Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (22210)	7/17/2008 9:35:27 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Maurice World's silly conjecture bares no resemblance to what happens on Planet Earth...cuz Maurice World doesn't do science... And when there is acid, you add base, and everything is dunky hory. The supposedly scientific hypothesis behind ocean fertilisation is that dumping “nutrients” such as iron, nitrogen and urea into seawater would lead to growth of new phytoplankton that would absorb more CO2, thus reducing the main cause of global warming and climate change. “The problem is, there is no sound scientific evidence that this would actually happen,” Richartz told IPS. “On the contrary, ocean fertilisation could have negative side effects that would lead to further loss of marine biodiversity.” Since 1978, 12 international projects have tried to prove the hypothesis of ‘ocean nourishment’ with no success, Silvia Ribeiro, environmental researcher with the Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) told IPS. According to ETC research, most of the additional CO2 absorbed by phytoplankton appears to be re-released back into the environment when the plankton die, or are eaten by marine creatures. Other risks include reduction of oxygen levels beneath the sea surface caused by the degradation of plankton, resulting in excess production of methane, another strong greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and climate change. ‘Ocean fertilisation’ could also modify marine ecosystems in uncontrollable ways by inducing changes in the food chain in localised marine biological habitats. “One consequence of iron-induced blooms could be the consumption and depletion of other vital nutrients, that would reduce plankton productivity and carbon absorption in other areas of the seas, with unknown effects in other ecosystems,” Ribeiro said. Yet another risk is the artificial growth of harmful algae, which produce toxins associated with the poisoning of fish and other sea life. commondreams.org === Delegates adopted a document which said they would refer to the London Convention for guidance on fertilization issues. The London Convention, which oversees dumping at sea, says its official advice is not to start ocean fertilization but wait until scientists come up with better research on its impact. Several companies are working on the idea and the U.S.'s Climos is looking at adding iron filings into the ocean to spur algae growth. Other possibilities include adding large amounts of nitrogen, an ingredient in many land-based fertilizers. One risk is that because carbon dioxide slightly acidifies water, animals including oysters, crabs and lobsters may have difficulty in forming their protective shells. That may make them vulnerable to predators and disrupt the sea food chain. heatisonline.org The New Scientist reports in its June 12th 2008 issue that it now seems the UN Convention on Biological Diversity also has deep concerns about the process and has banned it until more research has been done. At the same time Mary Silver of the University of California, Santa Cruz has presented her findings to the American Geophysical Union in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She has results that indicate that iron encourages the growth of particular algal populations that produce domoic acid - a potent neurotoxin. Domoic acid can sicken or kill animals and people who eat contaminated shellfish. seavac.org Advocates claim that algal blooms will briefly flourish, then die and drop to the bottom of the ocean, taking atmospheric carbon with them. But there are questions about how much of the algae might be consumed by other organisms or be broken down before sinking, reducing the amount of carbon sequestered. And altering the ocean’s ecology may have unwanted effects, such as increased acidity or decreased oxygen levels amandlapublishers.co.za Oceans turning acidic decades earlier Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/05/2008 Many marine organisms produce calcium carbonate (chalk) shells but, when the acidity of the water is increased, a point is reached at which that calcium carbonate starts to dissolve. Today an American team publishes evidence that this acidic "tipping point" has been reached on the continental shelf along the west coast of North America, where many delicate organisms live. "Our results show for the first time that a large section of the North American continental shelf is impacted by ocean acidification. Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted where anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf," says Dr Feely. (acid being a relative term; fer instance, in the body, acid is below 7.35, and the chemically neutral 7.0 is deadly) They found greater acidity - as shown by lower pH levels - in seawater closer to the surface than researchers had predicted. The pH ranged from 8.1 to as low as 7.6, when they expected the figures to be no lower than 8.0. telegraph.co.uk == Mounting levels of CO2 in the Southern Ocean has caused deep concern among scientists studying the long-term productivity of the world's oceans. Under conditions of increasing acidification, parts of the oceans will deteriorate and progressively become uninhabitable for certain types of plankton, central to the ocean food chain, and coral structures. The Southern Ocean is particularly important because it is very efficient at absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere: it's here where the first effects are being felt. theaustralian.news.com.au