> Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)
H(+) + OH(-) -> H2O
Seems Slashdot has something against implementing some form of Unicode (and HTML 4 entity codes), so putting in → (right arrow) or pasting the equivalent character don't work. You'd think they would pass it onto the browser rather than simply deleting them...
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: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.
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.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
So calcium carbonate is an introduced invasive species? And here I thought it was a mineral.
Your examples suck. Our options are: watch the oceans acidify, watch coral reefs and all the other sea animals that depend on the same fucking calcium carbonate that these scientists are talking about dumping in the sea dissolve in the acidic oceans, or, alternatively, try and do something about it.
Now, I've been against a lot of the ideas so far, but this one smacks of fucking genius, and has the potential to actually do something about the problem, which is something your unrealistic utopian ramblings will never have.
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?
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, yeah, kudzu. Annoying stuff, ain't it?
But... Did it stop the erosion?
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even moreso, he was comparing the production-cost of a bike to the operation-cost of a car.
Throw the public health ripple effects of bikes vs cars and bikes look even better from a resources standpoint.
Re:This scares the hell out of me (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm...RTFA!
The lime is being added to REDUCE the acidification of the ocean which will then better absorbe CO2...which will return the ocean to the current acidity and rate of CO2 absorption. The excess CO2 will generally precipitate out, collect on the bottom and form...lime stone.
Re:Depends on HOW the Lime is made... AND... (Score:3, Insightful)
Running around with your arms waving in the air and yelling "Change!, Change!, Change!!!", does NOT make it a PLAN.
I want to see the *actual numbers*, the real logistics, and the bottom line cost in "Dollars per Gigaton of CO2 sequestered" in the ocean (less the total amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere in the manufacture, transportation/distribution, and extraction of Lime *AND* the energy production needed to power this proposed CONCEPT.
And, oh yes, and WHO THE HELL PAYS FOR IT? I Smell the scent of *Heavy Taxation* for the funding...
It may just well be cheaper to relocate our coastal cities and deal with higher oceanic levels...
Plus, think of the positives to "Global Warming"... er, uh, um... ya,
Plus, think of the positives to "Climate Change", It could really free up lots of new real estate in Alaska and Asia, not to mention Greenland and the Antarctic...
Me thinks this is akin to sausage making... tastes good, looks good all covered with kraut, but you don't want to know how its made...
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.
Re:Natural carbon sequestration via coral? (Score:3, Insightful)
Coral growth depends on enough calcium in the water and enough oxygen for the coral to breath. Right now, they are suffering from acidic water (largely caused by CO2), a lack of calcium (because it's reacting with the acidic water), dead zones with not enough oxygen, and no way put more CO2 into the water through respiration because it's saturated. Giving them calcium to absorb, raising the pH of the water, and lowering the CO2 levels will help the coral so long as it's not overdone and doesn't kill off some other important part of the food chain.
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
So your contentions are that these thousands-of-years-old trees only exist because of man, and nature would have taken care of them long ago, despite their having living thousands of years without "land management" and only "nature." Ok, do you see the logical fallacy here?
And if you think CO2 regulation is the only function that trees fulfill, well that's just wrong.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, and how much CO2 was produced to build your car? Don't try retarded arguments here, most of us are too smart.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure strip mining half of the land surface to get the lime won't have much of an impact.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
This warming we are experiencing now is due at least in part to humans creating CO2 by burning fossil fuels, not from CO2 naturally being released. We caused a significant increase in CO2 concentrations and CO2 has been known to absorb IR radition for over 100 years. Don't talk to me about CO2 lag, sunspots, or cosmic rays - show me the science that proves you can increase the concentration of a strong IR absorbing molecule (CO2) and not increase the temperature of the planet.
RealClimate.org [realclimate.org] has a good discussion on CO2 lag for anyone interested.
Stranded energy is stranded for a reason (Score:2, Insightful)
They want to do all this using stranded energy-- wind or solar which no one uses because it is located in the middle of nowhere.
Their analysis makes no mention of the energy cost of transporting zillions of tons of limestones from the middle of nowhere to the ocean. Or, rather, to all the world's oceans (since we don't want to cause one region to spike in alkylynity.)
And if it doesn't cost that much money/energy to transport those zillions of tons of rock, then it presumably costs even less to transport the electricity (Electrons don't weigh that much). In which case, the resource wouldn't be stranded.
But, it is good to see people thinking about this sort of thing, however incompletely.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Wisdom of the Simpsons (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What about massive reforestation projects? There's a lot of people starving and doing nothing all over the world. Let's feed them and put them to work planting trees (and other related and necessary elements of a sustainable ecology.)
We could be growing bamboo, or hemp, or kenaf, or I don't care what on every piece of ground that will sustain it. We could be shifting our oil consumption over to biofuels made from algae grown on seawater, which is available in roughly unlimited quantity (and soon to become even more copious!) There's a ton of great ideas. None of them are sufficient in and of themselves; good thing we can work on some or even all of them in parallel.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
You give away your bias too easily...
If you really think global warming will kill you all, then any side effects are of secondary concern - go nuclear, kill all the dolphins be damned.
Not necessarily. Imagine you had a black-widow spider crawling on your forehead, and your friend sees it, pulls out his gun, and prepares to shoot the spider. Would you say that, if you really believed the spider was going to kill you, you'd let him shoot, because side effects are a secondary concern? Or would you encourage your friend to consider the consequences before he pulled the trigger?
There are times when the cure is worse than the disease, and lots of problems were begun with good intentions. Even the current ecological problems were caused by someone trying to fix an economic problem without considering (or else ignoring) the ramifications. If you're setting out to change the chemistry of our oceans, I'd say it's worth looking at all the angles.
So.. lemme get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but of the gases released by human activity CO2 is the main culprit, and the main one that needs to be "managed." To deny its role in global warming is just wrong.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Old growth is "sacred" because healthy forests are composed of more than trees, and old growth supports a much broader range of species than just itself, which new growth alone cannot do for a long time. But you're right. Growing and cutting new growth is not the solution to that. Stopping logging is the solution to that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Examine the arguments for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
Take everything you read with a grain of salt. When you read a website - look at the references. Read the references. Examine the arguments for yourself, instead of trusting someone else's analysis.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
"She swallowed the cow to catch the goat,"
This has always been as mystery to me, cows are herbivores, and don't chase anything.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking "What could possibly go wrong?" isn't exactly justification for doing nothing, although I really do want to know "What could possibly go wrong?" I would imagine dumping large amounts of lime into the oceans might somehow affect the marine life. Plus what happens to all of the CO2 once it's been absorbed into the water? Can it also become a hazard to marine life? What happens when the lime becomes saturated with CO2 and it can no longer absorb anymore?
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution. We'll have to rely on cutting down the production of CO2 eventually, not saying that this won't help just that we shouldn't rely on only this (and we should really figure out the negatives first.)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
it is good to try to treat everything with a modicum of respect. The dividing line you draw in the sand between what you will show respect for, and what you won't, is subjective, and specific to only you. Someone else may come along and think that what you have decided not to show respect for, deserves respect. Who is right? While applying respect unilaterally gives you closer to a true moral high ground to work from.
I respect those of a religious persuasion enough to actually take a look at their Big Book of Holiness, to attempt to point out to them where they are making their mistakes (if we are to disregard the old testament for the new testament, why follow the ten commandments.. and if we are to follow the ten commandments, why ignore the rest of the rules laid out in the old testament?)
There is science to back up the probability that we are adding to global warming, but there is also science that shows that the Earth goes through normal periods of heating up and cooling down. I mean... who caused the global warming that brought us back from the last Ice Age?
Understanding an issue is leading someone from ignorance to knowledge. One cannot condemn another for their ignorance. One can only condemn another for their lack of desire to leave their ignorance behind. All you can hope to do is educate and allow people to see the reason and logic behind the presented evidence. You cannot say that you are sick of dealing with thick-headed people and therefore you see no point in explaining yourself. If you can't be bothered to make an honest attempt at improving the situation, you are only making it worse.
Personally, I think playing with our Ocean's chemistry is playing with fire... so to speak. I'd rather see a manmade increase in Plankton and Forests, and gain the benefit of the additional oxygen.
But then, people would have to give up on living on their 4 acres of grass.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it might be a good idea now, but what about 50 years from now?
"Well 90% of all marine life died, we dumped that lime into the ocean and it started absorbing CO2 at an unprecedented rate, the fish started to suffocate because there was too high a concentration of CO2 in the ocean and not enough O2, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Plus since we rallied around the idea that the ocean would absorb the CO2 we did invested less in stopping our overproduction of it, now the ocean is saturated with CO2 and our atmosphere's not looking too good..."
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow you manage to draw you enemies all together under the banner of tree hugging geniuses. Then, you ingeniously lump disparate environmental issues together. Next you demonstrate profound insight into the mind of nature. You follow all this up by advocating what, to the untrained eye, would seem like some random course of action unfettered with the burden of proof. But you're not done! Somehow you still manage to finish this sweeping literary tour de force by utterly decapitating that nebulous group of government worshiping tree-huggers doubtlessly responsible for countless environmental and economical catastrophes going back untold millennia!
Rest easy tonight sir, secure in the knowledge that the world is better place you in it.
Re:Revisionist history (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there were a few scientists predicting cooling, mostly due to increasing sulfides in the upper atmosphere. Happily, Nixon started the EPA and ended that trend.
I saw a survey of climatology papers published during the imagined "global cooling scare", and papers predicting warming outnumbered papers predicting cooling by about 6 to 1.
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
a science-denying wackjob argument
Seems to me that one well conceived and executed Controlled experiment would be all it takes; otherwise you will have a difficult time convincing rational people Global Warming is proven to be caused by human activity rather than a coincidence. A population of one make the statistic unconvincing, I've done enough computer programing to be unimpressed by computer models.
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, "a realistic solution to our current problems" is, in effect, exactly what we've been doing, plus drowning a few million tons of geology?
Look, when the next generation comes to you and asks, "When you saw these problems ahead, what did you do?" what answer do you want to have for them?
A) I tightened my belt, stopped buying shit I didn't need, started biking everywhere, and started putting up wind turbines as fast as I could. It was hard work, but I did it because I wanted the world to be as nice for you as it was for me.
B) I ripped out that mountain over there, and dumped it into this ocean over here. It wasn't pretty, but it was either that or get rid of my SUV.
If we'd made all the hard sacrifices, and were still faced with a big potential crisis, I'd say bring on the geoengineering. Otherwise, it's like listening to a chubby couch potato tell you that, rather than following a challenging diet and exercise regimen, he's just going to start slamming back the diet pills. Maybe it will actually improve his overall health, but it's hard not to look at their "solution" with a mixture of pity and disgust.
Now that my cleansing rant is over, could you elaborate on your statement that those "sustainable communities" aren't practical?
Re:Just a suggestion but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Only 150 years of research shows that science has been in dilemma about where the temperatue has been going for the last 150 years."
4 times scientists have pivoted their position on global warming and global cooling. 4 times in the last 100 years. 50 years of research before that did not address "Global" climate whatsoever, but sure, lets listen to your history as you call it.
I am just waiting until we hear that the sky is falling because of an impending ice age, because lets face it, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that it just repeats itself over and over again.
Then again, maybe it appears we are warming since 1820 because that was the end of the little ice age.... If you start your data points where you want to, the results the computer produces will always be favorable. GIGO.....and if you don't understand that, then you really don't need to be looking at computer models to begin with, much less posting about your opinions.
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nonsense, as anyone with sophomore chemistry and the ability to google up the quantities of CO2 we're talking about could tell you.
That's why we ask people with more than a sophomore chemistry level.
You are kidding... right? But look at that moderation! WOW! What really blows my mind is that all the climate change cultists that read here haven't even bothered to give the article a critical look and instead are content to make jokes about fruit flavoring. The article claims:
Gee, do tell guys. How does reversing CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 magically use up twice as much CO2 as it releases? No chemical formula, no citation. Nothing. Jack squat. Hmmm, a little digging produces this. [cquestrate.com]
So... CaO + H2O + 2CO2 -> Ca + 2HCO3...
Wait a second!? Doesn't 2H2O + 2CO2 -> 2H + 2HCO3...
So they're really just substituting Ca(2+) for 2H(+) and this is just more cultist sleight of hand. "We can drop CaO in the water and be SAVED! It'll absorb twice as much CO2 as it releases! HEAL mother Earth and REJOICE!! Send your support for our computer modeling efforts in the form of a check to..."
Besides, making lime takes LOTS of energy. Where is this pile of miracle lime going to come from??
Great, the cultists are going to stripmine the F'in desert and haul it all the way to the oceans. I'm sure that process will be "carbon neutral." I'll bet it's really inexpensive and gentle on the desert ecosystem at the same time. <sarcasm />
Re:Oh yeah! Interference FTW. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless the lime converts the CO2 into something harmless this isn't a very good solution.
Lime doesn't "convert" the CO2 to anything. The lime neutralizes the acid formed by the absorption of CO2.
When atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into seawater, carbonic acid (H2CO3) is formed. Increased atmospheric CO2 has led to increased oceanic absorption of CO2 and, therefore, increased acidity of our oceans. Increased acidity is not harmless. Many scientists are predicting substantial loss of oceanic habitat and wildlife as a direct result of the increased acidity.
Knowing this fact is crucial to understanding the the whole purpose of adding lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2) to sea water. Calcium hydroxide is a base. Adding calcium hydroxide reduces the acidity which will allow the oceans to absorb additional CO2 from the atmosphere.
As many here have pointed out, there is a distinct possibility of unintended consequences from messing with the pH of our oceans. But, the basic principle at work is simple acid-base chemistry.
Re:Add lime? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a biologist. I am a graphic designer and a programmer and a dad. So I have NO credentials in this field. However, based on owning a couple of fishtanks and terrariums and so on, I would humbly make the following observations ...
Amid this and all the other jokes (which are mostly pretty funny), I must say that we keep trying to go down the wrong road. If we think we're causing an increase in global warming, we need to TAKE AWAY what we're doing instead of ADD MORE stuff. Things worked before, more or less, and it seems to that adding new crap to the equation just adds random results.
I don't know what I believe about it -- I find the argument that this is all part of a natural cycle completely plausible, but (living in a huge metropolitan area) I can clearly see that we're having some kind of effect on our environment. Whatever turns out to be the case (and I have my doubts that we'll ever know), I think it's statistically probable that adding more crap to the environment will, at best, do nothing. And more likely will slingshot certain measurements toward the extreme ends.
In other words, I think the problem is that we try to fuck with something bigger than us and, in doing so, delay the natural adjustment that will occur if we let it. Which is not to say that we can just roll on as the smog-barfing bastards we've been, but that continuing to barf smog while trying to offset it with silliness like dumping lime into the oceans seems counterproductive to me. And will most certainly produce other shit that we'll need to adjust later. Which will produce more unwanted crap. And it told two friends, and they told two friends ...
When all else fails, I think we should back off of the aggressive treatment of our environment and see what happens. I'm not an environmentalist, per se, but it just seems to me that if we're all worried about our environment we should remove as many outside influences and see if things level off.
Just my $.02, of course.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.. okay. Propose a controlled experiment that we could perform. God knows hundreds, probably THOUSANDS of said experiments have already been done, but obviously since we can't build a viable climate model in the laboratory, we've turned to very, very complex computer models which do the same thing.
You think it's rational to disregard hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research by climate scientists because "you've done computer programming?" What makes you an expert in this field? have you even read the research you're disputing? (hint: you couldn't read it all in a single human lifetime, so no you haven't).
I understand why the OP is so frusterated... if you aren't an expert in the field, freaking defer to those who are! Quantum mechanics sounds pretty wacky too, but I don't question it because I defer to the experts. Anyone who doesn't in this day and age has a serious god complex.