Hacker News Reader

Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

From the text: "George argues that the project succeeded at capturing carbon too. There’s no available evidence to back him up — it’s exceptionally difficult to measure the carbon captured by experiments like these, and the results from more carefully controlled experiments are not promising."

View on HN

i would be interested in what/where those "controlled experiments" were... my understanding is that even experimenting is a no no in the field of geoengineering. Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain, not merely a partial temporary cover. It also increases biota -- exactly the opposite of what humans tend to do, we are now in a major extinction event. Increasing biota on land is very hard and unlikely, but this easily increases it in the seas where it is badly needed. It is also easily titrated - one can stop/in/de/crease adding Iron and Phosphorus at any time.

> Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain

That is exactly what is not confirmed. It’s just a belief of the proponents.

i would still like to know what "controlled experiments" exist. Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon? Although just not removing carbon does not say seeding is not beneficial, carbon neutral aqua culture would be quite beneficial.

There are some natural experiments: the Sahara feeds the Amazon, and the Gobi feeds the Pacific ... Perhaps more directed seeding would be more beneficial. We will never know unless we actually study, or try.

> Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon?

It is well known that in the normal conditions various bacteria degrade organic matter, which means nothing "dead" would really remain at the bottom. Typically all decomposing produces CO2 again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com