dicynodont’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We are already playing God with the weather

  Frakly I'm getting tired of the enviros who start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the word "geo-engineering". What do you think climate change as a result of CO2 emissions does? It creates precisely what you call "franken-weather" but on a massive, irreversible scale. That's why scientists are so desperate to begin researching geo-engineering, in the hope that the fix won't be as bad as doing nothing. It's hard to imagine doing nothing at this point.

  And by the way, our current CO2 mitigation policies are tantamount to "doing nothing", because they are based on old IPCC policy that assumes CO2 will be slowly removed from the atmosphere if we stop emitting it slowly. This has now been proven wrong. Check out the article on the recent research of extremely well respected Dr. Susan Solomon, where she compares CO2 emissions to nuclear waste.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009 ...

  So Gristmill Readers... if we're "nuking" the atmosphere by emitting CO2, what should we be doing about it? Obviously, we need to stop emitting CO2 as fast as freakin' possible. But if that's not enough to prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change, then what? It seems that we must approach geoengineering calmly and rationally, because after all, we're already doing it irrationally with insane consequences.On Geoengineering what? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ocean acidification is NOT a minor problem... but

  My main point is that Joe has conflated two different scientific processes in this most recent geo-engineering-bashing post. Ocean acidification and ocean anoxia are caused by different physical processes, and hence he made a mistake by citing an ocean anoxia paper as a potential threat of geoengineering.

  Joe is right to point out the threat of ocean anoxia -- I read the cited paper when it came out and shuddered -- but Joe is wrong to connect it with geoengineering. Geoengineering is perhaps one of the primary solutions to this problem.

  My secondary point is that ocean anoxia is a BIG problem, in fact, probably the single greatest threat from climate change. It dwarfs the threat of ocean acidification. Widespread "Ocean Anoxic Events" are strongly implicated as the primary cause of mass extinctions on earth, particularly the great Permo-Triassic mass extinction where 95% of all species in the ocean and land went extinct. Ocean acidification, while bad for calcareous life in the ocean, cannot cause a dead zone let alone a mass extinction.

  My strong desire is to have neither issue exist, but if I had to choose one... I would accept some acidification if it meant preventing widespread ocean anoxia.On Ocean dead zones to expand, 'remain for thousands of years' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Joe, your science is wrong

  Dead zones from ocean anoxia are completely different from the problem of ocean acidification. Acidification is a relatively trivial problem compared to the threat of "Ocean Anoxic Events" as described in the Shaffer et al paper which you cited. Acidification only kills some species, whereas anoxia kills them all - particularly when anoxia gets so bad that hydrogen sulfide gas is produced. This is what likely caused the Permo-Triassic mass extinction where 95% of all living organisms died out.

  Ocean Anoxic Events (OAE) are caused by radiative forcing imbalances that produce changes in climate which alters ocean circulation and hence oxygen penetration. Ocean acidification has absolutely nothing to do with this process (and may even help if less organic carbon is exported to the deep ocean). It is very possible that radiative forcing management techniques (e.g. stratospheric aerosols, marine cloud seeding, DMS production) could actually maintain or restore natural ocean circulation patterns, which would prevent OAE from occuring. Researching how this could be done should be one of the highest priorities.

  My personal opinion is that if radiative forcing geoengineering techniques reduce the threat of ocean anoxia, then a little bit of enhanced acidifcation is an acceptable outcome. Even better are those techniques that remove atmospheric CO2, since these both solve the OAE problem as well as the ocean acidification problem. (...and yes, ocean iron fertilization can help in both of these aspects)On Ocean dead zones to expand, 'remain for thousands of years' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Some good points, some not...

  I think it's important to highlight the demise of European Cod. Even though they tried to manage the fishery properly, it still collapsed because of degraded oceanic conditions. It's a lesson that we don't fully understand how ecosystems work in response to climate change. The same goes for how oceans respond to increases in acidity from CO2 pulses.

  However, I think you miss the boat by repeating the assertion that the Lutz et al paper in JGR disproves ocean fertilization. Go ahead and read the paper before you quote from that press release again. The PR piece wasn't even written by a University associated with the paper. The actual paper concludes that large phytoplankton blooms result in more absolute carbon sequestration than other times of the year. I think this suggests that ocean fertilization might actually work to sequester carbon. It certainly does not suggest that ocean fertilization would be ineffective.

  Two elements of ocean fertilization appear to be beneficial. First, it provides more food for things that eat phytoplankton - and there is ample support of this in the paleoceanographic record. Second, it reduces the acidification of surface waters by transporting CO2 into the deep ocean where it has no significant effect.

  Your Permo-Triassic cousin,
  Dicynodont

  ps. isn't sustainable Chilean Sea Bass an oxymoron?
  On New fishing quotas and Japanese whaling ships on notice posted 1 year, 11 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cynodonts

  Stupendous! How many people actually know the difference between cynodonts and dicynodonts!? I am impressed by the readers of Gristmill.

  Have you also heard the theory that ocean stratification as a result of global warming is the likely culprit for the majority of the Earth's mass extinctions? The Mesozoic excepted of course... Unfortunately, the ocean circulation pattern is what keeps the deep ocean from becoming anoxic and generating highly toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. Peter Ward's Under A Green Sky talks about this.

  I wonder which Era we are creating.On Another distraction debunked posted 1 year, 12 months ago 10 Responses