3 ms·

> There is no danger of overloading the depths with CO2 or acidity. The sheer volume of deep ocean water to disperse the surface CO2 into is overwhelmingly grea

> There is no danger of overloading the depths with CO2 or acidity. The sheer volume of deep ocean water to disperse the surface CO2 into is overwhelmingly greater than what could be pumped from the surface in even the largest conceivable process. Do you have any source or actual maths on that claim? As in the aspect that pumping CO2 into seawater would not significantly increase ocean acidification? I thought ocean acidification is basically one of those extinction level events. It affects the building of shells in crustaceans and the ability for fish to hunt (see shark electroceptors) it basically is a catalyst to disrupt the food chain all the way up to us, no?

ncmncm 5y ago
We are, right now, pumping CO2 into surface seawater, in massively industrial quantities, acidifying it. For every creature at 3000 ft depth that could in theory be harmed by excess carbonic acid, thousands suffer near the surface, today, and it is worse every day. (This is why putting sulfates in the stratosphere is such a bad idea: we need to get the carbon out of the air, not just reduce temperatures.) It's about numbers. The carbonic acid produced by excess atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the water is concentrated in the few feet right at the top of the water column. If we took the top 50 ft of the the ocean and distributed it between, say, 3000 and 4000 ft deep, the excess acidity per unit volume there would be 1/20th what we have at the surface. Furthermore, the number of animals there dependent on forming shells is many fewer than 1/20 the number near the surface. Keep at it long enough, without actually reducing the atmospheric excess, and you end up with the whole ocean too acidic, not just the top. But very soon, on a geologic timescale, we will perforce radically reduce the atmospheric CO2 overburden, or civilization will collapse and do that for us. If you asked residents below 3000 ft if the extra dissolved oxygen coming down is worth the extra acidity, I am certain they would not say "no". (Full disclosure, they wouldn't say anything, but hey.)
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I should add that under no circumstance will we be remotely able to pump 18 million cubic km of surface water down to the ocean depths, in this or the next century.

ncmncm 5y ago

We are, right now, pumping CO2 into surface seawater, in massively industrial quantities, acidifying it. For every creature at 3000 ft depth that could in theory be harmed by excess carbonic acid, thousands suffer near the surface, today, and it is worse every day. (This is why putting sulfates in the stratosphere is such a bad idea: we need to get the carbon out of the air, not just reduce temperatures.) It's about numbers. The carbonic acid produced by excess atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the water is concentrated in the few feet right at the top of the water column. If we took the top 50 ft of the the ocean and distributed it between, say, 3000 and 4000 ft deep, the excess acidity per unit volume there would be 1/20th what we have at the surface. Furthermore, the number of animals there dependent on forming shells is many fewer than 1/20 the number near the surface. Keep at it long enough, without actually reducing the atmospheric excess, and you end up with the whole ocean too acidic, not just the top. But very soon, on a geologic timescale, we will perforce radically reduce the atmospheric CO2 overburden, or civilization will collapse and do that for us. If you asked residents below 3000 ft if the extra dissolved oxygen coming down is worth the extra acidity, I am certain they would not say "no". (Full disclosure, they wouldn't say anything, but hey.)

ncmncm 5y ago
I should add that under no circumstance will we be remotely able to pump 18 million cubic km of surface water down to the ocean depths, in this or the next century.