digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming

news.harvard.edu — Researchers at Harvard and Pennsylvania State have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by human emissions by permanently transferring the CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Kelgann, on 11/12/2007, -2/+26Who knows what effects this will have on the balance of nature though. Raising the alkalinity of the ocean is a pretty big change. There could be far worse consequences than would ever be brought on by global warming.
    • latrosicarius, on 11/12/2007, -2/+3Well, I'm no expert, but I saw on the History or Discovery channel (I forget which one) that they said that the oceans are a natural CO2 sink, but at one point in earth's history, something made the CO2 come up to the surface and it caused a mass extinction. But the point of the story is that the deep ocean is actually where CO2 is supposed to be, so it not like they are just picking an arbitrary place to put it, without at least an attempt to understand the effects of doing so.
    • Kelgann, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I've heard of a mass extinction being caused by hydrogen sulfide trapped in the ocean being released, but never carbon dioxide.
    • KingGorilla, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Poseidon would be really pissed
  • silentsprawl, on 11/12/2007, -16/+4Because we "killed God" we have to be in charge of the weather now?
    • Chaoticfist, on 11/12/2007, -2/+15Wtf are u talking about, this has nothing to do with god, this has to do with mankind ***** the planet up. Hopefully this tech will work, as well not negatively affect oceans.
      • silentsprawl, on 11/11/2007, -3/+0Woah, man, just trying to make a poetic allusion to a contested topic on Digg... calm down. I guess you missed my oh so subtle and ambivalent sarcasm....
      • climateHeretic, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1This concept is crazy, reckless and a lot like the "add wolves to Yellowstone Park" plan but on a global scale.
    • climateHeretic, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Nice one!
  • mclumber1, on 11/12/2007, -6/+17Every time we try to alter the environment for the sake of the environment, we screw up. I have a feeling this will be no different. Let nature take care of itself.
    • ngnboone, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9Nature will take care of itself- only problem being we might not be part of it's solution
  • jkremer3, on 11/11/2007, -1/+11I believe the last paragraph was the best point, it is crucial to start trying this stuff now. We can't just wait to use it as a last resort. If we just let ideas like this vanish away because of cost, nothing will ever get done.
  • bushisterrorist, on 11/12/2007, -6/+3Everyone should look into the possible effects of HAARP.

    High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

    It's about as safe as depleted uranium.
  • aaarrrgh, on 11/11/2007, -1/+11The idea is brilliant, looking at it from an isolated perspective, but as the first poster pointed out, it would be necessary to see which longterm effects this could potentially have on the ocean.

    However, I like that we, aside from reducing our CO2 production, are looking at alternative ways to reduce the amount in the air. I think the only way we can have a sustainable future, is by assessing this problem from a number of different perspectives.
  • WilliamDavis, on 11/12/2007, -3/+4Wow. Has nobody paid attention to the way man has introduced non-native species into native habitats and the results of that? Seriously, it seems like nobody pays attention to the fact that there are unintended and yet unknown consequences.
    • whodathunk, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Fact that there are unknown consequences???

      If it's unknown, then how do you know it's a fact?

      If it's a fact, then spell it out. If you can't spell it out, then you don't know it's a fact, now do you?
  • phuture84, on 11/12/2007, -3/+5I have to agree with the first poster. Weather is a non-linear, chaotic system; any small change to the natural cycle can have far reaching irreversible consequences that are nearly impossible to predict. I am all for reducing the amount of impact people have on the environment, but actually speeding up the natural cycle isn't the best solution. The pH of the ocean is a fairly stable, naturally regulated variable, how could we possibly know what impact artificially raising its pH will have? "It might prove beneficial to reefs" great, but what about all of the fish, mammals, algae, etc. that are accustomed to the current pH?
    I think people need to calm down a bit when it comes to the climate. Let's reduce what impact we have, but not by having a greater impact. Earth has been around for a while, I think it is fair to say it is pretty good at regulating itself. Why don't we focus more on getting people to recycle, use less energy, things like that before we ever consider doing anything to the natural cycles of the Earth.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 11/12/2007, -8/+3So, instead of polluting the air, we'll pollute the oceans...and if you know the water cycle, it'll pollute the air again....WONDERFUL THINKING.
    • Pake, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, it's not polluting the ocean if we're talking about CO2. Look up how the Earth's life has been and you'll realize that the only reason we even exist is because early in the Earth's life, the oceans absorbed majority of the CO2 in the air.
  • kettlechips, on 11/12/2007, -3/+1No, I want global warming; it's freezing here!
  • Ninnux, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5@xen0blue :: Actually, no. It's more like overwhelming. Try this: go to either the Science or Nature journal website. Search for global climate change, and count how may different universities and institutions are returned. If that doesn't satisfy you, go to Google Scholar and redo the experiment. If this still doesn't convince you, search the National Academy of Science's website, or France's, or the UK's, or Germany's, or Japan's. You'll see what I mean.
    • seidelryan, on 11/12/2007, -2/+0CO2 is not the culprit of climate change. CO2 is measure to be 340 PPM, very small when compared to the amount of nitrogen in the air. and the amount of CO2 in the air has gone DOWN over time, not up. check it here http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatech ...
      • vikingcoder, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0The atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently 382 ppm and has risen at an average rate of 1.6 ppm over the past 25 years. Pointing at multi-hundred million year spans when discussing decades-long changes is a prime example of militant willful ignorance or duplicity.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global
  • chrisclmsn, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Please don't try to ***** with the weather.
    • RoscoPColetrane, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1We're already doing so by burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon.
      • chrisclmsn, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0You're right. i just don't want this method to do even more harm.
  • rxbudian, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3ahem... so what would the fishes and other sea life breathe?
    • whodathunk, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1You mean what do the enormous ocean masses of plankton and seaweed 'breathe'?
  • cranium, on 11/12/2007, -3/+4Now we'll see the true colors of the global warming crowd. They will fight any solution that doesn't fit their political agenda. Just goes to show, it's all about politics.
  • zephc, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Or: plant more trees!
  • Davekcon, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2wheres the article tying CO2 levels to climate change?
  • Weather, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Why not reduce the amount of pollution rather than ruining the oceans as well.
  • AtomicTank, on 11/11/2007, -0/+0After reading the entire article, as I am sure the rest of you have, I find this research to be promising. Dugg.
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1there's got to be some type of machine that can be invented/adapted to exchange CO2 for Ox (where x is 1, 2, or 3). these would be not only the savior of our own environment, but could also become terraforming machines that allow us to transform the biospheres of other worlds.

    sure it sounds like star trek, but isn't this method that this article speaks of just that?
  • jwbales, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3At best, such a scheme would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's no guarantee this will have any effect on global warming.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1Theres no guarantee it wont kill all plant life on earth.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Leave The Weather ALONE!!!!
    • RoscoPColetrane, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1We're already screwing with the weather by burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon.
  • ryan83189, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Great , because when we accidentally messed up the earth with science it was really bad. Imagine what we can do if we actually tried to change the environment, much ,much worse.
  • benroy, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp
  • Treoinmypocket, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2The team cautions, however, that while they believe their scheme for reducing global warming is achievable, implementation would be ambitious and costly, and would carry some environmental risks that require further study. Replicating natural weathering would involve building dozens of facilities, akin to large chlorine gas industrial plants, on coasts of volcanic rock.

    yeah....I smell the inevitable disaster of good intentions.
  • tunapez, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2Great idea, we'll fill the oceans up with co2 lakes.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/06 ...
    Then one day they'll hit critical mass and burp up a massive, lethal dose of co2 into the atmosphere at once. Swell idea.
    Are we to blame for the CO2 spike 120,000 years ago? How about the one 240,000 years ago? OK, then definitely the spike 340,000 years ago, right? See a pattern? Anyone?
    If we f with nature, she will shake us off like the gnats we be.

    PS: Fear mongering /= empathy. I'm all for conservation, recycling and keeping my "yard" clean, I refuse to be feared into being conscientious...that's just straight-up terrorism.
  • stonedgeek, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1This may be a stupid question, but is it feasible to convert carbon to a solid on a large scale? I've heard plans to pump it down into the earth and now into the ocean, but those ideas sound like they won't work forever, or at least might have unforeseen consequences. Like if we bury it, what if someone digs it up in 10,000 years and it all just vents back into the atmosphere? It's not like we can put up a "don't dig here" sign, because it will eventually deteriorate and 10,000-years-in-the-future-guy probably won't be reading english. Put it in the ocean? Can we be sure it's not going to harm any of the hundreds of millions of species in the ocean, rivers or any of the other animals that eat those animals?
    If it could be made into bricks, we could use them to build stuff. It could be sold, whereas just storing it somewhere has no profit whatsoever.
  • climateHeretic, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Just because we can screw with something natural, such as the weather, does not mean we should.
  • philba, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Be afraid, very afraid
  • bradyk, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1A look at the potential of this: http://digg.com/environment/Weather_Control
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.