3 ms·
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 (bu
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoI 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.