We have massive problem with global warming as a result of CO2 emission, yes? And we also have a big problem with fish stocks internationally, yes? Well if we were to cultivate and then release massive amounts of plant plankton into the Earth’s oceans, would this be a feasible way to both help stop global warming as they would take in vast amounts of CO2, and also help fish stocks as small fish would eat them, then larger fish such as tuna, which is in trouble, would eat the smaller fish which ate the plankton? If it’s not feasible, why not?
News and comments on global climate change, global warming and greenhouse effect
I like your solution. Then again, there are more scientists each year coming out saying that green house gases may or may not have the effect that we are currently assigning to them. There is still too many unknowns to even try to predict the climate accurately. Even the IPCC is acknowledging that it’s computer models that look into only green house gases, specifically the smaller amount ones such as methane, CO2, and the other 4 or 5 gases, are just story lines to drive funding into climate science.
This is actually something people have seriously proposed. The idea was to scatter iron dust into the ocean, which would fertilize new plankton growth. The plankton would absorb CO2 and turn it into solid carbon, and when they died this carbon would fall to the bottom of the ocean–effectively taking it out of the atmosphere.
There was a company hoping to sell carbon credits by doing it, called Planktos. If I remember right, their test runs got stopped by backwards environmentalists who thought they were just trying to dump toxic waste into the ocean.
This is actually something people have seriously proposed. The idea was to scatter iron dust into the ocean, which would fertilize new plankton growth. The plankton would absorb CO2 and turn it into solid carbon, and when they died this carbon would fall to the bottom of the ocean–effectively taking it out of the atmosphere
Above is Dawei’s answer and what this entire issue is about. Man should never mess with mother nature and the environment due to unwanted consequences of doing so. It is comparable to putting non indigenous species where they do not belong and the environmental problems that results on such implantation. Alarmists such as this are nothing more than witchdoctors.
What Dawai talks about is actually pretty old. It was proposed decades ago after they figured out that there was an iron deficiency in much of the ocean. By distributing iron in southern oceans, they believed they could widely expand krill production and then harvest it feeding millions of people. I find it odd that alarmists recognize the ability of the ocean to deposit excess carbon yet fail to acknowledge that the ocean can and will rid itself of carbon emitted by humans by accumualation of shells or direct chemical precipiation of carbonates. Instead they point to "acidification" of the ocean as proof that we are killing it. Their arguments and hysteria get pretty old.
Most of the plankton would be eaten by some sea creature, releasing all that sequestered CO2. If plankton flourishes, so will plant eaters. It’s a timeless cycle, carbon neutral.
But you are close. You can take all sorts of biomass, turn it into charcoal, and bury it deep in the ground. Now you have taken CO2 out of the cycle. Plants are very efficient at sequestering CO2. The largest trees are literally made out of thin air (CO2). The only problem is, there are plenty of animals, fungi, and bacteria waiting to metabolize plant matter and release CO2 back into the environment, where plants suck it out again. You can break this cycle by taking biomass- wood, leaves, grass clippings- and turn it into charcoal, and it’s out of the cycle. Think of all the tons of yard waste taken to city dumps across the world. Those tons of yard waste could easily be tons of CO2 taken out of the environment.
An idea whose time has come, yes?
Wilds
Starbuck says:
"Man should never mess with mother nature and the environment due to unwanted consequences of doing so."
Well, isn’t that just the point that people that worry about atmospheric CO2 have been saying all along? You can’t have it both ways, so I assume you’re now advocating tight controls on CO2 emissions. In the year 2006 alone, the US dumped something like 5.8 BILLION TONS of CO2 in the atmosphere. That sounds like messing with mother nature and the environment to me.
The problem is that the acidification of the oceans, as they absorb more CO2, is already causing problems with plankton populations. The huge risk of global warming is this type of acceleration: by the time that the world tries to effectively react, we may have seriously reduced plankton and other problems that magnify the initial affects of CO2. You suggestion may be a good one, but it may only protect the current population rather than increasing the plankton population
Global temperatures continued to plunge this past month.
Planet Earth has dropped 74°F since Al Gore released his "Inconvenient Truth."
Free Republic and Climate Depot reported:
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest global satellite data courtesy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and made into an easy to read graph by algorelied.com: "For the record, this month’s Al Gore / ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore’s film was released," noted algorelied.com.
Democrats begin pushing their job killing cap and tax plan in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday
It could work but then it would mess with whatever ecosystem you put the stuff in there. But can never stop Global warming it partially happens naturally. What makes it a problem because of us driving our big cars and all that.
aweaome idea!
ive had hundreds of other ideas but the only answers i get are "you crazy"
and
"wigga u out yo gawsh darn mind"
and im like
what she call mee!?!?
haha
but this ideas great
and awesome
(im not a wigga im a "whitesicanasian")
lol
i give u two thumbs up
and two big toes up
good idea
now its time to get someone to listen to your idea..
sooo
get it out beyond yahoo answers..
and submit it to some news site or station or something
Breeding plankton in vast quantities is not easy, nor is keeping it alive until it can be put in the sea. there are naturally billions of tonnes of plankton there already.
you would need to be careful not to create a bloom of toxic algae at the same time since this would kill huge numbers of fish.
Good idea but gets lost in the logistics.
cfc from burning coal is eating the atmosphere it is not good
No
Global warming has stopped on its own. We have now been getting cooler and it looks like this will keep up until 2030 or so and not to worry the sun activity will increase again and we will warm back up.
Cycles always happen.