Can I be understanding this correctly.. a possible solution to stop global warming in its tracks?

Question

I found time to watch part of a programme I'd recorded whereby the storyline was plankton research being a "solution for global warming"

Aparently.. allegedly even, for I have no idea, plankton absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and if a fraction of the Pacific was re-seeded, it COULD POSSIBLY stop global warming in its tracks.. reverse it even.....?

Surely can it be that simple?

Answer 1

It can be done but the seaweed needs to be harvested in order to reduce the amount of CO2 in the environment. In fact the process of growing seaweed can absorb all the CO2 in the atmosphere in a few years if the right elements are provided. At this time the ocean is not producing biomass in any where near its capicity because 2 or 3 vital elements are scarce in the ocean.

Answer 2

It isn't that simple. As long as we keep increasing the amount of carbon we pump out, then we will constantly be looking for cures to the problem rather than removing the problem itself.

Answer 3

There’s two schools of thought about this and experiments are being conducted. Probably you best you read these – one from each camp: Extracts below.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Those for:

The oceans take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the so-called physical pump and biological pump.

In the physical pump, carbon dioxide actively dissolves into the ocean at high latitudes and is then carried down into the ocean interior by sinking currents - where it stays for hundreds of years- and is eventually brought back to the surface.

The effect of the biological pump is due to phytoplankton activity (photosynthesis) that converts CO2 into organic matter and oxygen. Animals eat the micro algae contributing to the oceanic food web. When the algae and animals die a small fraction of the organic material sinks to the sea floor where it is eventually buried and stored in sediments for millions of years.

Over the last decade a lot of research has been conducted to investigate to which extent, the biological and physical potential of the ocean could be used to damp the CO2 problem.

Those unconvinced:

Recent experiments conducted in the Arabian Sea and around Antarctica show that many factors affect carbon uptake by plankton in surface waters. For example, biological communities and plankton production vary with location and season, so the balance between carbon uptake by the marine plants and carbon export on sinking particles is highly variable and typically only a small fraction of the carbon sinks to the deep ocean. The studies of the Arabian Sea and Antarctic waters support this new data and demonstrate that simply adding iron to the ocean may not result in enhanced removal of carbon dioxide from surface waters to the deep ocean.

Plus:

It must not be forgotten that increasing CO2 concentration in the ocean leads to seawater acidification. Acidification is important because it actually leads to the death and dissolution of microscopic marine life, especially phytoplankton which create their skeletal structures and shells from carbon atoms from the CO2 (hence the isotopic record stretching back tens of millions of years), and this has major knock-on effects throughout the food chain. Too much CO2 kills the very creatures that are supposed to absorb it in other words. This has happened at past times of high atmospheric CO2 concentrations. e.g. The Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

http://nature.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/symposiu...

The other problem is that the oceans, though a major natural storehouse (sink) of CO2 can only hold so much before becoming saturated. It takes very long periods of time for them to cycle CO2 (many thousands of years), usually into very thick layers of sediments on the seabed, so they can then absorb more.

I think the jury's out on this one, there's too many uncertainties - and some obvious dangers.

Answer 4

It certainly cannot be that simple! Every action has a reaction in life! We have to look at the side-effects of introducing more plankton to our oceans! I can be almost certain that it will cause an imbalance or even collapse many a food web in our oceans!

Answer 5

Since whales eat plankton...we'd spend a fortune on fat whales.  If we started whaling again, the plankton populations would explode on their own, and we'd have all of that sweet blubber to sell...mmmmm.....blubber.

Answer 6

No, it's really not that simple at all. It would not work.

Answer 7

Seeding the Pacific ocean is an easy statement to make, but the logistics of such an operation would be more expensive than any nation would be willing to pay, especially considering global warming stopped dead in it's tracks a few years ago.

Answer 8

It's happening in nature as I'm typing this.Nature does it already,there are many unexplained alga blooms occurring.How many and where at...no one knows.It's something beyond modeling and physics.

Good question.

Answer 9

Nah it won't be that simple.

If it did really work.

Then why aren't they using it a lot more?

Why is global warming still going a head?

Answer 10

unfortunatly the reverse is happening due to climate change the water is warming and getting to acidic for plankton (and coral) to florish. This is one of the worrying mechanisms for run-away climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch

If the habitat is no longer condusive to plankton you can't usefully re-seed.

Instead we are seing dangerous algal blooms largely due to excess nutriant run-off.

Answer 11

i read somewhere that the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases is methane produced by livestock. Ie. Cows farting.

Scientists are currently working on a dietary supplement for livestock that will stop them producing so much - far more effective than all the wind turbines, hybrid cars, geothermal gadgetry put together.

Answer 12

Plants need CO2 to grow. We're actually helping the plant by producing more CO2! The more plants grow the more oxygen they produce for us to breathe. "Global Warming" is a natural thing! It has warmed up a bit since the Ice Age, right? So, a solution for global warming.... why do you want to find a solution to the natural order of things? Just plant more trees and keep producing CO2!

Answer 13

Whales eat plankton, so get rid of the Whales.(and Manta Rays and Basking Sharks etc)

Answer 14

It's a possibility, but an outside chance.  Experiments have shown it works a little, but probably nowhere near enough.

In any event, trying to offset one man made change by another seems pretty risky.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

Answer 15

yes it can but big business will not allow it to happen--profits?

Answer 16

nope, nothing's ever that simple. *muses* sounds like an effective idea though...

Answer 17

It would not work. The pacific is around 63billion square miles and it would cost more than any other method of trying to stop global warming. Also through out history when ever man has tried to alter nature by introducing another species the consequences were even worse because something unpredicted happened....

Answer 18

lol i doubt it extremely.