The Ocean Fertilization Plan & Its Potential Consequences | GEO GIRL

Geo girl has a very science based podcast series.



I actually enjoy watching her other podcasts on things like previous extinction events

 

Good presenter. Interesting subject.

 

Thanks for listening. There is also some scarey stuff in there

 

She says at the end she has an episode on soils and carbon. I need to find it.

I kept hoping she would get around to the role tropical cyclones play in increasing primary productivity of oceans. An interesting feedback loop where intensification of tropical cyclones increases primary productivity through natural fertilization that leads to carbon sequestration as well as healthier populations of primary producer consumers. Essentially, tropical cyclone activity results in better economic performance of fisheries and increases marine based global food supplies.

I’ve found that when one accounts for more than just the “negative” aspects of weather/climate phenomena things are much less scary.

That said, geo-engineering is fascinating to consider. As she points out though the dangers of unintended consequences or overshooting targets are real. I’m all for leveraging the tools nature provides though.

 

Sea life is definitely temperature sensitive. So, while oceans gather noticeable amounts of heat, it's a problem for sea life.

Also, co2 moves seas toward being acidic. That's not good news for crustaceans.

So, cite what you find!

 

Cites like this?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91599-0

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL092574

The effects of temperature and pH on ocean dwellers varies by species. As is usually the case if one looks at actual science as opposed to urban legend and media reports, it’s not a one sided effect.

https://www.chesapeakequarterly.net/V11N1/main3/

As usual I’m the ONLY one who cites concrete evidence. I find it amusing for folks who never support their claims with evidence to ask for evidence from others.

 

This article notes the risks to fisheries related to climate change.

It then discusses ways to increase efficiency in fisheries around the world, with special attention to management practices.

These methods would apply at any time, but become more important as ocean environments change. Also, the global nature of the changes needed would require political cooperation, which is not discussed.



Figure a is total catch. Figure b is catch that was used for food for humans. Mariculture refers to fish farming.

One of the three key points of this article is:

"The decline in primary production induced by global warming has been partially negated by tropical cyclones in oligotrophic waters"

Waters that are deep and low in nutrients and thus cannot support much plant life (fish food) are termed oligotrophic.

The world's major fisheries are where there are shelfs rather than deep water.

I understand why people would be concerned about blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay.

But, this article doesn't answer the questions about the full impact of acidification. Please note that your article points out that these crabs eat other crustaceans that are nowhere near as able to survive in a more acid environment.

This article is not a study of the impact of acidification on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

 

Climate change has both positive and negative effects in various locations. It’s the dishonesty of the popular narrative that harms the credibility of environmentalism. That needs to change.

We can’t do analysis of anything important without accounting for both positive and negative effects. Like financial analysis. You can’t just report costs and ignore revenue. But that’s exactly what ya’ll WANT to do with climate change.


It was thought blue crabs couldn’t survive at one point either. It’s not known what food sources would be available to blue crabs at lower pH.

The cite is a discussion of multiple studies. You don’t like studies or multiple studies either now?

The point is ya’ll have opinions about climate change that are based on very limited information. I’m here to expose you to more than you will see otherwise. I expect most of you to deny anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived biases. But you should consider being open minded like the guy in the cite that admits there is more to acidification than what the typical science denying climate nutter hears.

 

You can't consider your article on Chesapeake Bay to be significant. It is one species in one location, and the article itself came to no conclusion concerning the future of that species given the increasing acidification. The article stated that.

Your comments on the benefits of cyclones were gross exaggerations of what your chosen study indicates.

Overall, each of your articles supports the fact that climate change has a negative impact on fisheries. That is certainly a financial impact as well as a food impact.

Also, to critique what people are hearing we would need to have an actual analysis of that, as I certainly do not agree that the misinformation is all on one side of this issue - including as identified above.

 

Of course it’s significant. If it wasn’t significant scientists wouldn’t do the studies it’s based on and journals wouldn’t publish them.

I’m sorry you can’t accept the fact the current narrative on acidification is no longer supported by evidence.

You can read all kinds of information about native oysters making a comeback around the Puget Sound etc. as oceans acidify. You just have to branch out if your narrow information sources.

No I just reported evidence contained in the study. That increases of primary productivity are significant and compensating for other negative effects of climate change. It is important to account for that.

You act like there can’t be positive aspects to tropical cyclones. It’s not just one study. It’s all kinds of studies. Many studies. You just aren’t told about them. Much of ocean life begins it’s lifecycle in mangroves. Tropical cyclones also increase primary productivity in mangroves that are key to reproduction of many open ocean species as well as coastal species.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96752-3

I can’t post them all dude. I can only show you the light.

I believe the most recent study shows a net decrease of 4% catch globally over the last 80 years with some fisheries benefitting and some being harmed. Of course the effects of overfishing and catch and release deaths etc. are far more impactful. Perhaps it would make sense to fish the fisheries that are becoming more productive while giving the others a rest. Or we could just keep moaning about CO2 emissions that are still increasing. When we have complete information we can make better decisions and implement things that actually HELP.

Of course there is misinformation on both sides. Doesn’t give you an excuse to support it. It’s very obvious what people hear. They regurgitate it over and over without any critical thought.

 

Your own past cites supported that both climate change and acidification ARE significant issues.

I'd prefer the suggestions made in your cites for improving fisheries production - ones suggested by fisheries scientists.

I'm not supporting misinformation. And, I'm not recognizing your handwave on who you are concerned about. So far, I don't see you accepting the impacts mentioned in the sites you choose. Plus, the methods they propose for increasing production require international agreement, which is difficult to accomplish and not particularly something the right wing is interested in.

 

1) I’m uninterested in left wing/right wing dichotomy. I’m about as far left as one can get but it matters not a bit in this discussion.

2) I’ve CLEARLY state numerous times there are negative effects from climate change. I just provided information that there has been a net 4% decline in global catch. Please READ my posts and respond to what I post, not your strawman arguments. I accept all evidence. You reject evidence that conflicts with your biases and unsubstantiated opinions.

3) Since I have not made ANY suggestions for improving marine habitat you can’t prefer ones in studies to mine. You can’t compare anything to something that doesn’t exist.

4) I’ve pointed out hurricanes naturally perform a function the OP is interested in. I’m just providing information for you and others to accept or reject. I’ve also pointed out other positive effects of tropical cyclones. You can reject those study conclusions as well. Matters not to me.

5) I’ve pointed out the narrative all sea creatures (especially shelled) are negatively affected by CO2 is false. You are welcome to deny that scientific fact. Matters not to me.

 

Geoengineering ideas can rarely if ever be shown to affect Earth's population equally.

I don't know of a process for making that kind of decision.

 

Agreed.

I suppose might makes right. If China wants to fertilize open ocean near their holdings there isn’t much we could do. Or we could, and there isn’t much anyone else could do about it.

 

You ARE interested in left/right dichotomy. That's what has happened to public discourse on climate. That's where we get those you think are regurgitating.

I'm not sure why you mentioned 2. I took your post and its cites quite seriously.

My preference for the ideas in your cites wasn't meant to be a comparison to something you suggested.

Your original cite on benefits of cyclones was on oligotrophic regions. I just pointed out that there is little to no fishing in oligotrophic regions.

Overall, I agree that there needs to be real improvement in our fisheries management, as pointed out in your first cite. As times get tougher for fish, we need to take actions that will augment their populations.

 

In general, geoengineering includes ideas like seeding the atmosphere with various results in mind. I suspect acts like that could not be limited to local effect if they were significant enough to combat climate change.

I don't know what the issues are for feeding ocean fish in Asian waters. It seems expensive.

China does a LOT of fresh water fish farming, I think - from chasing down the studies referenced in the studies you cited. I don't know the economics of that, but fish farming in general is big enough to be counted in world fish production as seen on the chart I posted - way more than I thought and enough to keep fish production rising!

 

There are science deniers on the left and right. I have no interest in further pitting sides against one another. Both left and right deniers regurgitate what their tribal elders tell them to regurgitate. The path foreword is to stop judging information on where it comes from or which bias it supports. It’s time (if we are serious about the environment) to judge information on whether or not it is based on evidence and whether or not it is complete information.

I’ve spent a lot of of time on PF explaining the physics behind the greenhouse effect. I’ve spent a lot of time explaining other anthropogenic warming pathways that are not greenhouse gas driven. Why? Because it’s important to know other pathways to warming besides just one that we have least control of.

Some reject the greenhouse gas component. Others reject other warming pathways like reduced transpiration from deforestation. I don’t care about the political affiliation of either denier. I’m here to share information with everyone so they have knowledge of the subject sufficient to make informed decisions. No matter which circus clowns they vote for or which news organization they feed off.

All I care about is evidence and education.

This is why.

If I’m pointing out primary productivity resulting from increased cyclone intensity is mitigating lost productivity from warming I’m accepting the warming effect.

Fair enough. I’m not sure what you are comparing them to then.

Of course. That’s the point. I’m picking corn in Nebraska instead of the middle of the Sahara desert because the environment here is better for corn than the middle of the Sahara. Same way with fish. They can’t be in numbers large enough to make fishing profitable in oligotrophic regions. That’s why fertilization by either natural (hurricanes) or unnatural (the OP video) are advantageous. They take Sahara and turn it into Nebraska. They take oligotrophic areas and turn them into areas fish and other aquatic organisms thrive.

Furthermore, fertilization involves diminishing returns. Once my soils have sufficient nutrients in the form of carbon and N-P-K etc. to support the crop it does no good to add more. I can add more but the addition will not show up in yield no matter if I use mass flow sensors or scale ticket weights to measure yield. Same with oceans. If an area is NOT oligotrophic, we can’t see a response from fertilization (natural or geo engineered). If an area is not oligotrophic it is not short of nutrient and adding more will not increase phytoplankton etc. we are measuring by looking for chlorophyll in the ocean.

ONLY oligotrophic areas can show a response to fertilization from natural or unnatural sources.

Of course at some point over fertilization (primarily from unnatural sources) will show “harm” but I’ve left that out to keep things simple. Natural feedback loops generally exclude harm from natural fertilization processes. For example, nitrogen fixing microbiota won’t produce enough soil nitrogen to harm its host because the host either speeds up usage or slows production through the symbiotic pathways. But I digress…

Agree. The crab debacle in the Bering Sea is one example. The general public is told it’s all caused by warming temps. But they aren’t told catch and release rates have exploded as well. Females all get released, as well as blemished shells and small crabs. It’s estimated at least 30% of released crabs die of damage or stress after release. Essentially we are decimating populations by killing individuals we don’t even consume.

What makes more sense? Developing technology to harvest sustainably without killing throwbacks or attempting to decrease water temperature of the Bering Sea? Will anyone develop technology to decrease deaths of throwbacks if only a very small minority of folks are even aware of the problem?

 

Frankly geo engineering in general concerns me greatly. We simply don’t know enough about climate to make responsible decisions. Especially the atmospheric aerosol schemes.

Aquatic systems are very productive and we have nearly limitless resources to work with. It’s one reason I get so annoyed with the idea we can’t grow enough food on a warming planet. I don’t know much details of ocean or coastal fish farming but a little about how productive small scale aquaculture can be at the personal level. I hate water. LOL. I’m strictly terrestrial.

 

But, those areas tend to be deep water areas. Productive fishing tends to be on shelfs, not deep water.

I haven't seen anything on feeding wild saltwater fish. Farmed fish are fed, of course. But, that's quite a different thing.

I have a vacation home on an island with salt water frontage. I use my boat in part for crabbing.

People involved in crabbing know the regs, use legal gear and tags, and get policed, etc. They know the problems with commercial operations and the difficulties of regulating them, but I've never heard of a significant change toward ignoring regulations that would explain the reductions in crab population.

The significant reduction in west coast commercial crabs is reported by NOAA to be due to acidification of oceans - impacting Dungeness and similar crab shells and sensory organs.

Red King crab and Snow crabs like really cold Alaskan water. Numbers plummeted due to the 2019 heat wave which closed crabbing in Alaska's Bering Sea. That fishery is closed for this year and next. A recent report suggests that in 2019 these species retreated to cold "pools", where they over populated the food supply among other possible issues related to changes.

 

Yes but irrelevant.

I’m picking corn in Nebraska not the Sahara. Because it’s a more productive environment here. Same with coastal waters. The point is hurricanes increase productivity of nutrient deficient waters no matter where they are. Coastal or open ocean.

I’m surprised someone who spends time on the water knows so little about it. Ever hear of Tuna, the second most caught species? I’m a landlubber that doesn’t eat fish and I’m aware of Tuna. Their life cycle includes vast amounts of time spent in open oceans. That’s just one example. Just because a species is most easily caught in a location doesn’t mean it isn’t dependent on primary productivity outside the fishery. I had hope the study on primary productivity of mangroves from tropical cyclones would help drive that point home.

Well, the OP proposal would essentially be feeding wild saltwater fish.

Has someone brought up illegal practices and I missed it? Hasn’t been part of my content.

Well, you’ve given a perfect demonstration of the danger of narrow information consumption. You regurgitated the one point fed you by media and government.

https://www.livescience.com/billions-snow-crabs-vanish-from-bering-sea

Can we change the temperature of the Bering Sea? No. Can we address practices we know are killing massive numbers of crabs that aren’t even consumed? Yes.

Where is the current emphasis? On the problem we can’t solve, not on the one we can. What helps crabs more? First world consumers getting their heads out of the clouds and eating a discolored crab or complaining about CO2 emissions they can’t or won’t reduce?

 

Good article and a needed one given we have seen the collapse of some fishing grounds

Hmmmm I know what message I took away but I am betting it is not the same as the one you took away

Chesapeake quarterly??.? And you were doing so well up until then

Ha! I gave up citing research for those who never post research themselves - Brandolinis law got to me.

The issue with single research papers is that they do not give a total picture merely a slice of the view
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/co2-and-ocean-acidification
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

Research
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6205
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...HXZlwrb04l5NlKigZMVbgAWFxSY9oyR-XxloyQqwewiqw
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolo...kFJKe61zN_NSeEcoA6PftgeyEcbFYzqiTfVP9qbtvoG_8
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010658

 

Yep.

The only message I take is the conclusions/results of the study. I find it fascinating nature has feedback loops like this to compensate for problems/disruptions we cause. If we would accept and learn from these feedback loops instead of just hating on tropical cyclones we would all be better off.

You are welcome to share what “message” you took. Don’t make us guess.

You are welcome to dispute the remarks of the scientists quoted and the research the article was based on. Or just post fallacy.

If you have something specific from a study you want to discuss you will have to follow PF rules and supply a pull quote or page number or something to the specific part of your link you think supports your argument. The first one I opened said this which ironically is the exact point made by the study on blue crab that grows larger in more acidic water. The meta analysis concludes we have no idea how organisms will adapt. That was kind of the point of the scientist in the crab article. That maybe we should actually experiment instead of just making broad assumptions that fit our biases.

 

This is something that pretty much every fisherman knows. One reason you almost never go fishing in the rain is that it is washing even more food into the water, so the fish are normally stuffed so not really eating.

They will still bite from aggression, so going after fish like trout and salmon with spoons works. But worms and food items don't work worth a damn because they are not hungry..

 

Holy crap, you are actually dismissing a source for... some reason... that is primarily funded from the NOAA?

This is why I take so many in here so lightly. They will outright dismiss any information simply because they apparently do not like the source. And almost always for the most outright silly political ideas and not having a damned thing to do with the quality of their research.

I guess everything from Harvard, Yale, MIT, and a lot of others should be dismissed because they also do military research.

Outright dismissing any research for purely political reasons is another absolute sign of anti-science.

 

The article is about one species that can withstand the acidification, but is potentially losing food sources.

Beyond that, acidification and warming are killing crabs for human consumption in the Pacific.

So, how the heck can an article on one species of crab be that meaningful?