More Batsh*t Globalist Ideas - Sucking Carbon from Oceans

[sahgwa]

Ooookay.  Let me step in with some education, since I did major in biology in college (back in the Jurassic era) :

What they are trying to do is RESTORE the balance of the ocean and the land.  

Yes, cycles are natural, but human activity (and things like Large Igneous Provinces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_igneous_province) disrupt Earth's balance, and in the case of the LIP, have been the cause of at least two Great Extinctions and possibly some minor ones as well.

There's too much carbon in the sea right now, and the ocean water is becoming more acidic.  The oceans are picking up excess carbon dioxide that's in the atmosphere (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html)  When the ocean's pH changes, that changes the amount of a major chemical that corals and shellfish use to build their structures (and shells.)  So they die off.  (https://coastadapt.com.au/ocean-acidific...ts-effects)

Remember the bleaching coral reefs?  That's due to the change in the acidifcation of the ocean.

And yes, life is that sensitive.  The life we have today evolved with oceans that are slightly "basic" (pH of 8.2), but right now the ocean pH is around 8.1.  While that might not sound like a lot, a change in YOUR body's natural pH level of that small amount will send you into "acidosis."  

So, they're trying to save the fish and crabs and mussels (and whales, but mostly the fishing industry.)  Fish and frogs are EXTREMELY sensitive to changes in the environment, which is why they are biomarker species for the health of the planet.  Anyone who remembers pre-EPA America (with killer smogs, rivers that caught fire, landfills that polluted the skies with burning tires for years, etc, etc) has a pretty good idea of how quickly things can go bad and how long it takes (decades) for the land and rivers to recover, even with cleanup and seeding of key species.




You might sneer at the efforts, but I do remember Polluted America and I worked (and did some research) at a major Superfund site (a place where the land had been so polluted that you couldn't step into the water.)  I'm very much in favor of this research and I hope it works out.  I want to continue enjoying shrimp and clams for many years to come.

Thank you for your post.
Presuming it is all accurate and perfectly factual which I am sure it is, wouldn't it be much 'easier' logical and cheaper to simply focus on the obvious human factors like pollution, rather than this hamfisted (probably disingenuous) chemistry approach of 're constituting' the ocean water itself?
I have much more to say but this is my simplest response .

[Byrd]

Thank you for your post.
Presuming it is all accurate and perfectly factual which I am sure it is, wouldn't it be much 'easier' logical and cheaper to simply focus on the obvious human factors like pollution, rather than this hamfisted (probably disingenuous) chemistry approach of 're constituting' the ocean water itself?
I have much more to say but this is my simplest response .

Yes.  So do you remember the pushbacks to the Climate Accords (the Paris Agreement)?  There was not a universal agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement) and the US pulled out during Trump's first term, got back in under Biden, and pulled out again under Trump's second turn.

Also, remember that they're dealing with cumulative effects.  It's not like snow, where when it stops snowing, the snow will melt and take care of the problem.  It's like pouring gravel onto a gravel pile.  We started pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere around 1900, and while that was small, it started getting a lot larger.  By the 1960's, it was catastrophic (killer smog, most cities were filthy with emissions).  When the cleanup efforts got started, they didn't wipe the excess out... they were still sending CO2 and other products into the air.

The Paris Climate Agreement has been in force for less than a decade (9 years.)  That's 9 years to clean up over a century's worth of environmental impacts-- and the agreement was to "reduce" and not to "clean it all up."

So that means other countries in the world have to step up their efforts to help clean up the world (because the USA not only isn't going to hold to the accord, the EPA is getting cut down and their regulations are being canceled.)  In order to clean up the backlog, we have to do more than just "cut down" and hope the planet fixes it for us.

[sahgwa]

So that means other countries in the world have to step up their efforts to help clean up the world (because the USA not only isn't going to hold to the accord, the EPA is getting cut down and their regulations are being canceled.)  In order to clean up the backlog, we have to do more than just "cut down" and hope the planet fixes it for us.

I think it is hubris to think we can stop a naturally occurring wave of heat, and undo that from occurring at all. 
I also think that any efforts we as stupid humans take, in regards to terraforming are going to make it worse than it is.
I think we should focus on macro easily obtainable goals like cleaning toxins and plastics out of waters and soils, and not focus on carbon, which as we all know , is natural.

Furthermore, the whole 'climate change' movement has been coopted if not started by monied interests who want to use you as a vassal and tax your carbon output, not to mention carbon credits, etc and use it as yet another cog in the control mechanism. 

Lastly, what do you have to say about the 'elites' giving countries like China and India a free pass with all this polluting?

[RonetteJersey]

I think it is hubris to think we can stop a naturally occurring wave of heat, and undo that from occurring at all. 
I also think that any efforts we as stupid humans take, in regards to terraforming are going to make it worse than it is.
I think we should focus on macro easily obtainable goals like cleaning toxins and plastics out of waters and soils, and not focus on carbon, which as we all know , is natural.

Furthermore, the whole 'climate change' movement has been coopted if not started by monied interests who want to use you as a vassal and tax your carbon output, not to mention carbon credits, etc and use it as yet another cog in the control mechanism. 

Lastly, what do you have to say about the 'elites' giving countries like China and India a free pass with all this polluting?

I agree, plastics are ignored by foreigners here, they simply toss everything into their trash, they don't follow our laws at all -
Plastics are polluting everything, it's not fair that the oceans are swarming with it.  How much effort does it take to place it in recycling bins?

[DontTreadOnMe]

Don’t forget plants adore carbon dioxide.
........

I can’t believe this is even being discussed let alone planned.

Yeah, real insanity.
Plants adore carbon dioxide....and give off oxygen...which WE adore.
A match made in heaven as it were.

I cannot believe anyone would give this idea any attention.

[SurferSoul]

Hi Byrd, 

You say the ocean is sucking in excess carbon from the air, by what process does it do this. Also what happened to the oceans when the carbon in the atmosphere was higher than it is now? 

I think you will get no argument from anybody here in regards to pollution. Surely the dumping of practically anything and everything into the oceans is responsible for the acidification? At the very least the detriment of the ocean’s health. Yet we hardly ever hear about this compared to carbon. It always seem to be ordinary Joe being blamed for climate change, by people who fly around in private jets no less. 

How do carbon credits offset emissions? They don’t, yet this is pushed as a great idea. More like a cop out and another money making scheme. 

I remember it was called global warming because of the greenhouse effect. But they changed it to climate change because the models were all wrong. It was also completely ignored until it became about climate change, wether true or not, it was the ideal new bogey man for the globalists, Bilderberg crew to latch on too. 

The data was messed with, you can’t get accurate Data if you’re instruments are faulty, or the research you base your conclusions from is faulty. 

I do think climate change is a real thing, but if it’s man made we are probably better off looking at cloud seeding ops and weather modification programs. Then compare and contrast with natural cycles, like volcanic eruptions etc… 

While I’m at it, so called green alternatives turn out not to be very green at all. The mining of rare earth minerals, leaves a toxic mess often employing children in Africa working in horrible conditions.

Then there are the viable alternatives that have been quashed over the decades. A member of ATS called ThatDamDuckAgain presented a thread on the viable method of generating Hydrogen. She was repeatedly shouted down with the same old statements saying “it’s takes more energy to make Hydrogen than what you get back” ignoring or ignorant of the fact, the energy proposed was practically free, via hydro or solar generation methods (once the infrastructure was in place) you could make Hydrogen to be used for transport and industry apps until your heart’s content. 

Funny how big oil suppressed as best they could anything other than oil for energy needs. 
Like so many other problems and issues in life, it seems to come down to money and greed. The bottom line that underscores everything. 

If the world wasn’t so utterly corrupt, run by maniacs obsessed with control, money and power. The solutions would come in thick and fast.

[Byrd]

I think it is hubris to think we can stop a naturally occurring wave of heat, and undo that from occurring at all. 
I also think that any efforts we as stupid humans take, in regards to terraforming are going to make it worse than it is.
I think we should focus on macro easily obtainable goals like cleaning toxins and plastics out of waters and soils, and not focus on carbon, which as we all know , is natural.

Furthermore, the whole 'climate change' movement has been coopted if not started by monied interests who want to use you as a vassal and tax your carbon output, not to mention carbon credits, etc and use it as yet another cog in the control mechanism. 

Lastly, what do you have to say about the 'elites' giving countries like China and India a free pass with all this polluting?

I don't know how aware you are of it, but carbon is a major ingredient in the manufacturing of plastics.  So... a significant amount of this excess atmospheric CO2 comes from our making plastics.  Sadly, they are not easy to recycle and (I'm sure you've guessed) the process of recycling (shredding, melting) adds CO2 (from electricity, furnaces, etc) adds to the atmospheric CO2 burden.

It's tempting to think of this as a "simple solution" -- the truth is that this is what (in science) is known as a "wicked problem." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)

Plastics are essential for a lot of things.  To develop new plastics takes time (electricity, highly educated people, labs, raw materials) -- you can't just snap a finger and have it.  Going back to "what we had before" (like natural rubber) isn't really possible (we'd have to cover the entire Amazon with rubber plants...and they don't grow full size overnight.)

Many plastics are engineered to have a particular quality (strength, flexibility-nonflexibility, degradeability, heat or cold resistance, fluid, solid, etc.)

If you develop a whole new class of plastics, they have to build machinery and manufacturing plants for it (which don't get in place overnight... we're talking decades) and have to coerce companies to use the new product (which means the companies have to retool their factories, which they are not eager to do) and the customer has to agree that they want these products.

A good example of this is biodegradable tableware -- like these (https://www.bambuhome.com/collections/ea...g-utensils).  They've been around for a number of years, but you don't see them in many takeout places and you have to specifically look for them on the grocery shelves to find them.  "Tree huggers" like myself are aware of them, but my neighbors probably aren't.

(the Wicked Problem in action, right there)

Multiply the problem of getting it through to America by the 200 or so countries in the world AND add local or cultural biases into the mix (like attitudes about how clean things are, or the Japanese love of cute plastic things) and as you can see, it's going to take decades to find a new substitute and move everyone into this new line.

It's not as simple as some of the people with "answers" make it seem like (because they don't know it's a "Wicked Problem."

So one attempt to get around this is attacking the "fewer plastics" (you may recall the pushback when states tried to ban plastic bags) plus adding recycling plus working on developing new products PLUS reducing what's in the atmosphere by other methods.   A multi-prong approach is faster and more efficient than a single strategy (however, it's still a Wicked Problem and globally there's things like large fires (caused by hotter weather, which is caused by increased CO2) and mountains of garbage that are adding to the issue.



Also, the problem of carbon is NOT that it's not natural...it's where it's ending up.  Like water, for instance.  Everyone needs water.  Almost nobody (except people like the Ancient Egyptians, who are a special case) needs a flood.  Or my daughter, who needs water to wash her clothes, but did NOT need the apartment upstairs to have their washer overflow and water pouring down into her laundry room.

Humans evolved in a lower CO2 atmosphere.  This extra CO2 has showed up in the past 100 years.  Before then, the amount of CO2 was about half.

Yes, dinosaurs and large insects did well in a higher CO2 atmosphere...because that's what they evolved under.  If you brought them here, the thinner atmosphere with less CO2 would give them a lot of health problems.



As to "the elites" and "other countries" -- what's going on is (more Wicked) economics and culture and not some sort of global cabal.  Reducing CO2 from cooking fires (to give a very TRIVIAL example) in Africa or India is almost impossible, because there's no other way of cooking food (and heating houses) in areas that don't have electricity other than burning wood and making charcoal.  Yes, you can try solar ovens, but they don't have those, either.  Reducing CO2 from vehicle emissions sounds like a great plan, unless you live in the northern area of Alaska (dog sleds can only travel about 20 miles per day, and a human on snowshoes even less.  Skis won't get you to a town 40 miles away in 30 minutes.)

So..."it's very complicated" and we need creative, out-of-the-box thinkers to start nibbling away on the problem.  There will not be One Great Big Answer (do this, and like a miracle, everything is fixed.)  But if we chew away the edges of the Wicked Problem, we can tame it down to a size where we can eventually find One Big Bandaid that works.

...sorry for getting long-winded.  Do continue to ask, and I'll answer as I can.

[Byrd]

Hi Byrd, 

You say the ocean is sucking in excess carbon from the air, by what process does it do this. Also what happened to the oceans when the carbon in the atmosphere was higher than it is now? 

I think you will get no argument from anybody here in regards to pollution. Surely the dumping of practically anything and everything into the oceans is responsible for the acidification? At the very least the detriment of the ocean’s health. Yet we hardly ever hear about this compared to carbon. It always seem to be ordinary Joe being blamed for climate change, by people who fly around in private jets no less. 

How do carbon credits offset emissions? They don’t, yet this is pushed as a great idea. More like a cop out and another money making scheme. 

I remember it was called global warming because of the greenhouse effect. But they changed it to climate change because the models were all wrong. It was also completely ignored until it became about climate change, wether true or not, it was the ideal new bogey man for the globalists, Bilderberg crew to latch on too. 

The data was messed with, you can’t get accurate Data if you’re instruments are faulty, or the research you base your conclusions from is faulty. 

I do think climate change is a real thing, but if it’s man made we are probably better off looking at cloud seeding ops and weather modification programs. Then compare and contrast with natural cycles, like volcanic eruptions etc… 

While I’m at it, so called green alternatives turn out not to be very green at all. The mining of rare earth minerals, leaves a toxic mess often employing children in Africa working in horrible conditions.

Then there are the viable alternatives that have been quashed over the decades. A member of ATS called ThatDamDuckAgain presented a thread on the viable method of generating Hydrogen. She was repeatedly shouted down with the same old statements saying “it’s takes more energy to make Hydrogen than what you get back” ignoring or ignorant of the fact, the energy proposed was practically free, via hydro or solar generation methods (once the infrastructure was in place) you could make Hydrogen to be used for transport and industry apps until your heart’s content. 

Funny how big oil suppressed as best they could anything other than oil for energy needs. 
Like so many other problems and issues in life, it seems to come down to money and greed. The bottom line that underscores everything. 

If the world wasn’t so utterly corrupt, run by maniacs obsessed with control, money and power. The solutions would come in thick and fast.

I'll come back to this later, but basically it gets into the ocean through a lot of processes... here's a page about it that is somewhat unreadable but has the good answers (https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake). I considered giving a kids' page on this, but it doesn't do a good explanation though it does mention things like waves (so, storms, rough water, can absorb a lot more CO2.)

"Climate change" is just another word for "global warming" and the name/brand change was to try and keep people from ignoring messages and information about it.  Kind of like calling "adult diapers" by the name "Depends."  

It does take awhile for pollutants to reach the ocean, and if you think about ...dropping ink into water, you can see that a single source (like a river) gets diluted quickly (which is why we pretended we could just wash everything into the ocean and forget about it for most of human existence.)  CO2 is in the atmosphere instantly.  It distributes evenly throughout the atmosphere, and the more there is of it, the more that gets pushed into the ocean (see the link above.)

...will answer more later.  Must dash.

[SurferSoul]

I'll come back to this later, but basically it gets into the ocean through a lot of processes... here's a page about it that is somewhat unreadable but has the good answers (https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake). I considered giving a kids' page on this, but it doesn't do a good explanation though it does mention things like waves (so, storms, rough water, can absorb a lot more CO2.)

Oh cool a kids version , yey. I understood water to be H2O no carbon, surely it can only exist in bubbles? Dyes etc.. do dilute but that’s because they are water soluble. Carbon isn’t is it?

"Climate change" is just another word for "global warming" and the name/brand change was to try and keep people from ignoring messages and information about it.  Kind of like calling "adult diapers" by the name "Depends."  

I seriously doubt that. I only started ignoring messages myself when big money and carbon credits got involved.

It does take awhile for pollutants to reach the ocean, and if you think about ...dropping ink into water, you can see that a single source (like a river) gets diluted quickly (which is why we pretended we could just wash everything into the ocean and forget about it for most of human existence.)  CO2 is in the atmosphere instantly.  It distributes evenly throughout the atmosphere, and the more there is of it, the more that gets pushed into the ocean (see the link above.)

...will answer more later.  Must dash.

Pretty sure UltraBudgie has already addressed this carbon in the atmosphere stuff. Better to address that first.

[UltraBudgie]

this is true the data show the ocean ph as tracking atmospheric co2



which only makes sense its like how you make seltzer by just hooking a co2 tank up to a corney keg of water, the co2 will passively dissolve in the water making yummy bubble water. and seltzer is acidic because when co2 dissolves in water it makes carbonic acid: CO2​ + H2​O <--> H2​CO3​...