[extropy-chat] No frozen Europe...

[Robert Bradbury]

Spike,

I'd agree with the argument that the ocean contains more carbon simply on
the basis of density and volume (the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't
particularly dense while the upper levels of the ocean do contain large
quantities of bacteria).  But I'll see if I can find time to plug the
calculations into a spread sheet to confirm it.

Harvesting whales doesn't factor into the equation.  Given the large numbers
that have been killed (from ~1750 to 1986) there is no way the whales are
limiting the krill population.  In fact I think krill harvesting may serve
as a major input into processed "fish" food and/or food for fish farms so
humans may be the primary predators [one might google/wiki this].  If the
limited whale population is starving at this point it is due to
overharvesting by humans.  If it isn't humans then squid might be the
limiting predator.  (Someday I need to go study oceanography...)

The limit on krill production is probably basic nutrients for the
phytoplankton (which bloom when sun comes back to the arctic or antarctic)
that they feed on.  If my research on global warming a number of years ago
[1] is accurate, then those are probably iron and/or phosphorus.  If one
increases the availability of those in the ocean then the krill will "sink"
more CO2.  (The same is true for phytoplankton fed on by other species in
other parts of the ocean.)  Alternatively the plankton could be limited by
disolved CO2 (and other C molecules but those are even rarer).  I seem to
recall that this may be determined by wave (esp. spray) action.  I'm fairly
sure this is a surface area problem.  More water surface exposed to air with
CO2 leads to more disolved CO2.  So an alternative to the salty ice making
barges (whose purpose was to keep the Gulf Stream flowing) one might want
sea water fountian making barges.  Make a fountain of sea water, throw in
some iron and phosphorus in the process and I would bet you have a plankton
bloom that lots of species would find very appealing.  Of course for some
people these might make a much nicer home than one built out of pop bottles
[2].

As a side note, I have my doubts as to whether *any* of the existing climate
models take into acount what happens to the ecosystem if global warming
results in increased wind & rain which dump more limiting nutrients into the
oceans (increasing phytoplankton abundance) or increased wave activity
increasing oceanic CO2 levels.  GAIA is a living ecosystem and leaving life
out of the equation probably makes the climate prediction models worth
significantly less than the paper they get printed on.  Though if the
"wrong" conclusions motivate us into really developing ocean farming (vs.
ocean harvesting) then that could perhaps be a good thing.

As I think Adrian tried to point out whale harvesting puts you into somewhat
swampy ground (even from a simple extropic viewpoint -- those are *big*
brains you are directly or indirectly disassembling).  Most fish on the
other hand are less problematic and finding the krill objectionable puts you
almost into the Jain religous camp.  Bear in mind that each step up the food
pyramid that you take is an increasingly less efficient food source compared
with lower levels (from an energy input standpoint).

Robert

1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html<http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/%7Ebradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html>

2. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/tired_of_living.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060207/62085764/attachment.html>