Invisible Scum on Sea Cuts CO2 Exchange With Air 'By Up To 50%' (theguardian.com) 94
An invisible layer of scum on the sea surface can reduce carbon dioxide exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans by up to 50%, scientists have discovered. From a report: Researchers from Heriot-Watt, Newcastle and Exeter universities say the findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Monday, have major implications for predicting our future climate. The world's oceans absorb around a quarter of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions, making them the largest long-term sink of carbon on Earth. Greater sea turbulence increases gas exchange between the atmosphere and oceans and until now it was difficult to calculate the effect of "biological surfactants." Teams from the Natural Environment Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust and the European Space Agency developed a system that compares "the surfactant effect" between different seawaters in real time. They found surfactants can reduce carbon dioxide exchange by up to 50%.
This does nothing. (Score:1, Insightful)
As the world continues to heat and the subocean deposits of methane start flowing, 50% reduction in local surface reactions is not going to mean squat. This is a bandaid on an aneurysm. Even conceptually it is unpromising.
Reducing emissions is the obvious solution that we spend so much time effort and brainpower avoiding, because as a terraforming species we are lazy and deserve extinction. It's too bad higher order fauna on Earth goes with us.
Really it's just the coal-fired intellects of the GOP and th
Re: (Score:2)
The second amendment is for self protection; to not be helpless is the face of tyranny. It has never been for the the annihilation of those you disagree with. Most 2nd Amendment folks are very strong proponents of the First Amendment - something that Antifa and their whiny supporters abhor.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You're obviously not a scientist but a denialist moron. The Sun does not entirely control all climate variations on Earth, nor the amount of insulating gasses in the atmosphere that humans deposit there. (You're one of those deserving it.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Climate cycles are controlled by the Sun and we're at the beginning of a cooling cycle. All the farting in the world is not going to change that.
Sorry to respond to myself .....
I have done extensive - extensive - research on Fox News and listen to every political talk radio show host. They all know better than ANY Climate so-called "scientist". We all know that Sean Hannity knows more than ANYBODY!
Why just the other day it RAINED where I live! It wouldn't have RAINED in Spring if Global Warming were true! Global Warming says that I'd be living in a dessert now! With chocolate and whipped cream!
I'm done with you Liberal Snowflakes who get your "f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is more Satire with hyperbole then a Straw Man argument.
Sadly enough the degree of the hyperbole is much less in today then it really should be.
Politically I would much rather see debate on how to deal with climate change and at what degrees from our leaders and the media vs them just denying it all together.
If climate change is some grand conspiracy, I really don't get the final outcome it is meant to achieve. General Air Quality pollution would be an easier sell to try to "have government take over p
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy, funding for climatologists and environmental related organizations. I'm not saying there is no climate change but remember, climate science has been predicting disaster after disaster from all sorts of things since the 70's and none of these disasters have come to pass. When it comes to our climate and environment there is as much doom and gloom being peddled all the time as from televangelists.
Not all science is equal, there are c
You're nothing but a goddamn liar. (Score:1)
Everything you said is BS and you know it making you a liar.
The disasters are predicted to happen towards the end of this century. So, of course they didn't happen.
And ALL of the near terms predictions have come true. The biggest one is the melting of the Arctic ice allowing ships through.
And *whoosh* in one ear out the other. Because you want to believe this all some sort of BS and it's not that bad so you can live your pathetic little life being a good consumer and ruining this planet for future generat
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why does it drop more in the desert? Why does it drop more in winter than summer? Does space know how much infrared energy to absorb depending on the orbital position of the Earth around the Sun?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You have some good points but have missed an obvious one:
"They," are "us."
The driver behind shitting in our mess kit is shareholder greed .
We want asymptotic stock gains over nanosecond time frames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, "exactly."
Lake Nyos lessons (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the dissolved O2 in the ocean is put there from photosynthesizers, not just from the atmosphere. In fact you often get areas of super-saturated (partial pressure of O2 higher than the atmosphere) water from high primary productivity.
Re: (Score:1)
Holy fuck, how did this get marked as insightful?
NOBODY is proposing this as a solution to anything. They are saying it is a real phenomena, which is happening right now, which changes some of our understanding of the mechanisms at play.
They're not saying "hey, let's spread this around to solve that other problem". They're saying "OK, this is happening, we've not identified it before".
This isn't "conceptually unpromising", because it's
Re: (Score:3)
As the world continues to heat and the subocean deposits of methane start flowing,
Scientific consensus is that will not happen.
But wait Re: This does nothing. (Score:1)
Before now... (Score:5, Funny)
Yea science!
Re: (Score:3)
If you saw the senate hearings on climate change
Senate hearings are a stage, not science.
The Dems did not like to listen to this science and brought their own science with them.
Do you understand that both Dems and Reps only chose scientists who would say things they already like? They would be fools to do otherwise, because that would make them look bad on a stage.
Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
It's not because you don't post left, it's because you post clearly on the right. That is, you mold your opinion largely to match the party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solution is easy... (Score:2)
The solution is easy. We just need to install an air pump with a bubbler in the ocean to cause surface disturbance and aid gas exchange. That's what I do in my non-planted aquariums.
Ocean acidification (Score:1, Insightful)
So is ocean acidification not a bad thing anymore? Sounds like they stumbled upon a beneficial side effect of pollution for a change.
Re: (Score:2)
So is ocean acidification not a bad thing anymore? Sounds like they stumbled upon a beneficial side effect of pollution for a change.
Kind of like how global dimming in the 70's and 80's was having a minimal effect on keeping global warming down. Once we started controlling certain dark pollutants, such as soot down, dimming reversed and might have added a little to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
It was not soot, it was sulfure oxides.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they stumbled upon a beneficial side effect of pollution for a change.
Maybe. If the oceans take up less CO2, the concentration in the atmosphere will accelerate. Less acidification, but more warming.
Scum of the earth... (Score:1)
Hmm, global warming is due to the scum of the earth - so it is all Hillary's fault.
LET THEM BREATH BITCOIN (Score:1)
A partially visible layer of libertarian scum will now cover this thread.
- AC
Okay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. I expect "exchange" means both CO2 and O2.
But you're forgetting that we've over-fished the ocean into extinction.
Scum is natural (Score:5, Interesting)
Equilibrium (Score:1)
If the global ocean were to come to equilibrium with the atmosphere, exchange rate would only hasten or slow the time it takes to get to equilibrium. While I doubt there is a "scum" on a significant area of the ocean's surface which drastically changes exchange, its effect would be temporary. Unless the ocean (or atmosphere) is involved in other (significant) exchanges. I guess this article must factor in things such as (fresh) water "exchange" and CO2 exchange with the silt/mud/floor. Only if one of these
Fake news. Science is settled (Score:2, Informative)
There can be no further climate research of any sort. We already knew everything many years ago. Thatâ(TM)s whatâ(TM)s science is settled means. We know everything. Nothing left to discover. Fake news. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Dangerous (Score:2)
Scum Suckers (Score:1)