

Can tiny plankton help reverse climate change? - jmadsen
http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/can-tiny-plankton-help-reverse-climate-change/

======
squidfood
One of the main "protests" from scientists (like myself) is _not_ that this
doesn't sequester carbon. But by sopping up macronutrients (nitrogen in
particular) to form large diatoms, you greatly disadvantage smaller, floating
plankton that stay afloat and actually feed the marine food web.

Note: I'm not against the actual small-scale experiments. We may someday have
to choose between sequestration and whales. Just pointing out that the
objections to large-scale use aren't as silly and reactionary as the article
makes them out to be.

~~~
revscat
I am not a scientist, but this objection seems rather short-sighted. The
threat posed by global warming is to the ecosystem as a whole. If the smaller-
scale (but still large) systems are negatively affected, but the system as a
whole is saved, then this would be a worthwhile effort.

~~~
whyenot
I am a scientist (a botanist) and I don't think the objection is short
sighted. You are fundamentally changing the base of the marine food web. This
is not a system that is well understood, and one that is difficult to model.
This type of intervention might be successful, but you could also kill off
large amounts of marine life, making a bad situation significantly worse. That
doesn't mean geoengineering shouldn't be explored, but it's potentially risky.
A wrong move could lead to mass starvation of not only marine life, but the
numerous human populations that depend on that marine life.

------
jobu
The Scientific American article about this experiment has a much better
analysis of the pros and cons of seeding the ocean with iron -
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-
ocean-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-ocean-with-
iron-sequesters-co2/)

 _" But such fallen carbon only resides in the deep for a few centuries at
best. Eventually, it makes its way back to the surface as the ocean's bottom
water circulates and rises anew near the equator (although carbon buried in
sediment might stay buried longer)."_

~~~
aetherson
A few centuries kicks the problem down the road a long way. If we successfully
sequester enough carbon to prevent any horrific consequences of energy
generation until, say, 2300, well, by 2300 people may well have plenty of
additional options to deal with the carbon.

Or at the least they'll probably be able to just once again sequester it
through the same techniques.

Or else global warming will be the least of humanity's problems in 2300.

------
justizin
The problem with solutions like this is that the Ocean itself is already the
most efficient machine for cleaning the Earth's atmosphere - well over half of
the oxygen that we breathe comes from the Ocean, and well over half of the
carbon that we exhale is cleaned by it. Focusing on its' health will greatly
benefit the health of the environment that we rely on directly.

~~~
squidfood
When "ocean health" is talked about, restoring ocean "health" (restricting
fishing, land use, etc.) is not expected to have measurable effects on carbon
sequestration in particular. And while the ocean ecosystems have evolved to be
"robust", that is different than "efficient" \- evolution can come up with
some fairly inefficient solutions.

------
Guthur
Our arrogance in assuming we can some how control the climate of the entire
planet is the most worrying thing about this to me. We can barely predict the
weather beyond a few days let alone make measured predictable changes to the
climate.

If a solution like this were to get out of control or go too far we could find
ourselves in a far worse place than we are now.

~~~
jjoonathan
Which is more arrogant:

1\. Forming hypotheses on admittedly half-assed reasoning, performing small
verification experiments, gradually scaling them up in order to see if
predictions match observations, and iterating upon failure

2\. Declaring that nothing we ever think of will ever work well enough to be
worth trying in the first place

[http://joyreactor.com/post/578357](http://joyreactor.com/post/578357)

You see #2 all the time in the media, especially in science fiction. To me it
comes across as a desperate attempt by scientifically ignorant authors to
extend the purpose of their story beyond that of mere entertainment. It's a
noble goal to strive for, but actual safety analysis is boring, difficult, and
far beyond the scope of your typical techno-thriller, so it inevitably gets
half-assed into the predictable form of a bunch of chase/destruction scenes
followed by the inescapable conclusion that goal X is simply too dangerous to
be worth investigating -- in fact, it's so dangerous that the scientists were
_arrogant_ for investigating it in the first place. _Retch_. I actually
wouldn't be particularly bothered by this plot device (I like dinosaur chases
and zombie hunts, too) if people didn't go and project the same vapid thought
process onto real-life scientists solving real-life problems. But they do.
Parent post is a case-in-point.

Either do the bookwork/coursework/reviews/calculations necessary to leave
constructive criticism or leave the floor to people who have. Don't stand up
and claim that your ignorance is better than someone else's knowledge. _That
's_ arrogance.

~~~
Guthur
Really, so if he proves that it can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which I'm
confident he is right about, has he proofed it is safe to do so on the scale
required, simply no.

Our models of real world are woefully general, I doubt we even have the
computing power available to crunch all the variables.

It seemed a good idea to bring cane toads to Australia to combat the damage
done be cane beetles, foxes were brought to combat rabbits. Hint, none of
these attempts at environment management went well, even though they are
relatively simple problems; foxes eat rabbits right?

~~~
danieltillett
Can we stop the stupid cane toad meme. The scientists at the item told the
cane farmers not to bring in the cane toads and they ignored the scientists
and brought them in anyway.

------
jngreenlee
Interesting article, but I'd like to see the facts laid out behind this
excerpt:

"The variety of shapes among plankton species shames plants on land, showing
more range in size than the difference between moss and redwood trees. There
are more plankton cells in the sea than our current count of stars in the
entire universe. "

------
kazinator
A man named Smetacek is working on cleaning up oceans, neat!

The original Czech spelling of the surname with all the diacritics is
Smetáček.

The word means "dust brush"; a diminutive word which denotes the little cousin
of the smeták.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=smet%C3%A1%C4%8Dek&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=smet%C3%A1%C4%8Dek&tbm=isch)

:)

------
efferifick
Why are we seeking solutions like this? Because by investing in them, we can
also make money by selling the solution / services / patents to governments.

Why don't we instead focus on reducing society's consumption? Because we would
not gain any profit from such venture.

If this is true, we are already extinct.

