If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   Sure the world's glaciers might melt, but they have enough iron locked inside them to prevent global warming from becoming a problem when they do. Here comes the glaciology   (phys.org) divider line 76
    More: Cool, global warming, Antarctic ice sheet, ice sheets, phytoplankton, National Oceanography Centre, meltwaters, abundant element, Nature Communications  
•       •       •

3426 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 May 2014 at 6:21 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-21 03:22:25 PM
Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean, with the intent that it would feed massive plankton blooms, which would eat-up tons CO2 during growth and then sink or get eaten, removing CO2 from the air and water.

Now you are telling me that this might happen in part naturally?
LOL
 
2014-05-21 05:07:09 PM

namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean, with the intent that it would feed massive plankton blooms, which would eat-up tons CO2 during growth and then sink or get eaten, removing CO2 from the air and water.

Now you are telling me that this might happen in part naturally?
LOL


that's pretty lucky. turn up the AC and open the windows!
 
2014-05-21 05:18:12 PM

namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean,



OK, everyone! Go out and buy a bottle of Geritol and pour it into the ocean. Problem solved.

/whaddya mean that's not how it works? fark you, science!
 
2014-05-21 05:31:59 PM

gopher321: namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean,


OK, everyone! Go out and buy a bottle of Geritol and pour it into the ocean. Problem solved.

/whaddya mean that's not how it works? fark you, science!


hey
There are a TON of different ideas being discussed and designed, with the intent of trying to reverse some of the Co2 problems.  It has become clear as a society, that we will do nothing to reduce emissions. or force sequestering at the point of production.  

While I am not in favor of trying to engineer our way out of this problem, in the end, belt and suspenders.
Reductions, engineering and dikes. 

It would be interesting to live long enough to be able to do tours Nouveau-Greenland and New Antarctica, along  with a July cruise across the north pole.
 
2014-05-21 05:44:24 PM

namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean, with the intent that it would feed massive plankton blooms, which would eat-up tons CO2 during growth and then sink or get eaten, removing CO2 from the air and water.

Now you are telling me that this might happen in part naturally?
LOL


It means that there will be larger arctic and antarctic plankton blooms and thus more CO2 drawn out of the air.

If we start stimulating the ocean to produce more plankton, it'll just make more fish which will expand the food web and increase CO2 emissions to reach a new equilibrium. We just gotta stop kicking the machine.
 
2014-05-21 05:58:10 PM

Tr0mBoNe: namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean, with the intent that it would feed massive plankton blooms, which would eat-up tons CO2 during growth and then sink or get eaten, removing CO2 from the air and water.

Now you are telling me that this might happen in part naturally?
LOL

It means that there will be larger arctic and antarctic plankton blooms and thus more CO2 drawn out of the air.

If we start stimulating the ocean to produce more plankton, it'll just make more fish which will expand the food web and increase CO2 emissions to reach a new equilibrium. We just gotta stop kicking the machine.


While I dont have a citation, I am 100% certain that the net CO2 is negative.
1) plankton using CO2
2) plankton eaten by fish
3) fish expire CO2

WHY? Intuition? Lipids and Proteins contain carbon, which was extracted from the CO2.
So at least some of the Carbon is sequestered in the fish and not expired.
I would guess that it is a high percentage 30-50% range.

Hell, any of the plankton not eaten, will sink and sequester the Carbon for at least some period of time.
 
2014-05-21 06:04:37 PM

namatad: Tr0mBoNe: namatad: Strange.
One of the dynamic solutions that has been proposed (and partially tested), is spreading iron dust on the ocean, with the intent that it would feed massive plankton blooms, which would eat-up tons CO2 during growth and then sink or get eaten, removing CO2 from the air and water.

Now you are telling me that this might happen in part naturally?
LOL

It means that there will be larger arctic and antarctic plankton blooms and thus more CO2 drawn out of the air.

If we start stimulating the ocean to produce more plankton, it'll just make more fish which will expand the food web and increase CO2 emissions to reach a new equilibrium. We just gotta stop kicking the machine.

While I dont have a citation, I am 100% certain that the net CO2 is negative.
1) plankton using CO2
2) plankton eaten by fish
3) fish expire CO2

WHY? Intuition? Lipids and Proteins contain carbon, which was extracted from the CO2.
So at least some of the Carbon is sequestered in the fish and not expired.
I would guess that it is a high percentage 30-50% range.

Hell, any of the plankton not eaten, will sink and sequester the Carbon for at least some period of time.


I guess then we have to ask how long it takes to go from plankton to fish and back to plankton.
 
2014-05-21 06:25:09 PM
Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!
 
2014-05-21 06:27:05 PM
Something against human caused climate change:

Conservatives: Told you so.

Liberals:  The science is bad

Something in favor of human caused climate change:

Conservatives:  The science is bad.

Liberals:  Told you so.
 
2014-05-21 06:39:49 PM

KillaChinchilla: Something against human caused climate change:

Conservatives: Told you so.

Liberals:  The science is bad



Citation? Because generally when I've read someone's argument against human's contribution to climate change, it doesn't involve science at all.
 
2014-05-21 06:40:57 PM

KillaChinchilla: Liberals:  The science is bad


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-21 06:42:19 PM

somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!


Because we don't have any cats to keep away the goddamned creepers.
 
2014-05-21 06:43:12 PM

somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!


Its easier to subjugate a Central African nation.
 
2014-05-21 06:43:42 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2014-05-21 06:43:51 PM
Well if someone's been ironing the glaciers it's no great wonder that they are melting....
 
2014-05-21 07:11:37 PM
According to another article, it'd take 1000 years for the iron dumped by the melting polar ice caps to feed enough phytoplankton to eat the excess CO2 necessary to melt the ice caps.

So enjoy your thousand years of fetid swamp planet, mother nature is cleaning up the mess in her own sweet time.

It's like George Carlin said: Don't worry about saving the planet; the Earth is gonna be just fine, but humans are completely farked.
 
2014-05-21 07:13:18 PM

KillaChinchilla: Something against human caused climate change:

Conservatives: Told you so.

Liberals:  The science is bad

Something in favor of human caused climate change:

Conservatives:  The science is bad.

Liberals:  Told you so.


If only there were some objective process by which to ask questions and test hypotheses that could get to the bottom of this!
 
2014-05-21 07:21:56 PM

somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!


Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of MONSTERS!
 
2014-05-21 07:32:50 PM

KillaChinchilla: Something against human caused climate change:

Conservatives: Told you so.

Liberals:  The science is bad

Something in favor of human caused climate change:

Conservatives:  The science is bad.

Liberals:  Told you so.


Except those pesky facts that prove you and your ilk totally wrong.
 
2014-05-21 07:49:26 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-21 08:11:28 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-21 08:12:51 PM
the weight of around 125 Eiffel Towers, or around 3000 fully-laden Boeing 747s being added to the ocean each year.

Yeah but what about in 777s?

too soon?
 
2014-05-21 08:25:03 PM

KillaChinchilla: Something against human caused climate change:

Conservatives: Told you so.

Liberals:  The science is bad

Something in favor of human caused climate change:

Conservatives:  The science is bad.

Liberals:  Told you so.


You didn't even get the premise right. This isn't evidence against AGW, but a possible, long term natural negative feedback. And here's the new reaction:

Conservatives: Ha! See, it's not a problem at all. We can dump all the co2 into the air we want without consequences.

Sane people: Uh, that's not even close to being right. We need a solution for the near term, not 1000 years from now.
 
2014-05-21 08:59:05 PM
So...let me get this straight.  Global warming will melt the glaciers.  Huge numbers of species will be wiped out, superstorms will ravage the globe, humankind will suffer from lack of clean water and food as habitable land disappears on the coasts, but...the plankton will be happy after most of us are fighting over what's left of civilization.

Well then, everything's OK then.
 
2014-05-21 09:00:26 PM
The glaciers are melting.  That's bad.  But they hold excess iron that may help temper global warming.  That's good.  Iron causes algae blooms that could be harmful to sea life and make the water anoxic.  That's bad.
 
2014-05-21 09:06:11 PM

mtbhucker: The glaciers are melting.  That's bad.  But they hold excess iron that may help temper global warming.  That's good.  Iron causes algae blooms that could be harmful to sea life and make the water anoxic.  That's bad.


The water contains potassium benzoate.
 
2014-05-21 09:10:56 PM
You see, some things need to be stopped before they get started. Douglas Adams made an apt analogy when he wrote:

"The party blundered helplessly across the sky like a man leaning against an unexpectedly open door. It span and wobbled on its hover jets. It tried to right itself and wronged itself instead. It staggered back across the sky again. For a while these staggerings continued, but clearly they could not continue for long. The party was now a mortally wounded party. All the fun had gone out of it, as the occasional broken-backed pirouette could not disguise. The longer, at this point, that it avoided the ground, the heavier was going to be the crash when finally it hit it."

And for all of you readers who are younger than 30,
apt
/apt/
adjective
appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.
 
2014-05-21 09:20:49 PM

tinyarena: You see, some things need to be stopped before they get started. Douglas Adams made an apt analogy when he wrote:

"The party blundered helplessly across the sky like a man leaning against an unexpectedly open door. It span and wobbled on its hover jets. It tried to right itself and wronged itself instead. It staggered back across the sky again. For a while these staggerings continued, but clearly they could not continue for long. The party was now a mortally wounded party. All the fun had gone out of it, as the occasional broken-backed pirouette could not disguise. The longer, at this point, that it avoided the ground, the heavier was going to be the crash when finally it hit it."

And for all of you readers who are younger than 30,
apt
/apt/
adjective
appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.


Oh, I thought it meant apartment.
 
2014-05-21 09:22:50 PM
So, temps never got warmer in the past? Good to know,.
 
2014-05-21 09:53:13 PM
Didn't some dude already try to dump a bunch of iron into the water? Didn't he get in trouble for it? Weren't we told geo-engineering was a no-no?
 
2014-05-21 10:34:32 PM

ReverendJynxed: Didn't some dude already try to dump a bunch of iron into the water? Didn't he get in trouble for it? Weren't we told geo-engineering was a no-no?


Yes, dude was trying to cash in for carbon credits, which I guess he thought he'd get regardless of the legality of the stunt. Link.
 
2014-05-21 10:38:29 PM
Ummm... if the melting of the glaciers (and subsequent rise of sea level) is a problem that happens due to global warming then how exactly does the iron they release prevent the problems of global warming when those problems of global warming?

Are you suggesting the iron in glaciers has access to Obama's magic time machine?

somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!


It's probably more dispersed as dissolved iron throughout the water. Iron is the 4th most common element on Earth, which means we can find it everywhere. It is probably cheaper in terms of monetary cost and energy cost to get it from the types of rocks in which it is far more concentrated, I would imagine.

There are actually quite a lot of valuable metals dissolved in sea water (and presumably in glaciers as well), but the energy to extract and concentrate them exceeds the profits that would be gained from them. At least for now; it may be more feasible in the future.
 
2014-05-21 10:39:41 PM

mamoru: if the melting of the glaciers (and subsequent rise of sea level) is a problem that happens due to global warming then how exactly does the iron they release prevent the problems of global warming when that release is a result of those problems of global warming?


Oops. FTFM. That makes a bit more sense, I hope. :)
 
2014-05-21 11:01:19 PM
Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?
 
2014-05-21 11:02:48 PM
EngineerAU:


ReverendJynxed: Didn't some dude already try to dump a bunch of iron into the water? Didn't he get in trouble for it? Weren't we told geo-engineering was a no-no?

Yes, dude was trying to cash in for carbon credits, which I guess he thought he'd get regardless of the legality of the stunt. Link.


Yeah, it's been tried and discarded. The main problem being that the plankton feast for a day, suck all the oxygen out of a given volume (killing higher-level life,) die, and go on to release their carbon anyway in the process of rotting after taking out all the higher-level life in a given area which ALSO rots and releases carbon.

So, maybe not a useful technique.
 
2014-05-21 11:04:04 PM
Marmilman:

Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

By definition, glaciers are not floating on water, they're running off of land.
 
2014-05-21 11:11:05 PM

Marmilman: Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?


Because the ice that is on top of the landmass of Anarctica is not in the sea. However, when the ice melts, the water will drain into the sea, causing the total volume of the sea to increase incredibly.

Same thing is true for Greenland. All of the water that is currently frozen and outside of the oceans, will become water, and drain into the oceans, raising the volume as well.
 
2014-05-21 11:18:20 PM
The only positive thing coming out of the fact that we are ignoring global warming is that fixing it after everything goes to hell will be a good practice for terraforming Mars.
 
2014-05-21 11:27:43 PM
Marmilman:

Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

One of the more immediate problems with glacial melt is.... Well, name any 10 major metropolises and at least 2-3 of them are dependent on spring glacial melt for water. Most of India, China, and pretty much any city west of the Rocky Mountains in the US are all dependent on that. Glaciers are reservoirs on a scale that humans can't hope to match.


So when glaciers start melting a month early and they have to open the floodgates, but then are depleted by late summer when cities really need it.... People get thirsty.
Sea rise is a longer term problem.
 
2014-05-21 11:44:17 PM

Emposter: So...let me get this straight.  Global warming will melt the glaciers.  Huge numbers of species will be wiped out, superstorms will ravage the globe, humankind will suffer from lack of clean water and food as habitable land disappears on the coasts, but...the plankton will be happy after most of us are fighting over what's left of civilization.

Well then, everything's OK then.


I'll leave this one to George Carlin.
 
2014-05-21 11:44:23 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-21 11:45:15 PM
FARK needs an Ironic tag.

oseupersonal.com.br
 
2014-05-21 11:53:24 PM

maxheck: Marmilman:

Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

By definition, glaciers are not floating on water, they're running off of land.


Dedmon: Marmilman: Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

Because the ice that is on top of the landmass of Anarctica is not in the sea. However, when the ice melts, the water will drain into the sea, causing the total volume of the sea to increase incredibly.

Same thing is true for Greenland. All of the water that is currently frozen and outside of the oceans, will become water, and drain into the oceans, raising the volume as well.


Thanks, I knew I had to be missing something simple.
 
2014-05-22 12:00:52 AM

tinyarena: You see, some things need to be stopped before they get started. Douglas Adams made an apt analogy when he wrote:

"The party blundered helplessly across the sky like a man leaning against an unexpectedly open door. It span and wobbled on its hover jets. It tried to right itself and wronged itself instead. It staggered back across the sky again. For a while these staggerings continued, but clearly they could not continue for long. The party was now a mortally wounded party. All the fun had gone out of it, as the occasional broken-backed pirouette could not disguise. The longer, at this point, that it avoided the ground, the heavier was going to be the crash when finally it hit it."

And for all of you readers who are younger than 30,
apt
/apt/
adjective
appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.


*Golf clap*
That could be the best analogy I've ever seen on Fark.

Which is kind of like being the tallest midget at the circus.

Still, though...
Douglas Adams was the man. Him, Vonnegut & Heller.
Heavy sigh. Now I has a sad
 
2014-05-22 12:01:06 AM
Marmilman:

Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

By definition, glaciers are not floating on water, they're running off of land.

Dedmon: Marmilman: Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

Because the ice that is on top of the landmass of Anarctica is not in the sea. However, when the ice melts, the water will drain into the sea, causing the total volume of the sea to increase incredibly.

Same thing is true for Greenland. All of the water that is currently frozen and outside of the oceans, will become water, and drain into the oceans, raising the volume as well.

Thanks, I knew I had to be missing something simple.


The other thing to know is that once it *has* melted and run into the sea, water expands with temperature. So, add a degree centigrade to the entire ocean and you have a somewhat higher ocean.
 
2014-05-22 12:22:19 AM

maxheck: Marmilman:

Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

By definition, glaciers are not floating on water, they're running off of land.

Dedmon: Marmilman: Hopefully some of you smarter folks can answer this question that I've been curious about for a while now. If water displaces more area when it is frozen than when it is liquid, why don't melting glaciers make the sea levels lower?

Because the ice that is on top of the landmass of Anarctica is not in the sea. However, when the ice melts, the water will drain into the sea, causing the total volume of the sea to increase incredibly.

Same thing is true for Greenland. All of the water that is currently frozen and outside of the oceans, will become water, and drain into the oceans, raising the volume as well.

Thanks, I knew I had to be missing something simple.

The other thing to know is that once it *has* melted and run into the sea, water expands with temperature. So, add a degree centigrade to the entire ocean and you have a somewhat higher ocean.


It's also worth point out that ice doesn't displace more water than water when it's floating, only when it's fully submerged.  Displacement of a floating object is based on mass.  Displacement of a submerged object is based on volume.
 
2014-05-22 12:23:33 AM
Err, mass and volume vs just volume.
 
2014-05-22 12:24:12 AM

youl100: somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of MONSTERS!


Is Netflix full of foreign monster movies? That would make me subscribe, or at least use the trial.
 
2014-05-22 12:29:30 AM

wildcardjack: youl100: somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of MONSTERS!

Is Netflix full of foreign monster movies? That would make me subscribe, or at least use the trial.


You better believe it is.  There is no limit to how many foes Megashark can fight.
 
2014-05-22 12:32:43 AM

Emposter: wildcardjack: youl100: somemoron: Glaciers have iron deposits?  WHY AREN'T WE MINING THE FARK OUT OF THEM!?!

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of MONSTERS!

Is Netflix full of foreign monster movies? That would make me subscribe, or at least use the trial.

You better believe it is.  There is no limit to how many foes Megashark can fight.


And an asston of Gojira movies.  I stopped counting after 40.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report