Now you are thinking like an engineer! Doing a feasibility down selection at the start is an important way to minimize wasted time.
We do need to build new stuff too, but that will take a lot longer. Nuclear needs to get cheaper to scale- when you burn dirt as fuel, it should be dirt cheap. I also like accelerated limestone weathering as it uses the ocean energy in a positive way without too much effort.
I personally think reducing emisions or eliminating emissions is the answer, which to means electric cars, electric forging, and most likely also some kind of nuclear power.
If I may, It's good that you are obssesed with it. Sometimes you have to repeat obvious ideas 100 times to make people understand that they are actually important.
Interesting. Unlike most climate bloggers, you don't come off as someone who has found The Truth, The Light, and The Way, with an air of smug condescension about any other opinions. Not a whiff of that to be found here.
Hey, this was useful for me in seeing why some of you guys are loco for ocean solutions. I'd heard all these points before but didn't hear that it's the argument you were making. Thanks!
I agree completely with scalability as the basis for evaluating climate interventions. But can ocean fertilization be researched, field tested and scaled up fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate impacts? Warming is accelerating. Do you see solar radiation management as a potential stopgap measure while ocean fertilization is scaled up? I do, but I also realize it is a hard sell, harder probably than ocean fertilization.
Thank you, as always, for your insightful reporting on climate issues using eminently readable prose.
I could be wrong, of course. (I hope I'm wrong, actually.) But my sense is that the geopolitical problems around stratospheric aerosols are impossible to get right, or so close to impossible they'll slow any proposal down for decades.
The science around marine cloud brightening is farther away from deployment than the science around ocean fertilization. And at any rate placebo-based approaches don't do anything to address ocean acidification. So I don't think they'll end up being quicker, or more effective.
Now you are thinking like an engineer! Doing a feasibility down selection at the start is an important way to minimize wasted time.
We do need to build new stuff too, but that will take a lot longer. Nuclear needs to get cheaper to scale- when you burn dirt as fuel, it should be dirt cheap. I also like accelerated limestone weathering as it uses the ocean energy in a positive way without too much effort.
I personally think reducing emisions or eliminating emissions is the answer, which to means electric cars, electric forging, and most likely also some kind of nuclear power.
I'm worried that ocean ferlisation might kill everything in the ocean. Have you heard about ocean dead oxygenation from acvidental over fertidation? It is the cause behind ocean dead zones which are areas where nothing but jelly fish can live. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html#:~:text=%22Dead%20zone%22%20is%20a%20more,of%20oxygen%20in%20the%20water.&text=Less%20oxygen%20dissolved%20in%20the,as%20fish%2C%20leave%20the%20area.
Quico, any good docs on ocean fertilization you could point me to? I'm really interested in the potential.
If I may, It's good that you are obssesed with it. Sometimes you have to repeat obvious ideas 100 times to make people understand that they are actually important.
Interesting. Unlike most climate bloggers, you don't come off as someone who has found The Truth, The Light, and The Way, with an air of smug condescension about any other opinions. Not a whiff of that to be found here.
Hey, this was useful for me in seeing why some of you guys are loco for ocean solutions. I'd heard all these points before but didn't hear that it's the argument you were making. Thanks!
I agree completely with scalability as the basis for evaluating climate interventions. But can ocean fertilization be researched, field tested and scaled up fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate impacts? Warming is accelerating. Do you see solar radiation management as a potential stopgap measure while ocean fertilization is scaled up? I do, but I also realize it is a hard sell, harder probably than ocean fertilization.
Thank you, as always, for your insightful reporting on climate issues using eminently readable prose.
I could be wrong, of course. (I hope I'm wrong, actually.) But my sense is that the geopolitical problems around stratospheric aerosols are impossible to get right, or so close to impossible they'll slow any proposal down for decades.
The science around marine cloud brightening is farther away from deployment than the science around ocean fertilization. And at any rate placebo-based approaches don't do anything to address ocean acidification. So I don't think they'll end up being quicker, or more effective.