Ocean Gyre
education.nationalgeographic.orgReminds me of this cool article, about sea turtles and the North Atlantic Gyre: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/secret-route-se...
Apparently, many turtles spend some of their youth in the Sargasso Sea, in the center of the gyre, which has a lot of seaweed shelter and biodiversity, and is warmer. Then they leave when they're stronger.
It is astounding to me to have so much information on our globe and how it works and then to go to TikTok and see the flerfers (flat earthers) with a 1,000 people in a live.
Flat earthers do not exist.
Alternative facts.
They're the solution to climate change also.
The center is infertile and can be seeded with fertilizer and algae that can then die off and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
This suffers from the same objections as all carbon sequestration "solutions" - why would anyone dump expensive fertilizer into the ocean? How would they haul it there without burning more fuel? How would they make the fertilizer?
Carbon sequestration is energy negative. The global population of Earth is hurling boulders off a cliff - hoping that a madman Sisyphus decides to lug them back up (to be hurled down again) is not a solution to anything.
I wrote about it here: https://noverloop.substack.com/p/how-to-leverage-the-plastic...
Citation? Everything I've seen about algal blooms for carbon sequestration has flamed out on second order examination
Wrote about it here: https://noverloop.substack.com/p/how-to-leverage-the-plastic...
Happy to discuss
This is a bit meta but does it need to have a citation? Can’t it be educated speculation that is yet to be explored?
Please believe me when I say I mean 'Citation?' in an excited, please let this not be too good to be true, I haven't heard this great news and deeply desire another (a?) strong contender in the direct carbon capture space - especially aqueous - capture, way.
Ok fair, but in that case isn't it missing the words "I think" prepended to the factual assertion.
As in: I think it's missing the words "I think" from that statement. (Which is educated speculation on the statement that has yet to be rigorously explored)
Conjecture should be backed up with evidence or at least a good hypothetical (possibly several) at the very least.
There's a ton of literature on the ideas and the caveats. Perhaps https://web.whoi.edu/ocb-fert/scientific-literature/ will be a useful, although somewhat dated and limited, introduction to the fertilization idea.
Another idea is to alter the pH of the ocean.
These topics are not at all simple. They are active areas of research in labs across the world. They have been since the 1980s, and I would not say the solutions are around the corner.
A somewhat new feature in all of this is that venture capitalists are getting into the picture, hoping to make money from developing solutions to the climate-warming problem. Their influence makes it a bit hard to judge what methods might work best. And experts in the field have a right to be ambivalent about receiving research funding from groups that benefit from hiding successful results until patents can be established.