7 ms·

Can tiny plankton help reverse climate change?

40 points by jmadsen 12y ago

jngreenlee 12y ago
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 12y ago
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 :)
squidfood 12y ago
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.
- jobu 12y ago
  There was an experiment in 2009 that ended up seeding algae and plankton instead of diatoms, but it didn't sequester carbon as hoped: http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/lohafex_provides_new_insights_on_plankton_ecology_only_small_amounts_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide/?tx_list_pi1%5Bmode%5D=6&cHash=ffd0b4deee http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/lohafex... It seems the larger diatoms seeded in the more recent experiment may actually be better at sequestering carbon. We need to be doing more experiments like this so we understand the processes and potential fallout before we get to a point where our survival depends on it succeeding.
  - JulianMorrison 12y ago
    Anything that builds carbonate skeletons sounds eminently sensible - unlike edible plant matter, those probably won't just be breathed back out by whatever eats them.
- revscat 12y ago
  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.
  - squidfood 12y ago
    Well, that's a societal choice. So's keeping the fishing grounds open. The main point is that fertilization is a tradeoff, not a free lunch.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - whyenot 12y ago
    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.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  I think there are some valid concerns. But I think there is also a certain amount of reaction, in some circles, against the idea that we should be able to hack our way out of global warming without actually reducing our carbon emissions. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions as fast as we reasonably can, but it takes time. I don't think we should reject geoengineering out of hand, at least as a stopgap. Whether it becomes something that we wind up doing hundreds of years into the future, and what the costs of that will be if we do, remain to be seen. I'm actually surprised we haven't started experimenting with adding sulfur to jet fuel. Nature puts sulfur in the stratosphere itself on occasion, so we have a pretty good idea that it works. The half-life is on the order of a few months, so if we overdo it a bit, all we have to do is stop. I saw a long list of objections to the use of sulfur aerosols, and the only one that seemed strong to me was that it doesn't help at all with ocean acidification. Well, okay; but iron fertilization would work for that. Maybe using these (and possibly other) techniques in concert would mitigate the downside that each would have if you tried to solve the whole problem with it.
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    Assuming we can stop carbon emissions completely today, we should not reject engineering out of hand. By definition, the emmisions effect the rate of change of carbon concentration, but what we care about from a climate perspective is the concentration itself.
justizin 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
jobu 12y ago
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-with-iron-sequesters-co2/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-ocean-... "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 12y ago
  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.
Guthur 12y ago
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.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Care is certainly warranted, but we don't have a choice of whether or not our activities will affect the climate; they already do. It's fine to point out the risks of action so they can be addressed, but don't forget the risks of inaction.
- jeremyjh 12y ago
  Predicting climate and predicting weather are two totally different games. I can't predict who is going to win and lose in a given night at the roulette table, but I can tell you with absolute certainty who wins in the long run.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  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.
efferifick 12y ago
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.

40 points by jmadsen 12y ago

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 12y ago

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 :)

squidfood 12y ago

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.

jobu 12y ago
There was an experiment in 2009 that ended up seeding algae and plankton instead of diatoms, but it didn't sequester carbon as hoped: http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/lohafex_provides_new_insights_on_plankton_ecology_only_small_amounts_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide/?tx_list_pi1%5Bmode%5D=6&cHash=ffd0b4deee http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/lohafex... It seems the larger diatoms seeded in the more recent experiment may actually be better at sequestering carbon. We need to be doing more experiments like this so we understand the processes and potential fallout before we get to a point where our survival depends on it succeeding.
- JulianMorrison 12y ago
  Anything that builds carbonate skeletons sounds eminently sensible - unlike edible plant matter, those probably won't just be breathed back out by whatever eats them.
revscat 12y ago
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.
- squidfood 12y ago
  Well, that's a societal choice. So's keeping the fishing grounds open. The main point is that fertilization is a tradeoff, not a free lunch.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- whyenot 12y ago
  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.
ScottBurson 12y ago
I think there are some valid concerns. But I think there is also a certain amount of reaction, in some circles, against the idea that we should be able to hack our way out of global warming without actually reducing our carbon emissions. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions as fast as we reasonably can, but it takes time. I don't think we should reject geoengineering out of hand, at least as a stopgap. Whether it becomes something that we wind up doing hundreds of years into the future, and what the costs of that will be if we do, remain to be seen. I'm actually surprised we haven't started experimenting with adding sulfur to jet fuel. Nature puts sulfur in the stratosphere itself on occasion, so we have a pretty good idea that it works. The half-life is on the order of a few months, so if we overdo it a bit, all we have to do is stop. I saw a long list of objections to the use of sulfur aerosols, and the only one that seemed strong to me was that it doesn't help at all with ocean acidification. Well, okay; but iron fertilization would work for that. Maybe using these (and possibly other) techniques in concert would mitigate the downside that each would have if you tried to solve the whole problem with it.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Assuming we can stop carbon emissions completely today, we should not reject engineering out of hand. By definition, the emmisions effect the rate of change of carbon concentration, but what we care about from a climate perspective is the concentration itself.

justizin 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.

jobu 12y ago

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-with-iron-sequesters-co2/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-ocean-... "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 12y ago
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.

Guthur 12y ago

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.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Care is certainly warranted, but we don't have a choice of whether or not our activities will affect the climate; they already do. It's fine to point out the risks of action so they can be addressed, but don't forget the risks of inaction.
jeremyjh 12y ago
Predicting climate and predicting weather are two totally different games. I can't predict who is going to win and lose in a given night at the roulette table, but I can tell you with absolute certainty who wins in the long run.
jjoonathan 12y ago
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.

efferifick 12y ago

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.