Earth, Oceans in particular

Void · 2019-07-04 11:20:12

This is for the discussion, for how we are already terraforming Earth. And in my opinion why we should then do a better job of it, and perhaps how to do so.

Based from me on the work of Dr. Zubrin, in his book "The Case for Space", Chapter 8, pages 227-228 in particular. I have been thinking this one through for days, considering if I should "Go There". Obviously I decided to.

The sub-story, indicates how a group of people successfully revived a salmon population by fertilizing the ocean. It also touches on the problems we will have with "Naturalists/Ecotopians". The problems we already are having with them.

A piece of the puzzle can be added to the story. What would happen, if you had naturally growing crops, that you only had to harvest, you did not feel the need to manage those fields. You could only harvest, no need to put anything back?

Of course the nutrients would be depleted, and the formerly natural crops, would likely go into decline. In my opinion, this is what we are doing with the oceans.

While the story mentions an "Unnatural" addition of nutrients, and also mentions the build up of CO2 in the Oceans, and the acidification of the Oceans, it does not yet include the fact that we have already for many years been removing nutrients from the Oceans. So, the Oceans are not now Natural at all.

In art, I was told long ago, that culture oscillates between Naturalists, and Gardeners. In this era, Naturalists can inform, render opinions, in a manner such as a nervous system. But also, a nervous system and immune system can go bad and cause an illness. Here, in my opinion, we are operating under a illusion that we have "Natural" Oceans. I feel that we clearly do not have "Natural" oceans. We are managing them already, and doing it badly, in my opinion.

For Salmon, without Humans not even the "Native Peoples", say 30,000 years ago, nutrients would have gone in a cycle where for the most part much of the nutrients in a dead salmon would return to the Oceans. Some would end up on the bottom of the oceans, some perhaps in sediments of river flows, but much of it coming from dead fish, back to stimulate the photo activated food chain.

For more oceanic fish, the cycle would not even directly involve rivers.

Interestingly at this time nutrients often now enter the Oceans from dust from deserts, and from human activity. So, since lots of the deserts are the results of human activities in the past and now, and our current activities also add these, I can make the case that quite a lot of the distribution of nutrients into the Oceans is already "Unnatural".

If these facts could be accepted, then it becomes obvious that a better method to manage this process, and perhaps deal with the CO2 problem(s), should be implemented.

This will disturb social patterns, and also bring fear of costs.

However, I feel that the gains will be very massive in terms of the material benefits. The social problems will simply be a burden to struggle with.

And of course I am a creature of machines. I will talk of them later. I have a degree of contempt for creatures of speech. Manipulating people with words, to satisfy alpha drives. Well, we need some of them. We don't need those who organize irresponsible interference with sustained human progress. While this might sound like I am suggesting that we exist only to exploit the Earth and other planets, actually, I feel that rather, we are a part of a whole, and do have a responsibility to re-establish a balance that we might like.

That is jelly fish may celebrate what has been done. Flies might enjoy an Earth where they can eat unlimited human eyes and human flesh. Some microbes might like a hotter planet. These all would be legitimate ecologies, and could become considered "Natural". But we would like a world that we are adapted to. And so the reasonable choice, in my opinion is to manage the Earth for that, since it is more likely to be closer to the "Natural" that we are made for.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-07-04 11:42:56)

Void · 2019-07-04 12:54:46

On the matter of social disruption, I guess I will go a bit Sci Fi.
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3634639-dune
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dune

Trying not to go too far into global politics, I will note that I feel that if you combine circular desires of some cultures, with a movement from point A to Point B, you can have a potential for a spiral. You can spiral down or spiral up. I prefer up in this case.

I guess on the question of the desire to spiral up, I would allow for "Beg, Buy, or Borrow" a better future.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-07-04 12:55:14)

Void · 2019-07-04 12:56:26

Machines.

OTEC (Not OPEC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En0hZZogF20
Useful for the ~Tropics.

However, one leg of this is available virtually throughout the Ocean system to some degree, mostly very cold water available most places.

A hot side is available most places as well. Not a warm layer of water so much, but some source of heat, such as solar, wind, or nuclear.

I mention nuclear not so much because I like it, but because it exists, and will be in use for instance in the Arctic of Russia. A reality. I would prefer Fusion, with Helium 3 involved, but that does not exist at this time.

I have mentioned solar augmented OTEC, but of course that does not so much exist yet, and will have problems such as Hurricanes. I think it will eventually be mastered, but not yet.

However we do have the infancy of Ocean wind power. As I understand it the British have a lot of wind. Some others do as well. Its the 4th you know.

Here is the Pacific: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu … 80709.html

A global view. Not the one I wanted. It does show that indeed the British have a lot of wind.
https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/research/affi … rces/world

So, then how does that relate to OTEC, and a hot side?

Well, typically it is intended to use wind to gather electrical energy, and transport it to land. However I see the prospect to couple this process to that of generating fresh water and also manipulating the fertility of Ocean waters.

I am aware that the British in general have plenty of fresh water, but the fresh water would be a side product. And in the future fresh water will be wanted most places likely. A place like the horn of South America might want it.

The British/Associates (Other Europeans on the Atlantic Coast), may be able to export water. Pipelines needed however, or big tankers.

But the focus really would be on bringing up nutrients from the deeps. If you use a forced distillation process, you can apply a vacuum to warmer surface water to extract vapors, and cool that water, and can use the heat of forced condensation by pressurization to warm up lower colder water, with nutrients. So the lower waters with nutrients then warmed up, they can be placed on or near the surface, to improve nutrient fertility. Perhaps it is not needed in those locations. However, I am thinking globally for places where it could help. But perhaps the North Sea could use a pickup in nutrients anyway.

There could be a case to have submerged vaults that could contain heated water from the process, a storage for future usage.

All of these things would of course involve expenses. It is hard to be sure of a good business case.

But the example shows how two products could be manufactured in conjunction with Ocean wind energy.

And that leads to another interesting aspect. While windmills on the ocean send electrical energy to the land, typically, I would think that at times land could send electrical energy to the windmill locations at times to facilitate the production of things including fresh water and ocean nutrition.

The whole system then would have a more effective use of energy, and less need for energy storage, as you could build more wind capacity, but the intermittence of such energy would be compensated by load leveling.

But this will likely lead to a social problem. How do those who harvest the sea, compensate those who give it better nutrition? For European types, perhaps Carbon Taxes, and Carbon Credits. For Americans, I am guessing something else.

And unfortunately this opens the window for the social alpha's to start yammering for power. A bad side effect, but necessary I guess.

Done

Last edited by Void (2019-07-04 13:41:35)

Void · 2019-07-04 13:50:13

I did previously say "Beg, Buy, or Borrow" a future. Yes, I suppose that the process might disrupt things. Some would point out that more heat would be dumped into the Ocean. Well, if desperate, in my world a loan can be OK, to get to the future.

There is an aspect of this that is worth considering also. For the Arctic ice pack, the less ice, the more evaporation. The more evaporation, the more bine created. The more brine created, the more water on the bottom flows south, the more the gulf stream is drawn into the north.

It does bear thinking about. Still, I think we are a very long way from being able to produce a significant warming of the lower layers.

But I bet the Ecotopians will fall all over this one. I mentioned plastic once as a method to do Carbon capture, and although I think it unlikely that I was the trigger, I notice that they are obsessing about it all the time now.

Apparently the alphas, need some unsolvable problem to obsess about always. When I was younger it was food would run out across the world, and people would be starving in mass, therefore they should be allowed to put contraceptives in our drinking water. Such fun people.

Then there was peak oil is coming.

And of course greenhouse gasses now. And there were other things. News sells, I guess is part of the answer. Politicians babble is another. Boredom? Alpha psychological needs to satisfy?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-07-04 13:51:45)

SpaceNut · 2019-07-04 13:58:02

I would agree that we have set in motion even if we did not mean to via global warming to earths oceans and life that it contains into to changing or becoming extinct.

Can man change before its to late for the human race is the question.

Void · 2019-07-04 14:36:12

Quote:

I would agree that we have set in motion even if we did not mean to via global warming to earths oceans and life that it contains into to changing or becoming extinct.
Can man change before its to late for the human race is the question.

Well, I am reasonably compatible with that.

Of course I did not state what is obvious, during the process of managing the Sea, some Carbon would be sequestered long term to the bottom of the Oceans, which I think is a macroscopic solution to the stated problem of too much of it in the air and seas. Much better in my opinion than trying to breath the atmosphere into machines to get Carbon out of the atmosphere. Unless such Carbon becomes an economic treasure in itself. But then you would be going circular, as to make fuels from it you then burn the fuels, and to make plastics from it, you risk blowing the main pump on over stimulated Ecotopians.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2019-07-04 16:00:49

Computer went glitchy so here is some more food to digest on the topic.

Ocean biology experienced dramatic evolutionary shift 170 million years ago

Of course that was when earths co2 rich atmosphere started to change over to one of Oxygen...

But as the future is not written yet we might be on a course The far-future ocean: Warm yet oxygen-rich decrease to zero by the year 2300.

In the model, the planet heats up by a further 6 degrees, and temperatures remain at this high level until the end of the simulation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10813-w

We are already seeing some of this in the so called dead zones...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-07-04 11:20:12

Earth, Oceans in particular

#2 2019-07-04 12:54:46

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

#3 2019-07-04 12:56:26

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

#4 2019-07-04 13:50:13

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

#5 2019-07-04 13:58:02

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

#6 2019-07-04 14:36:12

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

#7 2019-07-04 16:00:49

Re: Earth, Oceans in particular

Board footer