Our Oceans: Key To Storing Carbon?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июн 2022
- Using carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies to mitigate climate change is a land-intensive endeavor. To capture one gigatonne of CO2 through direct air capture requires a facility & energy production footprint of at least hundreds, but potentially tens of thousands of square kilometers. To capture one gigatonne of CO2 via reforestation requires about 862,000 square kilometers of arable land (nearly the size of the Kalahari Desert). We currently release about 40 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, so…do the math. And land that is allocated for CDR must compete with other land use claims: for urbanization, agriculture, biodiversity, and renewable energy technologies. But what if our perspective was slightly… more aqueous? Oceans, which make up 70% of the Earth’s surface, already absorb more than 10 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Recorded on 06/09/2022. [8/2022] [Show ID: 38190]
More from: Climate Now Conversation
(www.uctv.tv/climate-now)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
Most ancient CO2 was removed by marine organisms and is now part of massive carbonate deposits like limestone and chalk. Many people think it's sequestered as oil, gas, and coal, but they're a drop compared to carbonate deposits.
Harvest 15% of the Sargasso sea every year and convert it into biochar
I wonder if the Sargasso can be transplanted to the Pacific
impressive explanations
What about using quicklime in the ocean? There seemed to be discussion about this a decade ago but hasn’t gained traction and I can’t work out why. The claim was that even without carbon capture when making quicklime the process is still net negative and the ocean acidification is solved too!
Iron fertilisation seems like a non starter
Had to smile at "rock flower".
Quit screwing with the ocean unless you know the result.
Remove those sea urchins, allow the kelp forests to regenerate along with gumboot chiton and abalone populations. Take the urchins, preferably gathered via community competition and convert them to fertilizer in degraded landscapes. Shooting for an inch or greater of compost on all public lands by a reasonable date?
Obviously have an IPM and triage areas with high or out of control populations in close proximity to high value kelp forest habitats.
Thanks for the fascinating presentation.
Why would we need to sink the seaweed? It would be ingested by creatures which would be consumed by other creatures, ultimately ending up as detrivore poop in the deep ocean and thereby not be in the atmosphere but the tissues of the animals feeding on the renewed kelp beds. Kelp doesn't have to solve it all. It can be combined with other efforts terrestrially and the urchins can be reused locally, at least in CA.
Breed sea otter colonies - they love eating urchin
@@wnose do all of the above while monitoring populations of both!
Ok, the totally creepy music actually hurts my ears.
Ocean is only solution but you have to think beyond box. Go to field and talk to the people. I am also doing trials.
Compro essa pesquisa por 1 bilhão para os biólogos da marinha do Brasil e já envio para a marinha do Brasil 40 bilhões para o projeto
Melhor do 10 bilhões pelo projeto
Whales
Nothing wrong with carbon dioxide it is good for nature.
Nothing wrong with oxygen but too much of it causes oxygen toxicity/poisoning.
@@PT-cu2fg EU parliament declares fossil fuel to be "green" energy as climate change narrative collapses
The EU parliament just announced a decision that's causing the fraudulent climate change narrative to self-destruct. "EU parliament backs labeling gas and nuclear investments as green," reads a Reuters headline from yesterday. "The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labeling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly."
The fraudulent, junk science narrative of "climate change" has caused western nations (including the USA) to dismantle much of their fossil fuel infrastructure over the last 20 years.
Suddenly, European nations are panicking to try to rebuild their energy infrastructure. But since they've officially blocked most funding for non-green energy projects, the only way to get funds to rebuild fossil fuel infrastructure is to declare fossil fuels to be "green."
Never forget that the "green" movement is part of the globalist depopulation agenda to starve billions of human beings to death while collapsing economies around the world.
You can buy a co2 machine and use it to improve crop yields.
It is good for SOME nature.
Plants, insects, and cold blooded animals in general will love it.
Giant apes evolved during low temp-low CO2 ice age conditions will not fare so well.
Especially those designed to run high energy demand brains in a low CO2 environment.
It's the RATE that's the issue
As with anything really it depends on the amount. With the right amount it's amazing, but with too much it can lead to deadly consequences.