
Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change? - yread
https://psmag.com/can-anyone-stop-the-man-who-will-try-just-about-anything-to-put-an-end-to-climate-change-93627e0d3831#.mja6r3b8a
======
civilian
This is a really good wiki article about it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

There's a few key ideas here: The limiting factor in plankton growth is iron.
So we can hit it with other things, the plankton needs more iron to
incorporate into chloroplasts to grow. Algal/plankton blooms can be toxic from
the chemicals produced, but they are usually toxic because they deplete oxygen
in the environment. I suspect that this would be manageable in the ocean,
since there's constant mixing and the ocean is _big_.
[http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/habharm.html](http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/habharm.html)

Iron seeding of the ocean already happens, in the form of dust storms blowing
onto the ocean. We've been able to see the effects of it, and it does as it
says-- it increases plankton life in the ocean.

I think that a lot of posts here are underestimating the size of the ocean or
over-estimating the capability of humans. We would have to dump _so_ much iron
into the ocean to make the whole thing anoxic. If we did this in a controlled
manner (and in small paths, so we wouldn't end up with big un-mixed anoxic
patches) then I think this is very reasonable.

All of you should be careful not do have the knee-jerk "nah that sounds
crazy!" reaction. This is HN, and you ought to know that the disbelievers
don't have a good track record.

~~~
Fordrus
I read in that wiki article that the data from Russ George's efforts discussed
in the OP article - that all that data was opened to the public in 2014 - but
I can't find the data so far. Do you know where it might be found?

~~~
aab0
Just follow the WP links.

"Researchers, interested organizations or individuals are welcome to use our
scientific data library for legitimate research endeavours. This data is
available free of charge, however we do ask that a memorandum of understanding
is executed for access privileges to our data. Please send us a message using
the Contact Us form and state the nature of your request."

[http://www.haidasalmonrestoration.com/index.php/science/scie...](http://www.haidasalmonrestoration.com/index.php/science/scientific-
data)

~~~
Fordrus
Whoops!!! I think I must've opened the page of frenzy of tab-opening, but then
either not return to it, or closed it immediately without realizing what it
was - that link has been visited, but I clearly didn't check it for the
desired content. Thank you! :)

------
zelias
I just don't understand why everyone refuses to study the results (at least,
from what the article seems to convey). Yeah, it was short-sighted and illegal
and probably dangerous in ways that are currently inexplicable -- but isn't
that the whole point? Go ahead and arrest the guy, or sue him, whatever -- but
scientists should not pass up the opportunity to study the effects of an
actual geoengineering intervention.

~~~
mayank10j
And the strange thing is nobody is actually preventing people who dump
billions of ton of plastic in ocean with this much vigour.

~~~
strictnein
It's millions of tons a year, not billions.

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-
debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/)

~~~
nkurz
More details on that study here:
[http://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/landplasticinput](http://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/landplasticinput)
(10.1126/science.1260352)

Total worldwide production of plastics looks to be about 250 million tons, and
they are estimating that about 8 million tons per year make it into the
oceans. From the paper, but not the gloss, is that fact that China is by far
the leading offender in this, followed by Indonesia, Philippines, and Sri
Lanka. India is in 10th place, and the US in 20th. Coastal Europe combined is
about the same as the US.

------
ChuckMcM
A couple of notes, this is from 2014 and the results of ocean fertilization
are better understood today.

The interesting thing for me over the controversy when this was being done was
that it reiterated the concern that nobody feels they know how to _direct_
climate change. As a result the only action they can endorse is "affecting it
less" by reducing our own carbon emissions. This guy is taking it from the
other side saying, "Let's start driving the model and get it to a point we
like."

~~~
rhino369
Another interesting issue is that not all nations aren't going to agree on a
point "we like." Island nations might want to fight for every .1 degree C.
Russia and Canada might say fuck it, warming helps us. W Europe who is fairly
shielded again major change by ocean currents might say that nobody should
geo-engineer because it's not worth the risks (because their risk is lower
than others).

~~~
civilian
I agree with your analysis, except for some of Western Europe. In North-
Western europe, Britain and Scandanavia greatly benefit from the Atlantic jet
stream being fairly consistently aimed a little farther north; it gives them a
warmer climate. We think that global warming has been destabilizing jet
streams, and it's making weather have great variation in North America and
Northern Europe. [http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-26023166](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26023166)

------
aetherson
So, look, if you believe that there is a large chance that climate change will
be a global catastrophe in the next few decades -- and there are a lot of
people who claim to believe that -- then you should be willing to compromise
on other beliefs/other risks to forestall or mitigate that catastrophe.

~~~
neffy
I suspect the real issue is the "It could be good for Ontario" problem. There
is no global climate change catastrophe, rather there are a lot of local
changes some of which are completely catastrophic, as in good bye Bangladesh,
and some of which are improvements - shorter northern hemisphere winters,
longer growing seasons etc.

Flip the switch, because if the fresh water influx in the North Atlantic shuts
down the global conveyer currents, it won´t be warming we´re looking at, and
it´s great news for India, and Bangladesh, and a catastrophe in the Northern
Hemisphere, Europe in particular.

A great empire is always about to fall...

~~~
aetherson
That's not necessarily a crazy opinion, but it's not a mainstream one.

The mainstream opinions seem to be:

1\. Climate change isn't real or isn't a big deal.

2\. Climate change will be a global catastrophe or even lead to human
extinction.

Now, it would be reasonable for the people in group 1 to complain about
geoengineering experiments, but actually they don't seem to care. And the
people in group 2 are pretty much to a man saying, "Climate change is a huge
problem and the only solution that we are willing to entertain at all is cuts
to carbon production with no offsetting energy production except through solar
and wind -- even though these are clearly not politically feasible in large
enough amounts to make the difference, and indeed even though there's growing
evidence that even unrealistically massive cuts won't solve the problem."

This suggests that there are some unstated facets to the beliefs of people in
group 2.

~~~
neffy
Well, it used to be called global warming, and now it´s called climate change
- did you ever wonder why?

The truly catastrophic climate change - human extinction - outcome is the
runaway greenhouse scenario. That´s been floated, but it runs into the
evidence that the earth has been considerably warmer before (both poles
melted) without that happening. But I suspect it will get another look after
this year.

The slightly less catastrophic climate change outcome is the next ice age
being triggered. We know what causes them, but there´s a fair amount of
variance as to when, and we don´t know what the exact trigger is. The next ice
age though, isn´t a catastrophe everywhere, in particular there´s a lot of
reasons to believe India benefits for example.

A general warming accompanied by a significant sea level rise is a catastrophe
for Bangladesh (most of which is below 10metres above sea level), the Pacific
Atolls, India, South America and Africa (heat extremes) extremely expensive
for the USA, and Europe, and good news for Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.

However, the general tone of the climate change debate for the last couple of
decades, is not such that it would encourage a nuanced debate about the
possibility that it could go either way. Nor is the planet really ready for a
reasoned debate between its two hemispheres as to which outcome would be
preferable, and for whom. However, the rise this year though has even the
alarmists scared - especially with the suspicion that it´s entirely probable
that there´s been a tendency for scientists to favour the less extreme
predictions when modelling the problem, and even those have been bad enough.

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/climate_scientists_despair_most_devastating_parts_of_esquire_s_jason_box.html?wpisrc=obinsite)

[http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.ht...](http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html)

------
asbestas
Chances are, he will do more harm than good.

This field does not have great track record. See, for example, the
introduction of the Cane Toad to Australia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad#Australia)

~~~
linksnapzz
I was unaware that cane toads, in any number, could have any effect on
climate.

"...and that is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped..."

~~~
astrodust
Rabbits have completely transformed the Australian continent, one so dramatic
you can see the effects from space.
([http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/181383/view](http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/181383/view))
Cane toads have a smaller but measurable effect since they utterly ruin entire
ecosystems.

If you think it's impossible for a single organism to have an effect on
climate you're mistaken. Wolves, once reintroduced to Yellowstone, have
changed the entire park, altering water flow on a massive scale:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q)

~~~
hanoz
> Rabbits have completely transformed the Australian continent, one so
> dramatic you can see the effects from space.
> ([http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/181383/view](http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/181383/view))

I don't get it. Which side are the rabbits?

~~~
djrogers
It's the right side, but the so-called effects purported to be visible in this
photo are not from the rabbits - the left side of the picture is densely
agricultural, while the right side is not.

------
mmanfrin
For those of you who are claiming that this "jackass" is throwing "waste
overboard", I recommend reading up on the process used[1] and recognizing that
this is something that _has_ been studied and experimented with.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

------
jessaustin
If they were trying to increase the sockeye run, why would they get credit for
a healthy pink run? Pink and sockeye are different types of salmon.

------
LurkingPresence
I am not a marine biologist, but is it possible that there is a different
substance (maybe something artificial) that could be dumped instead of iron to
encourage algae blooms without the associated toxicity? Obviously that would
raise the cost. Or maybe iron + substance X to suppress the formation of toxic
blooms?

Maybe there is some sort of trade off point here. Where the C02 reduction
saves more wildlife than what ends up getting killed off by the toxic blooms?

~~~
jessaustin
They could be using iron dust because it's cheaply available as a byproduct of
something else, but I would have expected e.g. silica dust to be cheaper
still.

[EDIT:] thanks for the info! TFA went on and on, yet somehow omitted the
explanation for iron...

~~~
civilian
Iron is needed for photosynthesis, and silicia is not. Iron is the key
limiting factor in the growth of oceanic plankton, so it has to be iron.

Optionally, we could use volcanic ash instead. But only because it contains a
lot of iron. :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

------
shiggerino
Judging from the very harsh sentences masters who are caught (let alone brag
about) dumping waste overboard, you'd rather think there's a conspiracy in
favour of rather than against these jackasses.

~~~
mmanfrin
Iron seeding for plankton is a pretty well talked about solution to
introducing forces to work against the warming of the planet. It's not like
he's concocted some wild new idea.

------
the_duke
Sure, George, Dumping tons and tons of iron into the ocean with no idea what
it will do to the ecosystem definitely seems like a 'cautious approach' (quote
from the article).

~~~
civilian
We have strong guesses on the direct guesses. And the scientists are refusing
to look at his data because his study was done illegally.

Your sarcastic tone is a great example of how deeply everyone has their head
in the sand.

