Yes, why not give it a shot? I understand that there could be unforeseen ecosystem impacts, but would they be a show stopper? After all, we have an example in the North Atlantic gyre of what is most likely to happen if we provide nutrients and iron to the other four gyres. Such an intervention might not be perfect, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of
the good. The issue is analogous to solar radiation management where we have a natural example in volcanos. The world is running out of time. Desiring certainty is our enemy.
Quico - your questions here go to the nub of the moral insanity that excludes global thinking from public view. Anyone answering these questions must see the urgency for biodiversity and overall abundance of proceeding to heal the gaping wounds humans have caused in the biosphere.
"If we can restore the vibrant, complex ecosystems that existed before industrial whaling destroyed them, shouldn’t we? If we can revitalize fisheries and coastal livelihoods, whale habitats and biodiversity hotspots in waters that otherwise just sit idle, shouldn’t we explore that? And if, on top of all that, we end up also creating a massive new carbon sink, how exactly is that bad?"
To add, the only thing that could be seen as bad about this, in the view of the climate establishment, is that it undermines their climate cartel that has sold the world on the false promise that climate is only about energy. Energy reform can have only minor impact on cooling and biodiversity conservation compared to the climate and biomass benefits of restoring the great ocean gyres.
I guess a reasonable worry is unforeseen effects. Imagine if Algeria or Morocco decided it would be a good idea to green the Sahara with trees and fertilizer (a much bigger and costlier idea than seeding the ocean) so they could grow crops and sequester carbon in trees, the unforeseen effect would be the stoppage of the sand blowing out to sea, which could kill the Sargasso ecosystem and maybe thereby have the opposite effect and increase atmospheric carbon. Has that been proposed or studied?
A few years back there was a very large rain event over the west coast of the USA caused by the atmospheric rivers bringing large amounts of moisture from the north pacific, months prior there was an underwater eruption off the coast of Japan one wonders if the two were connected? do you have any data on this event? Iwo Jima island was the area of the massive volcanic eruption . Another note was that the fires in Australia 2019 created an algae bloom the size of the country in the lower pacific gyre and bought the wettest couple of years we have experienced in a long time which was extended by the Tonga eruption. There is a lot of potential to catalyze climatic shift and solve many problems at once if done correctly. Envisionation was looking at using nutrient infused bran husks to float and slow release for this purpose as I am sure you already know.
I am all for this, and I think most techno optimist types are, but you are going to probably conflict with other identity types especially the greens. The Naturalistic Fallacy buzzsaw is right there waiting since whatever humans do is automatically considered "Bad" by a large group of people.
Yes, this vision has merit. It's a form of biomimicry that employs nature as model. But the base of food webs in the other gyres is likely to be diatoms. Stewarding towards them will call for something other than air dropping nutrients.
Well when you have huge nitrogen containing agricultural runoff it is kind of hard to blame a bit of dust from a long way away... "Contributes" is quite a bit different than "causes" but obviously there will be benefits and side effects of anything, which of course is how ecosystems form in the first place.
Vote for me and I'll teraform the ocean.
Tee hee!
wouldn't that be more like mareform, though?
Yes, why not give it a shot? I understand that there could be unforeseen ecosystem impacts, but would they be a show stopper? After all, we have an example in the North Atlantic gyre of what is most likely to happen if we provide nutrients and iron to the other four gyres. Such an intervention might not be perfect, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of
the good. The issue is analogous to solar radiation management where we have a natural example in volcanos. The world is running out of time. Desiring certainty is our enemy.
Quico - your questions here go to the nub of the moral insanity that excludes global thinking from public view. Anyone answering these questions must see the urgency for biodiversity and overall abundance of proceeding to heal the gaping wounds humans have caused in the biosphere.
"If we can restore the vibrant, complex ecosystems that existed before industrial whaling destroyed them, shouldn’t we? If we can revitalize fisheries and coastal livelihoods, whale habitats and biodiversity hotspots in waters that otherwise just sit idle, shouldn’t we explore that? And if, on top of all that, we end up also creating a massive new carbon sink, how exactly is that bad?"
To add, the only thing that could be seen as bad about this, in the view of the climate establishment, is that it undermines their climate cartel that has sold the world on the false promise that climate is only about energy. Energy reform can have only minor impact on cooling and biodiversity conservation compared to the climate and biomass benefits of restoring the great ocean gyres.
Give diatoms a chance!
I guess a reasonable worry is unforeseen effects. Imagine if Algeria or Morocco decided it would be a good idea to green the Sahara with trees and fertilizer (a much bigger and costlier idea than seeding the ocean) so they could grow crops and sequester carbon in trees, the unforeseen effect would be the stoppage of the sand blowing out to sea, which could kill the Sargasso ecosystem and maybe thereby have the opposite effect and increase atmospheric carbon. Has that been proposed or studied?
A few years back there was a very large rain event over the west coast of the USA caused by the atmospheric rivers bringing large amounts of moisture from the north pacific, months prior there was an underwater eruption off the coast of Japan one wonders if the two were connected? do you have any data on this event? Iwo Jima island was the area of the massive volcanic eruption . Another note was that the fires in Australia 2019 created an algae bloom the size of the country in the lower pacific gyre and bought the wettest couple of years we have experienced in a long time which was extended by the Tonga eruption. There is a lot of potential to catalyze climatic shift and solve many problems at once if done correctly. Envisionation was looking at using nutrient infused bran husks to float and slow release for this purpose as I am sure you already know.
I am all for this, and I think most techno optimist types are, but you are going to probably conflict with other identity types especially the greens. The Naturalistic Fallacy buzzsaw is right there waiting since whatever humans do is automatically considered "Bad" by a large group of people.
Do the other gyres have Sargassum or some other species that would fill the same role if there were enough iron?
Seems like there should be sand blowing off the Australian desert also, feeding the Southern Pacific and Indian oceans
Yes, this vision has merit. It's a form of biomimicry that employs nature as model. But the base of food webs in the other gyres is likely to be diatoms. Stewarding towards them will call for something other than air dropping nutrients.
Interesting. Here in Florida, the Saharan dust contributes to red tide and massive fish kills. That’s one concern among many.
Well when you have huge nitrogen containing agricultural runoff it is kind of hard to blame a bit of dust from a long way away... "Contributes" is quite a bit different than "causes" but obviously there will be benefits and side effects of anything, which of course is how ecosystems form in the first place.
Yes, why not give it a shot? I understand