Comments on: Green Algae Bloom Process Could Stop Global Warming

By: Gaius Timms

Gaius Timms — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:28:00 +0000

What about any externalities which may negatively effect ecosystems and the ocean itself?
Even if they are taken step by step on small scale to transition into large scale experiments, there is no way they can possibly know how this may affect different ecosystems world wide.

By: Reneefkaplan

Reneefkaplan — Tue, 10 May 2011 07:31:00 +0000

I would like to try this and am looking for info on how to do this

By: Reneefkaplan

Reneefkaplan — Tue, 10 May 2011 07:31:00 +0000

I would like to try this and am looking for info on how to do this

By: jaideep

jaideep — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:13:39 +0000

am trying an expt. to use green algae in a tub at home and having the water recycled periodically if every house were to do it would it not help absorb the carbon and increse the oxygen..

By: jaideep

jaideep — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:13:00 +0000

am trying an expt. to use green algae in a tub at home and having the water recycled periodically if every house were to do it would it not help absorb the carbon and increse the oxygen..

By: TerraformVenusFirst

TerraformVenusFirst — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:25:22 +0000

I agree with the others that see this as a reckless experiment. It should be done on a small scale first until the complete results are thoroughly understood. I also wonder if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is contributing to the increase in toxic algae blooms world wide.

The safest course of action is to transition away from fossil fuels much more aggressively. We already have the technology. Solar + Wind + Hydro + Nuclear + Pumped storage and other energy storage methods can replace all our coal plants.

We may want to keep some of the coal around for steel production but instead of spending 10 billion to research clean coal (which just allows the coal industry to keep it’s status quo for 10 or 20 more years) we could put about 2GW of solar panels on government buildings and make an *actual* difference and actually get our money back over the long term.

By: TerraformVenusFirst

TerraformVenusFirst — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:25:00 +0000

By: Noah

Noah — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:05:45 +0000

Jared makes a good point. I thought that at a certain point, algae blooms become too big and create dead zones (lowering O2 in the water). This idea is messing with too many variables that we can’t control. We should be working on variables that we already added (coal and oil pollution).

By: Noah

Noah — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:05:00 +0000

By: John Groweg

John Groweg — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:37:19 +0000

I thought algae blooms consume all the oxygen in a body of water and kill off fish. I recall reading about ‘dead zones’ in the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi River dumps organic material into the Gulf spurring algae blooms. The dead zone has depleted oxygen and can’t support sea life. I hope these folks have done their homework.

By: John Groweg

John Groweg — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:37:00 +0000

By: Buddy Ebsen

Buddy Ebsen — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:56:36 +0000

I love all these ‘deep thinkers’ with their own pet theories about AGW. They post endlessly on web forums, because that’s the only place their opinionated lunacy is tolerated. Their friends have learned to either nod a lot in agreement, or quickly walk away.

Look at Dave’s post: he states that the human contribution of atmospheric CO2 is teeny-tiny. You think a 35% increase is insignificant? That’s using Wikipedia as a source, please feel free to quote your more authoritative one. No nutjob blogs please, actual scientific sources only – remember you’re the one posting your pet theory here.

Dave further states “Nuclear is the only “alternative” that can produce energy on a scale comparable with oil and coal” – please provide a link to the study that corroborates this ‘fact’. Or if its just your own opinion that you just pulled out of your rear end, then how about backing it up with any actual facts of any kind? No? Not even a half-baked theory? I think Pickens would disagree, along with many others.

Hey, Bob M – if the proof of your ‘normal cyclical pattern’ of climate change has too little history of documentation, then how do you back it up? Where is this documentation by “the scientific community”? Please provide a citation. Or is this another ‘fun fact’ made up to help you hide from your fear?

Feel free to have your own uneducated opinions, but please stop trying to spread ignorance. Look deeper into yourself for the real reasons for your denial. I think you will find some troubling truths about yourself and your lifestyle.

By: Buddy Ebsen

Buddy Ebsen — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:56:00 +0000

By: russ

russ — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:35:58 +0000

The measured catastrophic decline of ocean plants in the past 30 years has resulted in 4-5 billion tonnes of CO2 NOT bing converted by photosynthess into living biomass each year. This dcline is due to the greening effect CO2 has on terrestrial plants making better ‘ground cover’ hence less mineral rich dust reaching the oceans.

The oceans contain at equillibrium about 60,000 billion tonnes of carbon the terrestrial world cotains about 2,000 tonnes. Do the math if we need to mitigate a few billion tonnes of fossil carbon emissions wouldn’t it be logical to restore ocean productivity to the condition it was only 30 years ago and solve more than half the problem by converting CO2 to ocean life instead of acid death.

We all live on Planet Ocean not Planet Earth. That is where he most immediate and cataclysmic impact of our fossil fueled emissions is happening and fast not at a glacial pace. Replenishment of denied vital mineral miconutrients to the oceans is immediately workable and will cost 1% of the cost of other “climate change” solutions. It wil solve half the problem for a few billion per year buying us time to spend the hundreds of billions required on engineering and political solutions for the remaining half the problem. Read more at http://www.planktos-science.com

By: russ

russ — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:35:00 +0000