Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if you only have one dollar to spend on either planting a tree or fertilizing some seaweed, and you want your investment to contribute as much as possible to reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Well, that tree will get 100% of the inorganic carbon

sealover wrote:
The seaweed will get more than 95% of the inorganic carbon

sealover wrote:
it needs for photosynthesis

sealover wrote:
by taking up bicarbonate ion.

sealover wrote:
Zero molecules of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere for every molecule of organic carbon produced during photosynthesis.

sealover wrote:
Ultimately, seaweed uptake of bicarbonate ion...removed remaining spam...

sealover wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
...
Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

...
If the question were rephrased to say "Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the GLOBAL change emergency?" ... The answer would be an unequivocal YES.
...

...
If the biggest concern is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide as soon as possible, there might not be much reward for promoting seaweed.
...

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
...
Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

...
If the question were rephrased to say "Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the GLOBAL change emergency?" ... The answer would be an unequivocal YES.
...

Thanks for this informed and detailed answer. It's been a while since I looked at anything to do with chemistry, but I think I roughly get the gist of what you are saying.

Some thoughts.

If we can shift production to somehow making use of seaweed instead, we can get the negation of carbon dioxide from the seaweed itself, and also reduce carbon footprints due to switching away from something that has a high carbon footprint (away from fossil fuels?), perhaps? For example, if we switch to seaweed plastic from standard plastic, I would have thought the carbon-footprint reduction in not having standard-plastic production would be quite beneficial apart from the benefits of the seaweed plastic per se.

Understanding that a tree that is planted, will absorb much more atmospheric carbon directly, perhaps there could be benefits with seaweed over land plants, in terms of resilience? If we can grow more seaweed simply by sprinkling some iron in the sea, could that be much more successful than finding land for trees and then nurturing and safeguarding the growth of the seeds to full maturity as trees (which itself usually takes a long time)? Even when the trees are fully-grown, they are at risk of being felled by organised crime (some documentaries have indicated this problem): perhaps seaweed doesn't have this problem?

I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, or even if we manage the decomposition of seaweed (perhaps after we have eaten the seaweed, or after it having been converted to seaweed plastics), then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

We say seaweed mostly gets its carbon from taking up bicarbonate ions. Aren't those ions the ones produced during "ocean acidification"? If 'yes', then since "ocean acidification" sinks carbon dioxide (it would seem) into the oceans, it would seem that ultimately the seaweed is absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide transitively (not directly, but instead through the middle agent of the bicarbonate ions)?

...
If the biggest concern is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide as soon as possible, there might not be much reward for promoting seaweed.
...

Understood, but if we are looking more at the long term absorption of carbon dioxide, over decades or fifty years, though you don't get much absorption immediately, over the long-term due to the contribution to the "atmospheric carbon dioxide -> bicarbonate ion (carbonic acid?) -> sea plants -> etc." process/cycle over a long period of time, wouldn't the absorption be much more significant?

From some brief internet searching, it appears that seaweed is probably useful for absorbing methane. The Cowspiracy documentary has mentioned, IIRC, that reducing the GHG of methane is more important in the short-term for tackling climate change. Perhaps sea plants might do well in respect to GHGs other than carbon dioxide?

sealover wrote: I am glad that you saw the posts about seaweed versus trees as a way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

James_ wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

An actual legitimate question. The first issue that needs to be considered is the
availability of phytoplankton. That is at the bottom of the marine food chain. And
as oceans warm there is less phytoplankton.
Seaweed is actually quite tasty in crackers. I actually think they're delicious. Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? If so then like when Australia burned, the Outback quickly restored itself. Some trees will only open their seeds after a good fire out in the bush.
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

An actual legitimate question. The first issue that needs to be considered is the
availability of phytoplankton. That is at the bottom of the marine food chain. And
as oceans warm there is less phytoplankton.
Seaweed is actually quite tasty in crackers. I actually think they're delicious. Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? If so then like when Australia burned, the Outback quickly restored itself. Some trees will only open their seeds after a good fire out in the bush.
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

There is not science here. Just a wacky religion.

Both of you seem to have forgotten about grass, swamps, bushes, and trees; ALL of which also absorb CO2, and like seaweed cannot exist without CO2.

So you want to create more seaweed to kill off all plant life.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
That'd be like a propane heater using ammonium and heat to change the molecules into something else.
This is when scientists would say the huge quantity necessary for something like this of everything needed to encourage marine life in too warm of waters.

Into the Night wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
Seaweed has a negative carbon footprint. So does algae (e.g. spirulina, chlorella). This means their net effect is to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere rather than emit it.

Seaweed can be used in a variety of applications:
- fertiliser
- plastics
- fabric
- soap
- food (eg. snacks, salads, and soups)

Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

Define 'too warm' or 'too cold'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans.
Climate cannot change. There is no emergency.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
That'd be like a propane heater using ammonium and heat to change the molecules into something else.
This is when scientists would say the huge quantity necessary for something like this of everything needed to encourage marine life in too warm of waters.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the oceans. Photosynthesis doesn't cool anything.

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:

markjfernandes wrote:
...
Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

...
If the question were rephrased to say "Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the GLOBAL change emergency?" ... The answer would be an unequivocal YES.
...

Thanks for this informed and detailed answer. It's been a while since I looked at anything to do with chemistry, but I think I roughly get the gist of what you are saying.

Some thoughts.

If we can shift production to somehow making use of seaweed instead, we can get the negation of carbon dioxide from the seaweed itself, and also reduce carbon footprints due to switching away from something that has a high carbon footprint (away from fossil fuels?), perhaps? For example, if we switch to seaweed plastic from standard plastic, I would have thought the carbon-footprint reduction in not having standard-plastic production would be quite beneficial apart from the benefits of the seaweed plastic per se.

Understanding that a tree that is planted, will absorb much more atmospheric carbon directly, perhaps there could be benefits with seaweed over land plants, in terms of resilience? If we can grow more seaweed simply by sprinkling some iron in the sea, could that be much more successful than finding land for trees and then nurturing and safeguarding the growth of the seeds to full maturity as trees (which itself usually takes a long time)? Even when the trees are fully-grown, they are at risk of being felled by organised crime (some documentaries have indicated this problem): perhaps seaweed doesn't have this problem?

I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, or even if we manage the decomposition of seaweed (perhaps after we have eaten the seaweed, or after it having been converted to seaweed plastics), then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

We say seaweed mostly gets its carbon from taking up bicarbonate ions. Aren't those ions the ones produced during "ocean acidification"? If 'yes', then since "ocean acidification" sinks carbon dioxide (it would seem) into the oceans, it would seem that ultimately the seaweed is absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide transitively (not directly, but instead through the middle agent of the bicarbonate ions)?

...
If the biggest concern is to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide as soon as possible, there might not be much reward for promoting seaweed.
...

Understood, but if we are looking more at the long term absorption of carbon dioxide, over decades or fifty years, though you don't get much absorption immediately, over the long-term due to the contribution to the "atmospheric carbon dioxide -> bicarbonate ion (carbonic acid?) -> sea plants -> etc." process/cycle over a long period of time, wouldn't the absorption be much more significant?

From some brief internet searching, it appears that seaweed is probably useful for absorbing methane. The Cowspiracy documentary has mentioned, IIRC, that reducing the GHG of methane is more important in the short-term for tackling climate change. Perhaps sea plants might do well in respect to GHGs other than carbon dioxide?

sealover wrote:
If that seaweed we harvested and removed from the sea decomposes in the presence of oxygen, is consumed by air breathing livestock, or is burned as fuel, the carbon will return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

markjfernandes wrote:
I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, ... then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

James_ wrote: ... Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? ...
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

sealover wrote:... Same with using seaweed instead of petroleum as fuel for combustion.

sealover wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
...

James_ wrote:
If the nutrients that things like phytoplankton, kelp and seaweed need to grow are found in the silt in the seafloor, then is dredging a consideration? Also the sediment would also help to cool the water they're in by absorbing solar radiation in the ocean.

p.s., This could also help to lower ocean acidification levels.

markjfernandes wrote:
The trolls couldn't keep me away–I'm back.

I'm tending to be only active on this forum every Saturday, due to constraints of resources (such as time).

sealover wrote:
If that seaweed we harvested and removed from the sea decomposes in the presence of oxygen, is consumed by air breathing livestock, or is burned as fuel, the carbon will return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

However, if we manage the decomposition, would that perhaps avoid the situation of most, perhaps the vast majority, of the carbon returning to the atmosphere (as CO2), and so wouldn't increase the carbon footprint so much? Is this not what waste-management companies are doing at the moment? I know where I live, food rubbish is separately managed for 'greener' living.

Also, I come back to my previous point, in relation to adopting the alternative of not harvesting the seaweed but simply encouraging its growth in the oceans:

markjfernandes wrote:
I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, ... then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

Additionally, even though you talk about seaweed 'CO2' returning to the atmosphere sometimes, if we think of atmospheric CO2 as cycling back and forth between the atmosphere and the sea, through marine phyto-life (such as seaweed) taking in atmospheric CO2, indirectly (as bicarbonate ions) or directly, and then releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, can we perhaps say that the general course of several, perhaps very many, such cycles is that CO2 is being pulled into the oceans much more significantly than when you only look at one cycle.

James_ wrote: ... Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? ...
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

This seems like a really good point. When we chop down trees, we don't usually think that nature will replace them, but perhaps that is what happens largely in the oceans with marine phyto-life?

sealover wrote:... Same with using seaweed instead of petroleum as fuel for combustion.

I didn't know seaweed could be used for combustion. See, starting this thread seems to be working: have discovered another application of seaweed for 'greener' living.

Noting your points `sealover` re. the advantages of carbon sequestration by trees as opposed to by seaweed, I personally see any green policy regarding promoting seaweed and promoting trees, not to be an either-or issue. Probably the best way forward is to do both: promote trees and promote seaweed (or perhaps more broadly, plant life in the oceans): trying many different things (diversification) is probably important at this stage in the climate and environmental emergency.

sealover wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

Now there appears to be a new thing, that has been featured in at least one documentary (one episode of 'Down to earth with Zac Effron'?) Farmers are now adding seaweed to the diet of cattle, to reduce methane emissions.

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
...

This sounds like an interesting and worthwhile idea to consider. And probably encouraging more marine phyto-life is much easier than encouraging land-based phyto-life.

James_ wrote:
If the nutrients that things like phytoplankton, kelp and seaweed need to grow are found in the silt in the seafloor, then is dredging a consideration? Also the sediment would also help to cool the water they're in by absorbing solar radiation in the ocean.

p.s., This could also help to lower ocean acidification levels.

Interesting idea, although I would have thought that scientists would be very wary of disturbing the sediment just in case it upsets delicate and important cycles and ecosystems (also I think that maybe a lot of carbon is 'sinked' there, which perhaps could be dangerous if disturbed?) In the ´Breaking Boundaries´ documentary, they indicated something like that nutrients in sediment, after human-originating fertiliser(s) have ´bled´'into the related area of ocean/water, actually contributes even more to algal blooms that are something like ocean deadzones absent of a lot of life. However, perhaps after some scientific trials, dredging the seabed, in some form, might become a potential solution for cooling the oceans and tackling ocean acidification.

=============== MOSTLY OFF-TOPIC ====================

sealover wrote:
Would you be willing to comment on your impression of this website?

The website concept is good. One downside is the presence of trolls. I was wondering whether I should instead subscribe to a paid service for the same: probably trolls wouldn't be so willing to pay to enter such debates, and so paid-service debates might then be more free of trolls and their trolling.

However, I believe trolls can be tackled by banning off-topic posts. I sent the following private message to administrator `branner` a week ago, regarding this issue, but haven't received a reply yet to it:

markjfernandes wrote:
Hello,

I'm trying to use your "Private Climate Policy" board, but I'm finding that the threads are generally all 'polluted' by posts from "Into the Night" and "IBdaMann". The posts are always roughly the same, which makes me think that maybe they're using bot technology, at least partly, for the writing of them. They are constantly 'spewing' their 'climate-emergency denial' rhetoric, as though they are being funded by fossil-fuel companies to disrupt your forum boards. They also have very long signatures mostly of a nonsensical nature, that make using your threads very difficult (because of the cumbersome extra 'dud' text that is intermittent between the worthwhile posts).

I think it is in the interest of www.climate-debate.com to ban these users from the threads that are about serious proposals to tackle climate change: their posts are off-topic. Better still, if you can delete the already 'polluting' posts, that could be even better.

Their posts violate the following guidelines in your guidelines doc:


...
2) Stick to the subject
...
6) Don't make noise
....



Thanks for reading.

Im a BM wrote:
I am glad that you saw the posts about seaweed versus trees as a way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
If seaweed is harvested and removed from the sea, every carbon atom in the seaweed represents one less molecule of carbon dioxide in sea water, by one mechanism or another.

Im a BM wrote:
With less carbon dioxide in sea water, the sea is more able to continue to absorb more than a third of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum organic carbon

Im a BM wrote:
represents carbon dioxide

Im a BM wrote:
that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
Seaweed organic carbon

Im a BM wrote:
represents carbon dioxide removed from sea water during our lifetime.

Im a BM wrote:
I won't take time to look it up right now, but there was a US congressional hearing in the late 1980s to discuss climate change, or "global warming" as they most often called it at the time.

Im a BM wrote:
On second thought, I believe it was a US senator who asked the scientific expert witness this question:

Im a BM wrote:
The point being that if the organic carbon

Im a BM wrote:
contained in the trees is not somehow stabilized, ...

Im a BM wrote:
That would be an even greater concern with seaweed harvested and removed from the sea.

Whereas the seaweed removed much less than one atom of inorganic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for every atom of organic carbon made during photosynthesis, once up on land it can release 100% of its carbon directly to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Also consider that most of the carbon dioxide taken in by trees does NOT end up as organic carbon contained in the wood itself.

Im a BM wrote:
The chemistry that I am familiar with

Im a BM wrote:
is that the sea's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is decreasing along with pH and alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote:
I have no idea what the Cowspiracy folks say about seaweed and methane, and I am not aware of any mechanism by which seaweed can remove methane.

Im a BM wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am glad that you saw the posts about seaweed versus trees as a way to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Why do you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You ARE aware, aren't you, that YOU put carbon dioxide INTO the atmosphere?

Im a BM wrote:
If seaweed is harvested and removed from the sea, every carbon atom in the seaweed represents one less molecule of carbon dioxide in sea water, by one mechanism or another.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
With less carbon dioxide in sea water, the sea is more able to continue to absorb more than a third of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

The carbon dioxide in the water is the same as the carbon dioxide in the air above it.

Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum organic carbon

Carbon isn't organic. Oil isn't carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
represents carbon dioxide

Carbon isn't carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't know what happened millions of years ago. You are also ignoring the Fischer-Tropsche process again.

Im a BM wrote:
Seaweed organic carbon

Carbon isn't organic.

Im a BM wrote:
represents carbon dioxide removed from sea water during our lifetime.

Carbon dioxide in sea water is the same as the carbon dioxide in the air above it.

Im a BM wrote:
I won't take time to look it up right now, but there was a US congressional hearing in the late 1980s to discuss climate change, or "global warming" as they most often called it at the time.

Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
On second thought, I believe it was a US senator who asked the scientific expert witness this question:

Science is not an 'expert'. False authority fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The point being that if the organic carbon

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
contained in the trees is not somehow stabilized, ...

Nothing to 'stabilize'. Nothing is 'unstable'.

Im a BM wrote:
That would be an even greater concern with seaweed harvested and removed from the sea.

Whereas the seaweed removed much less than one atom of inorganic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for every atom of organic carbon made during photosynthesis, once up on land it can release 100% of its carbon directly to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Also consider that most of the carbon dioxide taken in by trees does NOT end up as organic carbon contained in the wood itself.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
The chemistry that I am familiar with

You deny chemistry. You are unfamiliar with chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
is that the sea's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is decreasing along with pH and alkalinity.

pH has nothing to do with carbon dioxide in seawater.
It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
I have no idea what the Cowspiracy folks say about seaweed and methane, and I am not aware of any mechanism by which seaweed can remove methane.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

You deny and discard chemistry. Your religion is not chemistry or science. There is no such chemical as 'tannins'. There is no such chemical as polyphenols. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Ranchers put cows out to pasture. That's what they eat. There is no 'cattle feed' during most of a cow's life.

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who actually READS one of these parrot poop posts runs the risk of becoming less intelligent by the time they finish.

Im a BM wrote:
Right now, the sea absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits to the atmosphere. It is a net carbon "sink".

Im a BM wrote:
In chemistry,

Im a BM wrote:
it is Henry's Law that predicts how much carbon dioxide can dissolve in water, based on its partial pressure in the atmosphere.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:

At 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is just 420/1,000,000 of the gas exerting pressure in the atmosphere.

Total atmosphere at sea level is 1 atmosphere pressure.

The partial pressure of CO2 is 420/1 million, atmospheres pressure.

Because of the way CO2 dissolves into rain droplets, and because a tiny fraction of dissolved CO2 becomes carbonic acid (H2CO3), the pH of rainfall in an atmosphere with 420 ppm CO2 is about 5.63, or slightly acidic.

The behavior of CO2 dissolved in water is VERY different than CO2 in a gaseous mix.

For example, CO2 in a gas doesn't form carbonate ions, and is not subject to carbonate system equilibrium reactions.

sealover wrote:
Welcome back!

You proved me WRONG. I had predicted that EVERY ONE of the 125 members who joined after I did had given up on the website.

I won't get far responding to all your points, so this will be a first installment.

Don't get your hopes up with the administrator.

You probably won't hear back at all.

You certainly won't get him to delete any off topic posts.

I quite agree about the long signatures on the troll posts making it almost impossible to even read them (assuming anyone actually WANTS to) or figure out where one begins and the other ends.

I doubt that any oil companies bothered investing anything into this website, even most of the posting certainly advocates the science denial position.

Seaweed as an addition to cattle feed is an interesting proposition.

Kelp produces "fluorotannin", a very different kind of polyphenol than found in terrestrial plants.

It is highly plausible that it is the fluorotannin content of seaweed that makes it something that reduces methane emissions from cattle when added to feed.

I think that checking in once every Saturday is a good approach to membership.

Especially if you are NOT interested in a real-time, tit-for-tat insult fest.

Yes, if we "manage the decomposition", we can ensure that seaweed or trees are more likely to end up as stable organic carbon that lasts a long time before becoming carbon dioxide again.

Probably more biogeochemistry than you wanted, but if we manage the decomposition well enough, we can get a win-win double victory for the carbon footprint.

The first win was getting the carbon dioxide transformed into organic carbon by photosynthesis.

The second win could be allowing that organic carbon to decompose under ANAEROBIC conditions in a constructed (or reconstructed) coastal wetland.

Whether the organic carbon is seaweed harvested from the sea, or waste products from (lumber industry, food industry, etc.), if it is decomposed by sulfate reducing bacteria under low oxygen conditions, it will generate ALKALINITY (bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) that go to the sea in submarine groundwater discharge.

Once added to the sea, the bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions enhance the sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Stirring up sediments certainly has the potential to add more fertilizer nutrient elements to the water and promote more photosynthesis.

It also has the potential to stir up a lot of organic carbon and bring about rapid depletion of oxygen in the water.

I was involved with US Army Corps of Engineers dredging operations just as they made an important shift in procedures.

It used to be that dredging operations often provoked big fish kills.

They temporarily created small "dead zones" of oxygen depleted water, and fish often died in the process.

NOW they use a big air pump during the dredging to bubble in lots and lots of oxygen to the precise place where the sediment is getting dredged.

Instead of fish kills, they get fish feeding frenzies. A lot of what gets stirred up during dredging is edible, which is why it can deplete the oxygen so quickly as microorganism eat it.

When there is enough oxygen for both fish and microorganisms, everybody gets to eat.

I think that's as far as I'll go at this time.

See you next Saturday?

Oh, and regarding Branner (the site owner and administrator), It was hard enough to wake him up and get him to delete posts that revealed the names of my mother, sons, nephews, a MAP to my apartment (the troll got the right city, the FIRST time he doxed me), my address, phone number, e mail address, former place of employment...

He has been unwilling to delete the more recent doxing posts.

And there is NO WAY he is going to look at individual posts to determine which ones are off topic in order to delete them.

This is a "Lord of the Flies" situation, as far as having no adult supervision.

markjfernandes wrote:
The trolls couldn't keep me away–I'm back.

I'm tending to be only active on this forum every Saturday, due to constraints of resources (such as time).

sealover wrote:
If that seaweed we harvested and removed from the sea decomposes in the presence of oxygen, is consumed by air breathing livestock, or is burned as fuel, the carbon will return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

However, if we manage the decomposition, would that perhaps avoid the situation of most, perhaps the vast majority, of the carbon returning to the atmosphere (as CO2), and so wouldn't increase the carbon footprint so much? Is this not what waste-management companies are doing at the moment? I know where I live, food rubbish is separately managed for 'greener' living.

Also, I come back to my previous point, in relation to adopting the alternative of not harvesting the seaweed but simply encouraging its growth in the oceans:

markjfernandes wrote:
I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, ... then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

Additionally, even though you talk about seaweed 'CO2' returning to the atmosphere sometimes, if we think of atmospheric CO2 as cycling back and forth between the atmosphere and the sea, through marine phyto-life (such as seaweed) taking in atmospheric CO2, indirectly (as bicarbonate ions) or directly, and then releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, can we perhaps say that the general course of several, perhaps very many, such cycles is that CO2 is being pulled into the oceans much more significantly than when you only look at one cycle.

James_ wrote: ... Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? ...
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

This seems like a really good point. When we chop down trees, we don't usually think that nature will replace them, but perhaps that is what happens largely in the oceans with marine phyto-life?

sealover wrote:... Same with using seaweed instead of petroleum as fuel for combustion.

I didn't know seaweed could be used for combustion. See, starting this thread seems to be working: have discovered another application of seaweed for 'greener' living.

Noting your points `sealover` re. the advantages of carbon sequestration by trees as opposed to by seaweed, I personally see any green policy regarding promoting seaweed and promoting trees, not to be an either-or issue. Probably the best way forward is to do both: promote trees and promote seaweed (or perhaps more broadly, plant life in the oceans): trying many different things (diversification) is probably important at this stage in the climate and environmental emergency.

sealover wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

Now there appears to be a new thing, that has been featured in at least one documentary (one episode of 'Down to earth with Zac Effron'?) Farmers are now adding seaweed to the diet of cattle, to reduce methane emissions.

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
...

This sounds like an interesting and worthwhile idea to consider. And probably encouraging more marine phyto-life is much easier than encouraging land-based phyto-life.

James_ wrote:
If the nutrients that things like phytoplankton, kelp and seaweed need to grow are found in the silt in the seafloor, then is dredging a consideration? Also the sediment would also help to cool the water they're in by absorbing solar radiation in the ocean.

p.s., This could also help to lower ocean acidification levels.

Interesting idea, although I would have thought that scientists would be very wary of disturbing the sediment just in case it upsets delicate and important cycles and ecosystems (also I think that maybe a lot of carbon is 'sinked' there, which perhaps could be dangerous if disturbed?) In the ´Breaking Boundaries´ documentary, they indicated something like that nutrients in sediment, after human-originating fertiliser(s) have ´bled´'into the related area of ocean/water, actually contributes even more to algal blooms that are something like ocean deadzones absent of a lot of life. However, perhaps after some scientific trials, dredging the seabed, in some form, might become a potential solution for cooling the oceans and tackling ocean acidification.

=============== MOSTLY OFF-TOPIC ====================

sealover wrote:
Would you be willing to comment on your impression of this website?

The website concept is good. One downside is the presence of trolls. I was wondering whether I should instead subscribe to a paid service for the same: probably trolls wouldn't be so willing to pay to enter such debates, and so paid-service debates might then be more free of trolls and their trolling.

However, I believe trolls can be tackled by banning off-topic posts. I sent the following private message to administrator `branner` a week ago, regarding this issue, but haven't received a reply yet to it:

markjfernandes wrote:
Hello,

I'm trying to use your "Private Climate Policy" board, but I'm finding that the threads are generally all 'polluted' by posts from "Into the Night" and "IBdaMann". The posts are always roughly the same, which makes me think that maybe they're using bot technology, at least partly, for the writing of them. They are constantly 'spewing' their 'climate-emergency denial' rhetoric, as though they are being funded by fossil-fuel companies to disrupt your forum boards. They also have very long signatures mostly of a nonsensical nature, that make using your threads very difficult (because of the cumbersome extra 'dud' text that is intermittent between the worthwhile posts).

I think it is in the interest of www.climate-debate.com to ban these users from the threads that are about serious proposals to tackle climate change: their posts are off-topic. Better still, if you can delete the already 'polluting' posts, that could be even better.

Their posts violate the following guidelines in your guidelines doc:


...
2) Stick to the subject
...
6) Don't make noise
....



Thanks for reading.

sealover wrote:
Welcome back!

You proved me WRONG. I had predicted that EVERY ONE of the 125 members who joined after I did had given up on the website.

I won't get far responding to all your points, so this will be a first installment.

Don't get your hopes up with the administrator.

You probably won't hear back at all.

You certainly won't get him to delete any off topic posts.

I quite agree about the long signatures on the troll posts making it almost impossible to even read them (assuming anyone actually WANTS to) or figure out where one begins and the other ends.

I doubt that any oil companies bothered investing anything into this website, even most of the posting certainly advocates the science denial position.

Seaweed as an addition to cattle feed is an interesting proposition.

Kelp produces "fluorotannin", a very different kind of polyphenol than found in terrestrial plants.

It is highly plausible that it is the fluorotannin content of seaweed that makes it something that reduces methane emissions from cattle when added to feed.

I think that checking in once every Saturday is a good approach to membership.

Especially if you are NOT interested in a real-time, tit-for-tat insult fest.

Yes, if we "manage the decomposition", we can ensure that seaweed or trees are more likely to end up as stable organic carbon that lasts a long time before becoming carbon dioxide again.

Probably more biogeochemistry than you wanted, but if we manage the decomposition well enough, we can get a win-win double victory for the carbon footprint.

The first win was getting the carbon dioxide transformed into organic carbon by photosynthesis.

The second win could be allowing that organic carbon to decompose under ANAEROBIC conditions in a constructed (or reconstructed) coastal wetland.

Whether the organic carbon is seaweed harvested from the sea, or waste products from (lumber industry, food industry, etc.), if it is decomposed by sulfate reducing bacteria under low oxygen conditions, it will generate ALKALINITY (bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) that go to the sea in submarine groundwater discharge.

Once added to the sea, the bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions enhance the sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Stirring up sediments certainly has the potential to add more fertilizer nutrient elements to the water and promote more photosynthesis.

It also has the potential to stir up a lot of organic carbon and bring about rapid depletion of oxygen in the water.

I was involved with US Army Corps of Engineers dredging operations just as they made an important shift in procedures.

It used to be that dredging operations often provoked big fish kills.

They temporarily created small "dead zones" of oxygen depleted water, and fish often died in the process.

NOW they use a big air pump during the dredging to bubble in lots and lots of oxygen to the precise place where the sediment is getting dredged.

Instead of fish kills, they get fish feeding frenzies. A lot of what gets stirred up during dredging is edible, which is why it can deplete the oxygen so quickly as microorganism eat it.

When there is enough oxygen for both fish and microorganisms, everybody gets to eat.

I think that's as far as I'll go at this time.

See you next Saturday?

Oh, and regarding Branner (the site owner and administrator), It was hard enough to wake him up and get him to delete posts that revealed the names of my mother, sons, nephews, a MAP to my apartment (the troll got the right city, the FIRST time he doxed me), my address, phone number, e mail address, former place of employment...

He has been unwilling to delete the more recent doxing posts.

And there is NO WAY he is going to look at individual posts to determine which ones are off topic in order to delete them.

This is a "Lord of the Flies" situation, as far as having no adult supervision.


[quote]markjfernandes wrote:
The trolls couldn't keep me away–I'm back.

I'm tending to be only active on this forum every Saturday, due to constraints of resources (such as time).

[quote]sealover wrote:
If that seaweed we harvested and removed from the sea decomposes in the presence of oxygen, is consumed by air breathing livestock, or is burned as fuel, the carbon will return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

markjfernandes wrote:
I think Dr. Sylvia Earle (IIRC) said in one documentary that the ocean was something like the biggest carbon sink. She said something like that fish eat the plant life in the sea, and that at some point they sink to the ocean floor after having died, effectively sinking the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant, to the ocean floor. If sea animals eat the seaweed instead of the seaweed naturally dying, ... then would that not reduce carbon emissions further (without us having to worry about aerobic decomposition of the seaweed)?

James_ wrote: ... Does harvesting seaweed allow for the growth of younger seaweed? ...
It's possible that harvesting only larger seaweeds will allow for more smaller ones to grow and to absorb more CO2 (photosynthesis) when doing so. From a scientific perspective that would be something to consider.

sealover wrote:... Same with using seaweed instead of petroleum as fuel for combustion.

sealover wrote:
But my specialty in tannins (polyphenols) makes me aware of successful applied biogeochemistry with cattle feed. Methane emissions from cows can be dramatically reduced by adding tannin-rich plant material to their feed.

James_ wrote:
Theoretically speaking, if phytoplankton is seeded along with inorganic nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, and sulfur which they convert into proteins, fats, and carbohydrates.
Then phyotplankton would be converting the light in the water into matter
which photosynthesis is known to do. That could lower the oceans temperature's.
...

James_ wrote:
If the nutrients that things like phytoplankton, kelp and seaweed need to grow are found in the silt in the seafloor, then is dredging a consideration? Also the sediment would also help to cool the water they're in by absorbing solar radiation in the ocean.

p.s., This could also help to lower ocean acidification levels.

sealover wrote:
It is Saturday again.

Perhaps you are still with us.

You will certainly get a more lively discussion if you only respond to IBdaMann.

And I will assume that you are not interested in my responses to your inquiries.


But, if you read this, at least you didn't yet give up on the website.

...

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:
It is Saturday again.

Perhaps you are still with us.

You will certainly get a more lively discussion if you only respond to IBdaMann.

And I will assume that you are not interested in my responses to your inquiries.


But, if you read this, at least you didn't yet give up on the website.

...

No, thanks for your responses. It's just that last Saturday there didn't seem anything for me to say to your responses. They educated me.

I've been thinking about whether it would be feasible to convert the CO2 from oil and gas power stations using marine phyto life. Did a quick web search, and it seems that some Australian company had the idea quite a number of years back, where they would use algae to create bio-fuel from CO2 emissions from power stations. Do you know anything about this? It looks like the idea didn't get as far as was hoped. But maybe do you think algae or phyto plankton could be used for such carbon capture? That would be great if it could.

Then there is also something about algae solar panels that have been developed. Do you know anything about them?

Also, do you know whether it might be possible to create synthetic photosynthesis again for capturing CO2 emissions?

Just trying to think 'outside the box' to see how more broadly phyto life from the sea might help the climate emergency....

keepit wrote:
one thing that i don't hear discussed very much is the dollar cost (and therefore co2 production) of these proposals. Many of them produce more co2 than they save. Some ev cars are a good example. Economics should be considered as well as chemistry. Not that i'm not a proponent of chemistry but a dollar spent is several dollars worth of co2 produced.

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
I looked up a gdp graph in the various countries and looked up a co2 production graph in the various counties. The graphs were almost identical. Developed countries were more efficient in co2 vs $'s. Take a look and tell me what you think.

sealover wrote:
I doubt that any oil companies bothered investing anything into this website, even most of the posting certainly advocates the science denial position.

sealover wrote:
Seaweed as an addition to cattle feed is an interesting proposition.

sealover wrote:
Kelp produces "fluorotannin", a very different kind of polyphenol than found in terrestrial plants.

It is highly plausible that it is the fluorotannin content of seaweed that makes it something that reduces methane emissions from cattle when added to feed.

sealover wrote:
I think that checking in once every Saturday is a good approach to membership.

Especially if you are NOT interested in a real-time, tit-for-tat insult fest.

sealover wrote:
Yes, if we "manage the decomposition", we can ensure that seaweed or trees are more likely to end up as stable organic carbon that lasts a long time before becoming carbon dioxide again.

sealover wrote:
Probably more biogeochemistry than you wanted,

sealover wrote:
but if we manage the decomposition well enough, we can get a win-win double victory for the carbon footprint.

sealover wrote:
The first win was getting the carbon dioxide transformed into organic carbon by photosynthesis.

sealover wrote:
The second win could be allowing that organic carbon to decompose under ANAEROBIC conditions in a constructed (or reconstructed) coastal wetland.

sealover wrote:
Whether the organic carbon is seaweed harvested from the sea,

sealover wrote:
or waste products

sealover wrote:
from (lumber industry, food industry, etc.),

sealover wrote:
if it is decomposed

sealover wrote:
by sulfate reducing bacteria

sealover wrote:
under low oxygen conditions,

sealover wrote:
it will generate ALKALINITY

sealover wrote:
(bicarbonate ions, carbonate ions) that go to the sea in submarine groundwater discharge.

sealover wrote:
Once added to the sea, the bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions enhance the sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Stirring up sediments certainly has the potential to add more fertilizer nutrient elements to the water and promote more photosynthesis.

sealover wrote:
It also has the potential to stir up a lot of organic carbon and bring about rapid depletion of oxygen in the water.

sealover wrote:
I was involved with US Army Corps of Engineers dredging operations just as they made an important shift in procedures.

sealover wrote:
Oh, and regarding Branner (the site owner and administrator), It was hard enough to wake him up and get him to delete posts that revealed the names of my mother, sons, nephews, a MAP to my apartment (the troll got the right city, the FIRST time he doxed me), my address, phone number, e mail address, former place of employment...

sealover wrote:
He has been unwilling to delete the more recent doxing posts.

sealover wrote:
And there is NO WAY he is going to look at individual posts to determine which ones are off topic in order to delete them.

This is a "Lord of the Flies" situation, as far as having no adult supervision.

markjfernandes wrote:

sealover wrote:
It is Saturday again.

Perhaps you are still with us.

You will certainly get a more lively discussion if you only respond to IBdaMann.

And I will assume that you are not interested in my responses to your inquiries.


But, if you read this, at least you didn't yet give up on the website.

...

No, thanks for your responses. It's just that last Saturday there didn't seem anything for me to say to your responses. They educated me.

I've been thinking about whether it would be feasible to convert the CO2 from oil and gas power stations using marine phyto life. Did a quick web search, and it seems that some Australian company had the idea quite a number of years back, where they would use algae to create bio-fuel from CO2 emissions from power stations. Do you know anything about this? It looks like the idea didn't get as far as was hoped. But maybe do you think algae or phyto plankton could be used for such carbon capture? That would be great if it could.

markjfernandes wrote:
Then there is also something about algae solar panels that have been developed. Do you know anything about them?

markjfernandes wrote:
Also, do you know whether it might be possible to create synthetic photosynthesis again for capturing CO2 emissions?

markjfernandes wrote:
Just trying to think 'outside the box' to see how more broadly phyto life from the sea might help the climate emergency....

sealover wrote:
I'm glad you are back!

I could spend hours about all the carbon capture schemes being proposed, and already tested in many cases.

sealover wrote:
I am not at all convinced that spending money, per se, causes CO2 production.

sealover wrote:
Let's imagine a farmer in a semi-arid zone where rainfall is not sufficient for productive crop growth.

Some of the money he spends, such as to buy fuel for vehicles/equipment, DOES have a direct result of producing CO2.

But what about the money he spends on irrigation water?

sealover wrote:
That money enables the land to support crops, which take CO2 out of the atmosphere in a zone where it otherwise would not happen.

If pumping that water on to the cropland requires burning fossil fuel, the CO2 emissions will be far outweighed by the CO2 sequestered by the crops.

sealover wrote:
This would be another example of "fighting carbon with carbon"

sealover wrote:
As a general statement, NO, spending money does not automatically cause carbon dioxide to be generated.

sealover wrote:
For everyone to just spend less money... there may be many benefits, but there is no reason to assume that it means less CO2 would be produced.

keepit wrote:
seal lover,
I looked up a gdp graph in the various countries and looked up a co2 production graph in the various counties. The graphs were almost identical. Developed countries were more efficient in co2 vs $'s. Take a look and tell me what you think.