SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Deep in the jagged red mountains of Oman, geologists are drilling in search of the holy grail of reversing climate change: an efficient and cheap way to remove carbon dioxide from the air and oceans.
They are coring samples from one of the world's only exposed sections of the Earth's mantle to uncover how a spontaneous natural process millions of years ago transformed CO2 into limestone and marble.
[...] Around 13 tons of core samples from four different sites will be sent to the Chikyu, a state-of-the-art research vessel off the coast of Japan, where Keleman and other geologists will analyze them in round-the-clock shifts.
They hope to answer the question of how the rocks managed to capture so much CO2 over the course of 90 million years — and to see if there's a way to speed up the timetable.
Kelemen thinks a drilling operation could cycle carbon-rich water into the newly formed seabed on oceanic ridges far below the surface. Just like in Oman's mountains, the submerged rock would chemically absorb carbon from the water. The water could then be cycled back to the surface to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, in a sort of conveyor belt.
The geologists are studying how well the rock core samples from Oman absorb CO2 in the hope they can build a means to sequester captured carbon in the Earth's mantle.
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:14AM (10 children)
It seems as soon as anyone even looks at anything apart from reducing emissions as a way to reduce AGW they are attacked.
We need to wake up and start researching climate engineering while we have time to turn things around. We need to do the research now. Once we know what extra tools beyond reductions are available and the risks involved we can move onto making an informed decision.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:03AM
Sounds like aliens to me. They came by a while ago and convinced the people that campfires were teh evill, and showed them how to put that shit into underground dumpsters.
Cut to now. We've found the dumpsters, now we just need to wait for the aliens to come back.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:20AM (5 children)
The idea of geoengineering scares the hell out of me, but it may be our only chance. That said, a much easier way to do this would be to raise primary productivity in the oceans--cyanobacteria and phytoplankton--with iron and/or silicate dust dumps. I remember, way back in college almost 10 years ago, taking oceanography classes and hearing that iron and/or silicon were the limiting nutrients to these species, i.e., primary productivity could be much higher than it is. They're basically the lungs of the ocean--I think I was taught they make twice as much oxygen as land plants total?
Problem here is, we don't know if that would lead to massive algal blooms and subsequent eutrophication and anoxic dead zones, which are already a huge problem. But if we're gonna geoengineer this seems a lot more natural, straightforward, less energy-intensive, and obvious than messing with the rock cycle. The geologist in me (and in my diploma, not that I've ever had any job that needed it...) feels an unknown, nameless dread at that prospect.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Saturday April 15 2017, @04:05AM (3 children)
I like the look of solar radiation management like reflective roofs as a fairly low risk, quick intervention.
I'm not sure if it just an Australian trend, but it seems almost every new home here is built with a dark or black roof. We're already climate engineering, just in the wrong direction.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday April 15 2017, @10:56AM (2 children)
The visible-light colour of a roof doesn't necessarily correlate with its reflectance and emissivity in the infra-Red. What material a roof should be, and whether reflecting IR is a good idea, can vary - it's a bit more complicated than simply assuming white rooves* are good.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengineering) [wikipedia.org]
*one hoof, several hooves: one roof, several rooves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:14PM
The visible-light colour of a roof doesn't necessarily correlate with its reflectance and emissivity in the infra-Red.
How much sunlight that roof absorbs is the key factor in how much IR it emits. Dark roofs absorb more visual light spectrum which is a large part of solar influx.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:18PM
In fact, darker colors tend to be more effective heat emitters. Glossing over the details, its the same reason they are better absorbers of IR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:08PM
> The idea of geoengineering scares the hell out of me, but it may be our only chance.
Then whatever approach we take needs to be one that is highly unstable, so that if we stop doing it, the effects also quickly stop.
Your idea of seeding the oceans seems like one that could set off chain reactions that we have no control over.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday April 15 2017, @05:27AM (2 children)
My boss recently got on my case about this, complaining about the arrogance of man thinking his actions can control the future of the planet.
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out. I think it is desirable to change your life as you can to reduce polution because its obviously bad. But its hard to tell people to reduce their standard of living.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 15 2017, @01:08PM
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out. I think it is desirable to change your life as you can to reduce polution because its obviously bad. But its hard to tell people to reduce their standard of living.
Reducing standard of living is obviously bad too because poor people are both high fertility (overpopulation being the primary driver of global warming after all) and care less about global warming (remember, they vote!).
Telling people to reduce their standard of living is easy these days. What remains hard is telling people that the religious fad of the day isn't the most important thing ever. It rarely sinks in [soylentnews.org].
Figure that tech got us into this, tech will get us out.
Beats massive human die-offs and resetting to a point where one is going to do it again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15 2017, @03:13PM
My boss recently got on my case about this, complaining about the arrogance of man thinking his actions can control the future of the planet.
Sounds like the standard american evangelical position - God made the earth, man is arrogant to think he can interfere with god's plan.
Never mind that other part of the bible where god made man caretaker of the earth (Genesis 1:26).