Iron + Phytoplankton + Algal Blooms = Atmosphere – CO2 = We can all still drive hummers! Yayyyy for science! I’m not quite sure if that’s what these guys were going for, but whilst perusing the editorials/opinions in Nature magazine (those are always the most fun anyways), I came upon this* opinion about the prospect of putting iron in the ocean to absorb all of the carbon and reverse climate change. Whew, that sounds like a pretty far stretch, but I decided to bite.
According to these fellas, the process of geoengineering is not a good one. When coming upon the word geoengineering, I broke down the word like they taught us to do in kindergarten. Geo=earth/land. Engineering=scary stuff that only the crazy smart people on my mom’s side of the family somehow know everything about. Earth seems like a place that should be left natural, why would we want to engineer the land? But yet again, Emalyn’s mind is just going off on a tangent. In fact, geoengineering is the process of intentionally altering the planet’s physical or biological systems to counteract global warming. The guys who wrote the Nature editorial are against this process, so the (very, very small) scientist inside of me knew that I needed to get both opinions about the topic.
Although it was quite difficult to find, this blogger promotes the process of ocean fertilization. The author from Marginal Revolution essentially suggests that we should increase our ocean dumping in order to catalyze the growth of what are essentially ocean weeds that make all the carbon sink to the floor. If you have been wondering what in the world this mysterious process entails, be patient grasshopper. I was just about to get there, jeez.
1. We dump iron into the ocean (that sounds REALLY safe AND healthy)
2. This iron stimulates phytoplankton blooms
3. They absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
4. This CO2 just sinks down to the bottom of the ocean for millions of years so only our great^27 grandchildren and that scary fish from Finding Nemo will have to be the ones to deal with it.
If you can’t sense my immense sarcasm, I have already started to side with the guys who wrote the Nature editorial. Their thesis (very simply) states that “adding iron to the ocean is not an effective way to fight climate change, and we don’t need further research to establish that”. Unlike the guy who was pro-ocean-fertilization, the people who are against it provide evidence as to why. Even to an unscientific eye such as my own, it is easy to see why dumping iron into the ocean ain’t such a good idea. Think of the long-term effects, or how it will affect the marine life. And, I know we all learned in Bio 101 that all life is connected and even the little fishies make a difference (don’t even PRETEND like you were asleep that day. You know I’m right). If you’re planning to be a scientist, this is a good article to take pointers from. They use evidence and quotes from reputable sources such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and even the United Nations. If the fact that the United Nations banned large-scale ocean fertilizations doesn’t get you on our team, clearly you are loco, irrational, and should not become a scientist. Keep an eye out for the facts fellow explorers, and the case verdict for this one is pretty obvious. Don't drive those Hummers just yet; the end is still much farther away than we hoped.
* Sorry kids! Looks like you may encounter some difficulty looking at my first article unless you have a Nature subscription. ¡Lo ciento!
According to these fellas, the process of geoengineering is not a good one. When coming upon the word geoengineering, I broke down the word like they taught us to do in kindergarten. Geo=earth/land. Engineering=scary stuff that only the crazy smart people on my mom’s side of the family somehow know everything about. Earth seems like a place that should be left natural, why would we want to engineer the land? But yet again, Emalyn’s mind is just going off on a tangent. In fact, geoengineering is the process of intentionally altering the planet’s physical or biological systems to counteract global warming. The guys who wrote the Nature editorial are against this process, so the (very, very small) scientist inside of me knew that I needed to get both opinions about the topic.
Although it was quite difficult to find, this blogger promotes the process of ocean fertilization. The author from Marginal Revolution essentially suggests that we should increase our ocean dumping in order to catalyze the growth of what are essentially ocean weeds that make all the carbon sink to the floor. If you have been wondering what in the world this mysterious process entails, be patient grasshopper. I was just about to get there, jeez.
1. We dump iron into the ocean (that sounds REALLY safe AND healthy)
2. This iron stimulates phytoplankton blooms
3. They absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
4. This CO2 just sinks down to the bottom of the ocean for millions of years so only our great^27 grandchildren and that scary fish from Finding Nemo will have to be the ones to deal with it.
If you can’t sense my immense sarcasm, I have already started to side with the guys who wrote the Nature editorial. Their thesis (very simply) states that “adding iron to the ocean is not an effective way to fight climate change, and we don’t need further research to establish that”. Unlike the guy who was pro-ocean-fertilization, the people who are against it provide evidence as to why. Even to an unscientific eye such as my own, it is easy to see why dumping iron into the ocean ain’t such a good idea. Think of the long-term effects, or how it will affect the marine life. And, I know we all learned in Bio 101 that all life is connected and even the little fishies make a difference (don’t even PRETEND like you were asleep that day. You know I’m right). If you’re planning to be a scientist, this is a good article to take pointers from. They use evidence and quotes from reputable sources such as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and even the United Nations. If the fact that the United Nations banned large-scale ocean fertilizations doesn’t get you on our team, clearly you are loco, irrational, and should not become a scientist. Keep an eye out for the facts fellow explorers, and the case verdict for this one is pretty obvious. Don't drive those Hummers just yet; the end is still much farther away than we hoped.
* Sorry kids! Looks like you may encounter some difficulty looking at my first article unless you have a Nature subscription. ¡Lo ciento!
No comments:
Post a Comment