ok now i want to know approx. how much weight a shipwreck loses per, let's say a decade, to the process of the steel hull slowly dissolving into the water.
@@macaroon_nuggets8008 Even if most of the carbon is released over time, that would still help buy us more time to implement other measures. Humans love putting debts on future generations, might as well get a climate loan so we have time to figure out how to get rid of the CO2 for good.
hmm throwing terms like 'hit by meteors' instead of explaining the hypothesis to it which is what it is and the likes of the conflicting ice age phase hypothesis. seems a vague explanation to it all, he wont explain why or how there is 1% argon in our atmosphere as its not important, yet the 0.0002% of methane is?
@@Dockhead argon is a noble gas. It does not react with much. Methane on the other hand is a very potent greenhouse gas and an organic compound. And anyway you shouldn't look at how much of a percentage a gas is in the atmosphere but how much we are releasing into the atmosphere. Unless you you don't think humans cause climate change. But then I think your on the wrong channel.
The total amount of iron needed to treat the ocean is relatively small so I question the offset numbers. Additionally it has been shown that there is increased growth in fish life which would be a definite positive as they are being depleted . Sounds like a win win to me.
Don't living things need sunlight to survive? What happens when this large algae blanket blots out the sun on kilometres of ocean surface? Nah... she'll be right mate! Algal bloom is always a boon for the environments that it occurs in! 👍👍😎
@@wormbo2 Yeah, algae blooms are really bad, but these regions are already almost depleted of life so I don't see how it could be so bad, if done properly.
@@ronaldovargaslopes5919 still, manmade algae blooms on such a large scale even on scarcely-populated ocean areas can have unforeseeable consequences. The main problem with this proposal is that its consequences can't be measured easily via smaller-scale experiments, so it's a pretty big risk to just create algae blooms willy-nilly. I don't think scientists are wrong to be cautious or dubious of this approach
What could go wrong? Just 1/3 of the world's waters turning to blood. Hmm! Wonder where I have heard that before? No biggie! Beautiful Blue Carrribean waters are so overrated. We are going to risk everything on this next new thing some group came up with. What's really amazing to me is the number of people applauding this idea and not falling out their chair in shock that this is even being discussed as "options to save the planet".
@@iCarus_A yes but compared to what? We are talking about mass desertification along the equator, potential releases of enormous amounts of methane in the permafrost and the melting of the arctic as major feedback effects amplifying our existing warming to catastrophic levels - we're talking about near human extinction, and if not that then superhurricanes and the melting of glaciers causing serious geopolitical instability and mass migration that no country can handle. The effects on the local flora and fauna in the ocean are not a major concern in comparison...
We iron seeded off the coast of British Columbia and it restored the salmon stock to the greatest catch levels in the last hundred years! It also deposited a lot of carbon into the ocean as shells.
Why have I never heard of it? U would think any video mentioning overfishing would mention this as a partial answer. I see ur comment 3 years old. Do they still dumb iron shavings in ocean to raise ocean life?
I just watched the video of the guys who led that experiment and he claims that the Canadian gov sent a swat team to the facility they were at and took all their research
@@Iamwolf134 this is because a lot of more modern countries have shipped plastic to that area; all the while those nations have become increasingly modern and populous.
@@butterman0007 Even that's only because those areas chose to have western countries ship that plastic into them. Besides, what these poorer countries did with that plastic once they got it was of no western nation's inherent responsibility. In other words; buyer's responsibility.
I am glad you are being responsible and doing the homework on this video. The simple solutions never really are simple. In my opinion a group of psychologists well informed by scientists will be the most effective weapon against climate change.
Fertilizing oceans with iron that can and will strip the Earth's atmosphere free of carbon dioxide will be terrible for plant life for plants needs carbon dioxide to breath in in order to live AND PRODUCE FOODS AND MEDICINES for us! But it is an idea worth pursuing in a CONTAINED ENVIRONMENT where one is cultivating edible micro-algae such as chlorella and spirulina and scesdesmus and wolffia achira and duanellia and others and so forth and so on. Because if 1 kilogram of water soluble iron powder can produce 100,000 kilograms of plankton or edible micro-algae, then one can only imagine what positive effects it can do for food production.
darthvader5300 so don't put too much in? Edit: also, plant life etc seemed to have been able to survive before all this carbon dioxide was even extracted from the ground soooooo? Edit 2: aaannnnnnddddd I just watched the whole video. Good short term plan though lol, I guess...xd
@@hazzballgaming6790 These days there's just more of it available for more plants to be able to survive in, thus causing the earth to become increasingly verdant as a result.
@@darthvader5300 they want CO2 levels below 200 at 150ppm plants (and WE) DIE. There is no climate/CO2 crisis, thats a $$$ tax crisis, airliners intercontinental fly since 1952 in jetstream which destroys ozonelayer , now half of level 1960 (and jetstream) since 1960, that slows since 1960 gulfstream (slowest since 1600 years) which causes WEATHER not climate change. UVindex now double from last years heatwave summer, and UV destroys fytoplankton....so BAN intercontinental flights airlines in jetstream WORLWIDE....
There is another way that iron can be used to sequester carbon in the ocean. Mineral deposition through electrolysis has the ability to quickly store tones of carbon through the formation of calcium carbonate. This process can and already has been used to repair damaged reefs or create entirely new ones. Not only does this store carbon quickly, it promotes the growth of marine ecosystems that store even more carbon. Furthermore, the creation of marine ecosystems increases much needed fisheries that are needed to help feed a growing population.
4:12 these fellas are doing some serious experiments that involve wearing dustmasks when working with water, a piece of dry ice and 2 sorts of food coloring she probably has no clue about chemistry at all or she wouldnt be able to keep that serious face XD
Honestly, a 5% per yearly emissions century-long retention of carbon in the oceans would be useful. The big issue is the inertia of all the systems involved, including energy production, so anything that efficiently spreads the effect over a longer period is a positive. Though personally, I'm more interested in wave-driven open-ocean pumps.
There are still quite a few points missing from the equation. I'm missing the large oceanic currents in the picture, which would aid in the presence of increased productivity, simply for being in the right spot. This would also explain the reason why large areas simply aren't fertilized by the currents. It would explain the rather harsh dividing line between the north and south and the isolation of the southpole. Although briefed touched upon, I didn't see a picture depicting the yearly dust cloud from the sahara to the amazon which we now know to be one of the biggest influences on amazonian forests and life in general. But if anything, more plankton allows for more food in the foodchain and thus more sealife in general. More sealife is generally better for everybody.
I’m always amazed how you spent the first several minutes of this video answering the question “why does climate change exist?” down to the most fundamental levels.
2 points about Ammonia: * You can make the hydrogen in ammonia from renewable sources. * The Haber Bosch process is actually exothermic - the reaction produces energy
Scientific American, www.google.com/url?q=www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/ It was a dumb move yet shows what happens is an integrated, it's all connected deal.
@@tomcop668 True, it caused blooms yet they weren't at all beneficial vs acidification dissolving pteropds , over 10% population loss vs 1970's to salmon fry & juveniles their primary food in the PacNW with no end in sight. The only global scale counter to grind base pH rocks_to_flour into seas raises pH, it's plankton that RemoveCO2. If this isn't done when emissions finally end oceans outgas their excess CO2 stays above 400ppm >> 120,000yrs, try to drop it more req's grinding rocks or we're extinct in 3.5ky-5ky. Too bad, tis so sad. 🦕
@@tomcop668 No. There's far more life in the ocean than plankton and salmon. And it's all critical to the full ecosystem. You algefy the ocean you essentially destroy all other plant life that is CRITICAL habitat and food for basically everything in the ocean. It's called a food CHAIN for a reason.
As PhD and prof of chemistry, I suggest to treat iron ore with waste sulfuric acid ( already containing iron sulfate from production of titanium oxide pigment ), then increasing the pH with limestone and pour the still slightly acid slurry into the iron deficient seas away from corals. Main cost is transport. Although it would hardly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere , it would be biologically beneficial. And note that global warming is hardly caused by the anthropogenic increase in CO2 , but by cyclic solar activity, this goes against popular opinion and vested economic interests. Basic physics tell us that the temperature of the Earth is kept up to 2/3 by the varying Sun and to 1/3 by the practically constant decay of U and Th inside the Earth.
Just out of curiosity, does the iron have to be in the metallic form, or does plain iron oxides/hydroxides work? There's a huge difference in the resources needed to processes it. Also there are vast swaths of easily accessible iron ore, that aren't pure enough for refining, but presumably low grade ore, even full of contaminants like silicon, would be fine to spread.
Yes, because presumably if the natural process comes from deserts around the world, then it would follow that accelerating this process would also work (if more slowly than a more refined material).
i think hydroxides would work too because according to what the video said, researchers has been using iron that had been dissolved in sulfuric acid, and iron hydroxides can dissolve in sulfuric acid too so i guess solutions containing iron ions should suffice, whether if we should use fe2+ or fe3+, that i am unsure
I read this article when i had done project(innovative) on this topic during my college days.. After more study we conclude that though this process look good but it result in changing ecosystem of ocean and more algae bloom,invasion of microorganism and iron poisioning which kills ocean animals and corals.. The best way to tackle climate change is to use renewable energy more and using more efficient machines which runs on fossil fuels,growing trees and recently scientist researching to absorb carbon in atmosphere form into stones.. Dont know how reliable is.. Human thought he is better but he dug grave for himself.. What ever happen because of climate change, our earth survive and microbes to survive.. Our planet already saw five extinction.. If humans die new organism will born better than homio sapiens that is evolution. This video also reminds me about azola video.. Nice explantion sir.. You are awesome.. Thanks for the video..😀
Solar and wind are garbage. Nuclear is the only viable solution. Yes, solar/wind produce more waste. The Fukushima Exclusion zone is less radioactive than Denver. Even at the worst case scenario for Chernobyl nuclear is a factor of 10 times safer than solar and a factor of 100,000 times safer than coal. Entire us solar capacity = 2 GW nuclear plant. most of this energy is provided when it is not needed which artificially deflates the price of solar. Adding nuclear to the grid increases supply 24 hrs a day reducing price across the board. Economies that rely on solar/wind suffer from having coal/nat gas plants which struggle to profit, during times when solar/wind are off (literally every single day at some point every day) people end up paying ridiculous amounts for electricity. Solar produces 300 times more waste than nuclear and panels have a half life of 30 years. A solid nuclear plant can last 80 years. Cost per GW in China,South Korea, and France is 3 billion and dropping, this is easily achievable or we can contract France to build for us. The time for the nuclear age is now. bitch ass solar and wind do nothing but cause problems and delay the solution. What to do with waste? up your ass. No seriously, steel barrels. It's solid material, it won't fly off. Nuclear when it goes wrong is better than solar when it goes wrong is better than coal when it goes right.
@@stevenutter3614 hey metal head.. I understood what he said.. If you dont understand,your head is garbage.. This is science channel dont use swear word.. If you are smart go and act somewhere else...
@@xvladdy5928 hey.. What up with you? You internet bullies wont accept if others speak english.. You better use swear word somewhere else. I dont want to spend time with you bullies..
An idea I had a while back: you could make something similar to the machines being developed to collect plastic from the ocean and use it to collect algae from dead zones (where the process described in the video caused out of control algae growth to kill everything else), the local tourism industry or government could pay for it (dead fish don't exactly attract tourists, so they would have a reason for it). There are a lot of ideas to use algae to make more environmentally friendly products, so you'd have plenty of uses for it, and if you still can't find a place to put it, you can just dump it in the high seas where it would be unlikely to cause a dead zone
This. Think of the possibilities for the food chain. Can algae be fermented and turned into plant food? Or dried and burned as cooking or heating fuel?
Ok, sarcasm aside, duh its water and food coloring. I'm merely commenting on the absurdity of mixing random amounts of chemicals with no concern for the size or scope of the reaction. How it's always showing science as swishing some liquids about it a shaped container
You are perhaps one of the most informative channels in UA-cam. When I saw you only had 26k subscribers, I was slightly shocked that you didn’t have more, so I subscribed. In addition, I was kind of angry because you deserved more, thus I subscribed, now you have 193k. Well done, and keep up the good work.
I think a lot. But you remember that the basic idea was to reduce the amount of CO2 which catching fish would counter because the CO2 would stay in the biosphere. One point he forgot to mention was that plankton rarely makes it down to the bottom of the sea while fish etc. make up the majority of the sediments.
* "...unfortunately, sometimes those people need a reliable source of income to support themselves..." And there you have it~ Imagine how much 'science' started with this exact motivator~ 'Scientism' meets Economics; 1. Begin with a Hypothesis and Conjecture, 2. Toss in a splash of Alarmism, 3. Offer a possible solution (cloaked within polished, sophisticated presentation), 4. Seek and secure funding. * This is a classic example of Marketing 101 - "Recognize a problem, create a sense of urgency, offer the best solution." Nothing seems more 'reasonable' than to observe humans speculate, convince the masses of a problem, take some radical/risky action, only to find out they were wrong. (Gambling) It's one thing to experiment on a small scale, but when it goes global and government policy is mandated (funding), only time will prove if the 'professionals' got it wrong... or right. Will humans ever learn to stop playing God, as if to know what's best? Certainly not when there's a profit to be made... Greed is a powerful and dangerous sin.
Would you mind creating a playlist for all your environmental videos? It would make some of these amazing videos so much easier to find! Love the video and thank you! I learned so much in just a few minutes ^v^
>Accidentally did climate enginnering >Oh no, we dont know much at all, we must reverse it >Intentionally do climate enginnering >Expect things to be alright.
@@TomMKW I mean if your specie is still struggling at creating a mechnical system that is either maintainence free or completely self maintaining for the next several millennia in order to perform these kind of "simple" planetary engineering projects, it might be a hint to just learn more about it before trying.
@@TomMKW If the "wait" can makes you go extinct then may be your priority should be improving your tech so that you wont first, THEN think about how to fix it long term. Because you are not going to be fast enough. Get that fusion power working and full automation first before start putting iron in your water and hope that you could might be saved in 3000 years.
@@memk i never said to not invest into technology. There's absolutely no reason we can't be doing both at the same time. Truth is, the longer we wait to adress the problem the bigger it's going to be in the future and the more it will end up costing. But i guess you don't mind and just want to leave the next generation with the costs while you try to live guilt free by rationalizing your idea what we're doing now aint bad.
1: Take iron-rich meteoroids and plunge them into the iron-depleted parts of the ocean. 2: The meteoroids slowly dissolve in the ocean and release iron alongside other minerals. 3: ????? 4: Profit!
The main problem here is: solid clumps of iron sink to the bottom of the ocean, while the iron is needed in the upper layers where the sunlight supports cyanobacterial/phytoplanktonic growth.
@@jade4781 To be fair, there are languages that can/could express new concepts without foreign words. Icelandic, Inuktitut, German, Chinese and many others. Some of them use foreign words anyway, though.
@@hobog I don't mean coastal release. I mean deep sea pumps. We use tankers to harvest the methane and release the material once spent into the oceans. The algae blooms and the material enters the food chain safely.
Carbon gets absorbed to ocean... Fish: We're choking... Toxic fish: Alright, more mutation fuel. Planktons: Our time has come to blot out the sun! Bacteria: Excellent.
No. This is not a good idea. I remember this being discussed in my biological oceanography class a few years back. Doing this would create extensive anoxic zones in the ocean
The red sands of the Sahara contain lots of Iron oxide. The Atlantic is being seeded by the massive dust storms. Umm why don't we add ferric oxide to plastic bags? The iron will be released as the plastic decays. See if you can beat me to the patent office hehe.
Thank you. There was a video recently (can't remember the channel) that proposed this. At the time I was very skeptical, but I couldn't find anything to debunk the Fe seeding plan. You have clarified it perfectly.
I'm addicted to your channel! Thank you so much! if only science had been taught like this at school. I'd love to see a video about kelp if you feel inspired! : )
This is an outstanding video. Thank you. As a general oceanographer (phys + chem + bio) who specialized in applied maths and theoretical physics for the oceans, I miss (and this is not a criticism to this video) seeing content that combines these areas in a truly interdisciplinary way - for example, coupling mathematical simulations of ocean currents with nutrients transport and phyto- and zooplankton ecology (also higher trophic levels). From my experience in this field (~15 years), most physics people don't usually relate with biology and most biology people don't go deep into physics. Also, the way science believes turbulent (chaotic) fluids behave is a guess - a very good one, but nevertheless a guess. This was considered by the famous physicists Richard Feynman as "the oldest unsolved problem in classical physics" (there's literally a US$1 million prize for who solves fluid flow even before taking turbulence and chaotic behaviour into account). In my humble opinion - if anyone ever reads this -, mankind should (1) dive deeper into the theory of fluids to have a better grasp on how diffusion of mass/momentum/energy occurs, (2) develop compatible software to simulate this theoretical framework, and (3) fill the gap of truly interdisciplinary professionals and applications - only then we as mankind would really know whether it would be safe to test geoengineering alternatives on larger scales. This not to mention ethical implications and the fact that many nations would probably not cut the problem from the root (they would probably not stop messing with the environment) if science found a way to "remediate" it. And even if all of these gaps were filled, the chaotic behaviour of fluids (a very precisely defined and unquestionable mathematical fact) would disable science predict the oceans'/atmosphere's state much long into the future. The only true solution for Earth, in my humble opinion, in this anthropocene is: leave Earth be (!) - and get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible!
My Idea has always been to put the ash from the coal burners into the oceans deserts. It has all the nutrients and not only the iron so other nutrients wont lead to deficiency. Even if it doesnt lead to a significant CO2 reduction, it would lead to a lot of increased in marine life and seafood.
@@jimbosavage “The process of burning coal at coal-fired power plants, called combustion, creates wastes that contain small amounts of naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM). Generally, these wastes are only slightly more radioactive than the average soil in the United States. The amount of natural radiation in wastes from coal-fired power plants is so small that no precautions need to be taken.” Negligible amount.
It doesn't really affect the pacific as a whole, it's way too big. During the early days of nuclear power they just dumped the waste into the oceans since it dissolves in so much water that you are left pretty much just background radiation again. I'm not defending this as a good thing, they banned this practice for a reason, the point is that the ocean used to be systematically bombarded with nuclear waste of many nuclear plants and Fukushima is just one power plant that had a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly).
@@thulyblu5486 The problem is that once you do some research on the health you start to hear about horror stories. Like whales being seen with massive tumors and the declining population of orcas in the pacific ocean. The problem is that this is the worst nuclear disaster since chernobyl but now instead of the radiation being contained its seeping into the ocean and has been for over 7 years. Something like this has never happened in the history of mankind and I truly believe that more people should talk about it.
@@detachsoup6061 looking at the stories told by fisherman about what they see on the pacific ocean is more than enough proof that something is really really wrong.
Igor Katchkin yess a lot is very wrong with our oceans, but you cant link it to fukisima, also in whole japan only 1 person died due this radiation, and yess people dont live in the ocean, but the effect should be more notible if it would be so bad. Fukisima was a horrible diseaster but it has been seemed worse than it is, nuclear energy is a the best energy for place without major natural diseaster, modern nuclear reactors are super safe and tjernobyl isnt a relevant argument, the earthquake in japan was one of the strongest ever notice by humans, so its not likely to ever happen again.
There is a channel called PBS eon that explained why Andes caused mass extinction over time to marine life. Short story, it caused iron to seep to the ocean, but it's not just plankton that benefit from it, but also toxic algae
As long as it doesn't result in me having to pay an unfair about in "Carbon Taxes" I say it's worth the attempt, I just don't need my life being taxed even more as I'm already struggling as it is. Hopefully we can encourage more and more kids into STEM fields to find ways to actually affect the process without undue stress upon the poor and middle classes.
I have a theory... I don’t think as much iron would be needed as you stated was calculated. Phytoplankton are a key 1st step in the marine food chain. If you could build an ecosystem with kelp, fish & other marine life where you intend to put the iron. It would become self sustaining ecosystem as the fish eat the plankton, they deposit fertiliser (poo) on the kelp (which also helps convert CO2 to O2), I believe the kelp naturally draws up iron from the bed. Then when bits of the the kelp decompose, they will break down further helping the phytoplankton in a positive feedback loop. The scientists just need to carefully select the plants fish & organisms to create the positive feedback ecosystem.
As for where to get the processed iron all you need to do is go to an integrated steel mill. When they blow a heat in the oxygen furnace a scrubber called a precipitator pulls out fine iron oxide from the escaping heated air mass, and does so by the ton. The one I worked at disposed of at least twenty bags (2 ton each) daily.
RUST -- TETANUS -- Only in regulated, contained areas -- potentially in ponds IF AND ONLY IF neighboring watershed is monitored and expert enough to neutralize chemical emergencies
Just get started fertilizing now! Climate change if far worse already than most people realize. The worst part is aridification from changing weather patterns causing major rivers & reservoirs around the world to drop significantly. Rainfall is now too sporadic, falling hard in some places causing flood damage while most places are not getting enough. A partial list of locations around the world becoming increasingly arid are: US Southwest, parts of China, Italy, France, Portugal, Chile, and many others.
As a result it destroys reefs, everybody likes to hate on America for not being green enough when China literally does not care about the environment they dump garbage and chemicals into their rivers and put zero effort to reduce their carbon emissions
Info is off in this video. Do your own research. Carbon is cyclical and cam be tracked in the ice samples from Antartica. Carbon would still be rising regardless of human influence.
Ironically, the wrecks of the titanic and lusitania are exactly in the locations of the two cooling loops of the AMOC, like a hint to drop some metal there to increase cloud cover via dsm etc.
Now I'm curious about the effects shipwrecks have at their surrounding.
A ton of ocean life thrives as a result. Take a peek around there's tons of videos
Sometimes a ship is sunk on purpose to create habitats for fish, but yeah I guess it'll help in more than one way
@@HUGOGARCAO Awesome!
I was thinking the same thing lel. I guess unless it contains oil, it'll rust into a biome
ok now i want to know approx. how much weight a shipwreck loses per, let's say a decade, to the process of the steel hull slowly dissolving into the water.
This reminds me of the Human's solution in Futurama: Just drop a Giant Ice cube to the Sea.
Or that episode when they repelled an incoming giant trash ball with another giant trash ball
God, loved those series
Tow a chunk of ice from the kuiper belt and have it crash into Antarctica
Rain The Draconic that would actually create a lot of heat as it crashes down actually causing ALOT more harm than good
@@lukereich3536 that's hilarious
Thus solving the problem once and for all
Little girl: But...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Fe-rtilize
You my friend... are a genius
Best comment of the week
A very "periodic" comment.
Omg
LlamaStein, I feel the iron-y.
*Plankton wants to know your secret recipe's location*
It's iron make sure you don't get anemia.
I think it’s in the Krusty Krab
Oh no, we've doomed the planet, what do we do?
Some guy: Why don't we give the ocean some vitamins
Hahah this genuinely made me laugh. Thanks
Underrated comment😂
Can you IMAGINE the amount of conspiracy theories that will spring up around this if this is ever put into practice...
Mistaken Rants . Consider the conspiracy required to not do it. By far the easiest and cheapest mitagation if CO2.
@@thebeautifulones5436 did 6ou not watch the end of the video? This would barley put a dent in our carbon emissions.
@snowpiercer
@@macaroon_nuggets8008 Even if most of the carbon is released over time, that would still help buy us more time to implement other measures. Humans love putting debts on future generations, might as well get a climate loan so we have time to figure out how to get rid of the CO2 for good.
I think Bill Gates sponsored this video
I’m glad I discovered you channel! The videos are extremely well made and interesting. It’s nice to see that you’ve gone from 18k subs to 180k+!
My mind is still blown that he does not have 100 million+ subscribers.
Miao!
hmm throwing terms like 'hit by meteors' instead of explaining the hypothesis to it which is what it is and the likes of the conflicting ice age phase hypothesis. seems a vague explanation to it all, he wont explain why or how there is 1% argon in our atmosphere as its not important, yet the 0.0002% of methane is?
@@Dockhead argon is a noble gas. It does not react with much. Methane on the other hand is a very potent greenhouse gas and an organic compound.
And anyway you shouldn't look at how much of a percentage a gas is in the atmosphere but how much we are releasing into the atmosphere.
Unless you you don't think humans cause climate change. But then I think your on the wrong channel.
💯 million coming soon.
The total amount of iron needed to treat the ocean is relatively small so I question the offset numbers. Additionally it has been shown that there is increased growth in fish life which would be a definite positive as they are being depleted . Sounds like a win win to me.
Don't living things need sunlight to survive?
What happens when this large algae blanket blots out the sun on kilometres of ocean surface?
Nah... she'll be right mate! Algal bloom is always a boon for the environments that it occurs in! 👍👍😎
@@wormbo2 Yeah, algae blooms are really bad, but these regions are already almost depleted of life so I don't see how it could be so bad, if done properly.
@@ronaldovargaslopes5919 still, manmade algae blooms on such a large scale even on scarcely-populated ocean areas can have unforeseeable consequences. The main problem with this proposal is that its consequences can't be measured easily via smaller-scale experiments, so it's a pretty big risk to just create algae blooms willy-nilly. I don't think scientists are wrong to be cautious or dubious of this approach
What could go wrong? Just 1/3 of the world's waters turning to blood. Hmm! Wonder where I have heard that before?
No biggie! Beautiful Blue Carrribean waters are so overrated. We are going to risk everything on this next new thing some group came up with. What's really amazing to me is the number of people applauding this idea and not falling out their chair in shock that this is even being discussed as "options to save the planet".
@@iCarus_A yes but compared to what? We are talking about mass desertification along the equator, potential releases of enormous amounts of methane in the permafrost and the melting of the arctic as major feedback effects amplifying our existing warming to catastrophic levels - we're talking about near human extinction, and if not that then superhurricanes and the melting of glaciers causing serious geopolitical instability and mass migration that no country can handle.
The effects on the local flora and fauna in the ocean are not a major concern in comparison...
"1% argon but that's not really important"
Argon: :(
=ARGON IS INERT SO IT DOESNT CARE ABOUT THAT
=HEHE
@@robotnikkkk001it cares, it just can’t do anything, cause it’s inert.
Considering how much xenon effects us, I wouldn't count argon out without some studying
We iron seeded off the coast of British Columbia and it restored the salmon stock to the greatest catch levels in the last hundred years! It also deposited a lot of carbon into the ocean as shells.
If someone already does that and it works, then we should do more of that
Why have I never heard of it? U would think any video mentioning overfishing would mention this as a partial answer. I see ur comment 3 years old. Do they still dumb iron shavings in ocean to raise ocean life?
I just watched the video of the guys who led that experiment and he claims that the Canadian gov sent a swat team to the facility they were at and took all their research
if this is the case for you lot, imma eventually try that in my country too and hopefully we can eventually get better fish yield too
@@nikitaw1982 ua-cam.com/video/i4Hnv_ZJSQY/v-deo.html
Well plastic don't work , lets give iron a try !
A bulk of plastic pollution comes from Asia and Africa, by the way.
@@Iamwolf134
Then we need bacteria that can consume the plastic.
I believe there is at least one species.
@@Iamwolf134 this is because a lot of more modern countries have shipped plastic to that area; all the while those nations have become increasingly modern and populous.
@@butterman0007 Even that's only because those areas chose to have western countries ship that plastic into them. Besides, what these poorer countries did with that plastic once they got it was of no western nation's inherent responsibility. In other words; buyer's responsibility.
@@Iamwolf134 well I don't know about you but if I buy a gun and end up shooting my fingers I'm going to sue a Pianist
2:42 "Oh yeah almost 1 percent Argon but that's not really important"
I laugh harder than i need to
Well it never is.
tbf it's a noble gas what're you gonna do with it
Just bring some villagers and make an iron golem farm
Y
Got nerfed :(
Add some lava ... to harvest the iron.
You need to do something about all those flowers/roses, however.
@@zeryphex use those to stop desertification by planting them in the desert
@@akaeru1071 rip
I am glad you are being responsible and doing the homework on this video. The simple solutions never really are simple. In my opinion a group of psychologists well informed by scientists will be the most effective weapon against climate change.
Yeah psychologists scientists could solve to by telling everyone it is bullshit
Would be neat if everyone involved were also completely unbiased, to the point that they have to sign waivers on it (just to make sure).
So humans Have been playing the LONGEST *UNO* GAME ever
Plankton: “alright Co2 is kinda gone”
Humans:”REVERSE CARD”
Capitalism: *+25 cards and skip next player*
@@gearandalthefirst7027 Return your phone idiot
@@riche3244 based
“And yep you guessed it” no I really didn’t
lol true
BITCH YOU GUESSED IT!!! XD you was riiight...
can save the earth by fertilizing oceans with iron: "well yes but actually no"
navy war for life
Fertilizing oceans with iron that can and will strip the Earth's atmosphere free of carbon dioxide will be terrible for plant life for plants needs carbon dioxide to breath in in order to live AND PRODUCE FOODS AND MEDICINES for us! But it is an idea worth pursuing in a CONTAINED ENVIRONMENT where one is cultivating edible micro-algae such as chlorella and spirulina and scesdesmus and wolffia achira and duanellia and others and so forth and so on. Because if 1 kilogram of water soluble iron powder can produce 100,000 kilograms of plankton or edible micro-algae, then one can only imagine what positive effects it can do for food production.
darthvader5300 so don't put too much in?
Edit: also, plant life etc seemed to have been able to survive before all this carbon dioxide was even extracted from the ground soooooo?
Edit 2: aaannnnnnddddd I just watched the whole video. Good short term plan though lol, I guess...xd
@@hazzballgaming6790 These days there's just more of it available for more plants to be able to survive in, thus causing the earth to become increasingly verdant as a result.
@@darthvader5300 they want CO2 levels below 200 at 150ppm plants (and WE) DIE. There is no climate/CO2 crisis, thats a $$$ tax crisis, airliners intercontinental fly since 1952 in jetstream which destroys ozonelayer , now half of level 1960 (and jetstream) since 1960, that slows since 1960 gulfstream (slowest since 1600 years) which causes WEATHER not climate change. UVindex now double from last years heatwave summer, and UV destroys fytoplankton....so BAN intercontinental flights airlines in jetstream WORLWIDE....
I don't know. It sounds a bit rusty to me.
(I had to, sorry)
I hate you now ;)
Plankton: ok I think that’s the last box of co2
Humans already burning the boxes: hehe
There is another way that iron can be used to sequester carbon in the ocean.
Mineral deposition through electrolysis has the ability to quickly store tones of carbon through the formation of calcium carbonate. This process can and already has been used to repair damaged reefs or create entirely new ones. Not only does this store carbon quickly, it promotes the growth of marine ecosystems that store even more carbon. Furthermore, the creation of marine ecosystems increases much needed fisheries that are needed to help feed a growing population.
4:12 these fellas are doing some serious experiments that involve wearing dustmasks when working with water, a piece of dry ice and 2 sorts of food coloring
she probably has no clue about chemistry at all or she wouldnt be able to keep that serious face XD
OMG I'm mixing yellow water with green water ! OMG ! Science is so coool ! I'm must take a picture for Instagram !
Fe-llas
Oh the irony
Are you going to discuss the transaqua project for Africa.
The megaproject to restore lake Chad.
What happened to the lake
@@talentleesdorito9771 they used most of it up
@@talentleesdorito9771 Mainly climate change.
@@dantew5810 it's not climate change though is it? It's cotton farming, no?
@@walruspanda8768 That's the Aral Sea you are thinking of. The same happend to that lake.
Honestly, a 5% per yearly emissions century-long retention of carbon in the oceans would be useful. The big issue is the inertia of all the systems involved, including energy production, so anything that efficiently spreads the effect over a longer period is a positive.
Though personally, I'm more interested in wave-driven open-ocean pumps.
It's not 5% it's 0.05% (that's 1 half of 1 percent)
And if we remember how americans were smart enough to make lead gasoline and create ozone holes we could only imagine how screwed ocean could get.
There are still quite a few points missing from the equation.
I'm missing the large oceanic currents in the picture, which would aid in the presence of increased productivity, simply for being in the right spot. This would also explain the reason why large areas simply aren't fertilized by the currents. It would explain the rather harsh dividing line between the north and south and the isolation of the southpole. Although briefed touched upon, I didn't see a picture depicting the yearly dust cloud from the sahara to the amazon which we now know to be one of the biggest influences on amazonian forests and life in general.
But if anything, more plankton allows for more food in the foodchain and thus more sealife in general. More sealife is generally better for everybody.
@@kylorenkardashian79 0.05 is not half of one percent its half of 0.1 percent
I’m always amazed how you spent the first several minutes of this video answering the question “why does climate change exist?” down to the most fundamental levels.
4:15 "What do scientists do?" --> mix green water with yellow water and a pebble of dry ice to seem cool
That's actually the cure for cancer!
And they succeeded at it.
Wouldn’t this draw all the oxygen from the water? Oxygen deprivation and fish death is common when lakes are polluted by nutrients
"Such as not doing this as much, or promising to hardly do this at all in the future but doing just as much now"
Haha :D
Love your videos!
The problem is not the method as much as the lack of will to actually do it.
2 points about Ammonia:
* You can make the hydrogen in ammonia from renewable sources.
* The Haber Bosch process is actually exothermic - the reaction produces energy
Correct but it also requires s high input energy. Also most renewable sources are inefficient
That was one of the more educational videos on something that's very pertinent to me that I've ever seen!!! Bravo bravo keep up the great work
First channel I subscribed in UA-cam❤️
This channel deserves atleast 1M subscribers 👍🏻
This was done by an individual and totally messed with the local marine life off British Columbia, it's worth researching that incident ...
THANK YOU. I was wondering about just such a thing.
Scientific American, www.google.com/url?q=www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/
It was a dumb move yet shows what happens is an integrated, it's all connected deal.
It was a success that resulted in a big bump up of Salmon. Plankton increase causes an increase in marine life.
@@tomcop668 True, it caused blooms yet they weren't at all beneficial vs acidification dissolving pteropds , over 10% population loss vs 1970's to salmon fry & juveniles their primary food in the PacNW with no end in sight.
The only global scale counter to grind base pH rocks_to_flour into seas raises pH, it's plankton that RemoveCO2. If this isn't done when emissions finally end oceans outgas their excess CO2 stays above 400ppm >> 120,000yrs, try to drop it more req's grinding rocks or we're extinct in 3.5ky-5ky.
Too bad, tis so sad.
🦕
@@tomcop668 No. There's far more life in the ocean than plankton and salmon. And it's all critical to the full ecosystem. You algefy the ocean you essentially destroy all other plant life that is CRITICAL habitat and food for basically everything in the ocean. It's called a food CHAIN for a reason.
1:17
Hey, I know where that is! It's Kaupanger, Norway!
Fantastic! (I'm Norwegian)
well explained , i studied ecology and that was perfect !! thanks
I read about this a long time ago. The name of the article was something like, “Give me a tanker of iron and I’ll give you an ice age.”
As PhD and prof of chemistry, I suggest to treat iron ore with waste sulfuric acid ( already containing iron sulfate from production of titanium oxide pigment ), then increasing the pH with limestone and pour the still slightly acid slurry into the iron deficient seas away from corals. Main cost is transport. Although it would hardly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere , it would be biologically beneficial. And note that global warming is hardly caused by the anthropogenic increase in CO2 , but by cyclic solar activity, this goes against popular opinion and vested economic interests. Basic physics tell us that the temperature of the Earth is kept up to 2/3 by the varying Sun and to 1/3 by the practically constant decay of U and Th inside the Earth.
Thank you!!!
Just out of curiosity, does the iron have to be in the metallic form, or does plain iron oxides/hydroxides work? There's a huge difference in the resources needed to processes it. Also there are vast swaths of easily accessible iron ore, that aren't pure enough for refining, but presumably low grade ore, even full of contaminants like silicon, would be fine to spread.
ua-cam.com/video/i4Hnv_ZJSQY/v-deo.html
Yes, because presumably if the natural process comes from deserts around the world, then it would follow that accelerating this process would also work (if more slowly than a more refined material).
Oceon pasture restoration. Its already underway and it works.
i think hydroxides would work too because according to what the video said, researchers has been using iron that had been dissolved in sulfuric acid, and iron hydroxides can dissolve in sulfuric acid too
so i guess solutions containing iron ions should suffice, whether if we should use fe2+ or fe3+, that i am unsure
I read this article when i had done project(innovative) on this topic during my college days.. After more study we conclude that though this process look good but it result in changing ecosystem of ocean and more algae bloom,invasion of microorganism and iron poisioning which kills ocean animals and corals.. The best way to tackle climate change is to use renewable energy more and using more efficient machines which runs on fossil fuels,growing trees and recently scientist researching to absorb carbon in atmosphere form into stones.. Dont know how reliable is..
Human thought he is better but he dug grave for himself.. What ever happen because of climate change, our earth survive and microbes to survive.. Our planet already saw five extinction.. If humans die new organism will born better than homio sapiens that is evolution.
This video also reminds me about azola video.. Nice explantion sir.. You are awesome.. Thanks for the video..😀
Solar and wind are garbage. Nuclear is the only viable solution.
Yes, solar/wind produce more waste.
The Fukushima Exclusion zone is less radioactive than Denver.
Even at the worst case scenario for Chernobyl nuclear is a factor of 10 times safer than solar and a factor of 100,000 times safer than coal.
Entire us solar capacity = 2 GW nuclear plant.
most of this energy is provided when it is not needed which artificially deflates the price of solar.
Adding nuclear to the grid increases supply 24 hrs a day reducing price across the board.
Economies that rely on solar/wind suffer from having coal/nat gas plants which struggle to profit, during times when solar/wind are off (literally every single day at some point every day) people end up paying ridiculous amounts for electricity.
Solar produces 300 times more waste than nuclear and panels have a half life of 30 years.
A solid nuclear plant can last 80 years.
Cost per GW in China,South Korea, and France is 3 billion and dropping, this is easily achievable or we can contract France to build for us.
The time for the nuclear age is now. bitch ass solar and wind do nothing but cause problems and delay the solution.
What to do with waste? up your ass. No seriously, steel barrels. It's solid material, it won't fly off.
Nuclear when it goes wrong is better than solar when it goes wrong is better than coal when it goes right.
Show some respect for the bilingual among us
@@stevenutter3614 hey metal head.. I understood what he said.. If you dont understand,your head is garbage.. This is science channel dont use swear word.. If you are smart go and act somewhere else...
@@rohannapthali1658 as a bilingual, that comment was hard as fuck to read. Didn't have to wash my eyes after that though, so that's a plus.
@@xvladdy5928 hey.. What up with you? You internet bullies wont accept if others speak english.. You better use swear word somewhere else. I dont want to spend time with you bullies..
"Almost one percent _are gone_ (Argon)"
There's a pun in there somewhere, I just can't shoe horn it not can I even find it.
So what you say is: We need a giant Iron-Comet falling in the pacific ocean.
An idea I had a while back: you could make something similar to the machines being developed to collect plastic from the ocean and use it to collect algae from dead zones (where the process described in the video caused out of control algae growth to kill everything else), the local tourism industry or government could pay for it (dead fish don't exactly attract tourists, so they would have a reason for it). There are a lot of ideas to use algae to make more environmentally friendly products, so you'd have plenty of uses for it, and if you still can't find a place to put it, you can just dump it in the high seas where it would be unlikely to cause a dead zone
This. Think of the possibilities for the food chain. Can algae be fermented and turned into plant food? Or dried and burned as cooking or heating fuel?
4:12...that “have to kill batman” eyes
I love the generic science video clips just mixing random chemicals with no measurements...
water and food coloring
No way, really?!....
@@matanuskabutler7566 and dry ice, im positive
dustmasks are also very useful
Ok, sarcasm aside, duh its water and food coloring. I'm merely commenting on the absurdity of mixing random amounts of chemicals with no concern for the size or scope of the reaction. How it's always showing science as swishing some liquids about it a shaped container
@@matanuskabutler7566 i know :p
You are perhaps one of the most informative channels in UA-cam. When I saw you only had 26k subscribers, I was slightly shocked that you didn’t have more, so I subscribed. In addition, I was kind of angry because you deserved more, thus I subscribed, now you have 193k. Well done, and keep up the good work.
So you're saying you're 167k people? :P
Up to 1.05 million now
Iron also acts as a catalyst for the Haber process. This results in the increase of ammonia. therefore, increase in nutrients.
Yepp, plenty of fish is a side-effect
ua-cam.com/video/i4Hnv_ZJSQY/v-deo.html
Titanic sank
The organism deprived of iron: IRON IS BACK ON THE MENU BOYS
I had an idea.. human contains irons, why dont we dump humans into the ocean?! Thank me later.
lol
Need more minds like yours working on these tough global problems
I believe the Geneva convention restricts this under the conclusion of 'dude!' and the UN treaty of 'Bruh, seriously'.
That's where I plan on going when I'm done with my meat sack...
you first
I'm curious to know how much more food we would be able to fish from this fertilized ocean. Any studies on that related to this iron thing?
The guy in this video mentions something about it ua-cam.com/video/i4Hnv_ZJSQY/v-deo.html
I think a lot. But you remember that the basic idea was to reduce the amount of CO2 which catching fish would counter because the CO2 would stay in the biosphere.
One point he forgot to mention was that plankton rarely makes it down to the bottom of the sea while fish etc. make up the majority of the sediments.
Very informative video. Thank you for uploading. Hope you get more recognition!!!
* "...unfortunately, sometimes those people need a reliable source of income to support themselves..." And there you have it~
Imagine how much 'science' started with this exact motivator~
'Scientism' meets Economics;
1. Begin with a Hypothesis and Conjecture,
2. Toss in a splash of Alarmism,
3. Offer a possible solution (cloaked within polished, sophisticated presentation),
4. Seek and secure funding. *
This is a classic example of Marketing 101 - "Recognize a problem, create a sense of urgency, offer the best solution."
Nothing seems more 'reasonable' than to observe humans speculate, convince the masses of a problem, take some radical/risky action, only to find out they were wrong. (Gambling)
It's one thing to experiment on a small scale, but when it goes global and government policy is mandated (funding), only time will prove if the 'professionals' got it wrong... or right.
Will humans ever learn to stop playing God, as if to know what's best? Certainly not when there's a profit to be made... Greed is a powerful and dangerous sin.
Would you mind creating a playlist for all your environmental videos? It would make some of these amazing videos so much easier to find! Love the video and thank you! I learned so much in just a few minutes ^v^
>Accidentally did climate enginnering
>Oh no, we dont know much at all, we must reverse it
>Intentionally do climate enginnering
>Expect things to be alright.
?
@@TomMKW I mean if your specie is still struggling at creating a mechnical system that is either maintainence free or completely self maintaining for the next several millennia in order to perform these kind of "simple" planetary engineering projects, it might be a hint to just learn more about it before trying.
@@memk yeah let's just wait until we are extinct before we start trying to solve the problem. this has to be the stupidest comment i have ever read.
@@TomMKW If the "wait" can makes you go extinct then may be your priority should be improving your tech so that you wont first, THEN think about how to fix it long term. Because you are not going to be fast enough. Get that fusion power working and full automation first before start putting iron in your water and hope that you could might be saved in 3000 years.
@@memk i never said to not invest into technology. There's absolutely no reason we can't be doing both at the same time. Truth is, the longer we wait to adress the problem the bigger it's going to be in the future and the more it will end up costing. But i guess you don't mind and just want to leave the next generation with the costs while you try to live guilt free by rationalizing your idea what we're doing now aint bad.
Good timing, just as i finished watching all his other videos
1: Take iron-rich meteoroids and plunge them into the iron-depleted parts of the ocean.
2: The meteoroids slowly dissolve in the ocean and release iron alongside other minerals.
3: ?????
4: Profit!
That's how mafia works.
The main problem here is: solid clumps of iron sink to the bottom of the ocean, while the iron is needed in the upper layers where the sunlight supports cyanobacterial/phytoplanktonic growth.
@@SeaUrchinZone exactly. Iron would have to float like an icecube. Maybe it can be combined with lighter materials to make that happen. *shrug*
@@SeaUrchinZone that's where the ????? comes in
Yeah: add balloons for floating, place over deep see and sink when ready.
the format and infos is sick!! keep up that work you're awesome!!!
The quality of the comments reflects the quality of your videos. These are the best comments I've seen on any UA-cam video!
420'000 years
damn *earth is dope*
Earth smoke dank
Nice
Nice
>or in english
>uses a term conjured from two greek words
Its almost like thats how language works
YellowBanan Yeah.. it’s almost like English takes words from other languages and makes it into their proper pronunciation.. weird..
@@jade4781 To be fair, there are languages that can/could express new concepts without foreign words. Icelandic, Inuktitut, German, Chinese and many others. Some of them use foreign words anyway, though.
I was wondering why we don't do this with food waste and human waste.
Thanks for the insight!
tried that for loooong time back before we used sewage treatment
@@hobog
I don't mean coastal release.
I mean deep sea pumps.
We use tankers to harvest the methane and release the material once spent into the oceans.
The algae blooms and the material enters the food chain safely.
1:15 Respiration is the process of breaking organic molecules apart (oxidization), the word you were thinking of is biosynthesis.
You see my profile picture?
This is an Iron reef now.
Carbon gets absorbed to ocean...
Fish: We're choking...
Toxic fish: Alright, more mutation fuel.
Planktons: Our time has come to blot out the sun!
Bacteria: Excellent.
Fish breath oxygen. Plankton can't blot out the sun either. Just saying
What's mutation fuel? Iron isn't radioactive. Never mind
@@travishartman5662 Whoosh
No. This is not a good idea. I remember this being discussed in my biological oceanography class a few years back. Doing this would create extensive anoxic zones in the ocean
The red sands of the Sahara contain lots of Iron oxide. The Atlantic is being seeded by the massive dust storms.
Umm why don't we add ferric oxide to plastic bags? The iron will be released as the plastic decays. See if you can beat me to the patent office hehe.
As the plastic decays? So after more than 100 years?
Alex Flügge well China and India aren’t going to stop dumping the shit into the ocean, so at least make it have some sort of positive impact.
Thank you. There was a video recently (can't remember the channel) that proposed this. At the time I was very skeptical, but I couldn't find anything to debunk the Fe seeding plan. You have clarified it perfectly.
We need to keep testing and researching this. It's huge
Steve would be mining the ocean.
No because of all the drowned in it
@@rydemk4168 then make it peaceful durr
starkgalaxy131 then he would drown
Respiration helmet?
You've seen Iron-Man
Now get ready for...
Iron fish?
Plankton Man?
AIDS.
Hey Wendover should do boats, He’s already behind
Hes all about airplanes, air ports and Toyota Corollas. I guess he could squeeze boats in
@@petercarioscia9189 hey, wait a minute.....!
it's ok to smirk Toyota Corollas are RealLifeLore
I'm addicted to your channel! Thank you so much! if only science had been taught like this at school. I'd love to see a video about kelp if you feel inspired! : )
This is an outstanding video. Thank you. As a general oceanographer (phys + chem + bio) who specialized in applied maths and theoretical physics for the oceans, I miss (and this is not a criticism to this video) seeing content that combines these areas in a truly interdisciplinary way - for example, coupling mathematical simulations of ocean currents with nutrients transport and phyto- and zooplankton ecology (also higher trophic levels). From my experience in this field (~15 years), most physics people don't usually relate with biology and most biology people don't go deep into physics. Also, the way science believes turbulent (chaotic) fluids behave is a guess - a very good one, but nevertheless a guess. This was considered by the famous physicists Richard Feynman as "the oldest unsolved problem in classical physics" (there's literally a US$1 million prize for who solves fluid flow even before taking turbulence and chaotic behaviour into account). In my humble opinion - if anyone ever reads this -, mankind should (1) dive deeper into the theory of fluids to have a better grasp on how diffusion of mass/momentum/energy occurs, (2) develop compatible software to simulate this theoretical framework, and (3) fill the gap of truly interdisciplinary professionals and applications - only then we as mankind would really know whether it would be safe to test geoengineering alternatives on larger scales. This not to mention ethical implications and the fact that many nations would probably not cut the problem from the root (they would probably not stop messing with the environment) if science found a way to "remediate" it. And even if all of these gaps were filled, the chaotic behaviour of fluids (a very precisely defined and unquestionable mathematical fact) would disable science predict the oceans'/atmosphere's state much long into the future. The only true solution for Earth, in my humble opinion, in this anthropocene is: leave Earth be (!) - and get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible!
My Idea has always been to put the ash from the coal burners into the oceans deserts. It has all the nutrients and not only the iron so other nutrients wont lead to deficiency.
Even if it doesnt lead to a significant CO2 reduction, it would lead to a lot of increased in marine life and seafood.
Fly ash has a lot of radioactive material in it. Not a good idea to dump in the ocean.
@@jimbosavage
“The process of burning coal at coal-fired power plants, called combustion, creates wastes that contain small amounts of naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM).
Generally, these wastes are only slightly more radioactive than the average soil in the United States. The amount of natural radiation in wastes from coal-fired power plants is so small that no precautions need to be taken.”
Negligible amount.
and thus salty iron man is born.
3000
Great video! Any chance you could make a video about how the Fukushima disaster is affecting the pacific ocean?
It doesn't really affect the pacific as a whole, it's way too big. During the early days of nuclear power they just dumped the waste into the oceans since it dissolves in so much water that you are left pretty much just background radiation again. I'm not defending this as a good thing, they banned this practice for a reason, the point is that the ocean used to be systematically bombarded with nuclear waste of many nuclear plants and Fukushima is just one power plant that had a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly).
Igor Katchkin pretty low actually.....
@@thulyblu5486 The problem is that once you do some research on the health you start to hear about horror stories. Like whales being seen with massive tumors and the declining population of orcas in the pacific ocean. The problem is that this is the worst nuclear disaster since chernobyl but now instead of the radiation being contained its seeping into the ocean and has been for over 7 years. Something like this has never happened in the history of mankind and I truly believe that more people should talk about it.
@@detachsoup6061 looking at the stories told by fisherman about what they see on the pacific ocean is more than enough proof that something is really really wrong.
Igor Katchkin yess a lot is very wrong with our oceans, but you cant link it to fukisima, also in whole japan only 1 person died due this radiation, and yess people dont live in the ocean, but the effect should be more notible if it would be so bad.
Fukisima was a horrible diseaster but it has been seemed worse than it is, nuclear energy is a the best energy for place without major natural diseaster, modern nuclear reactors are super safe and tjernobyl isnt a relevant argument, the earthquake in japan was one of the strongest ever notice by humans, so its not likely to ever happen again.
More stuff like this would be super cool.
There is a channel called PBS eon that explained why Andes caused mass extinction over time to marine life. Short story, it caused iron to seep to the ocean, but it's not just plankton that benefit from it, but also toxic algae
please do more vids like this.
Me:
Nobody:
*Throws a iron bar in the air*
As long as it doesn't result in me having to pay an unfair about in "Carbon Taxes" I say it's worth the attempt, I just don't need my life being taxed even more as I'm already struggling as it is. Hopefully we can encourage more and more kids into STEM fields to find ways to actually affect the process without undue stress upon the poor and middle classes.
and I bet you voted for trump, note: we ALL need to pay to correct climate change, or die. perhaps both.
Daniel Wahl
Let the human race die, let nature start over :))
@@mr1enrollment you're comment was annoying wow, shut up
@@valeryrodrigueztorres7823 LOL, FO
So..iron from desert sand...so should we start scooping the ever growing sahara and sea dumping it?
I have a theory...
I don’t think as much iron would be needed as you stated was calculated. Phytoplankton are a key 1st step in the marine food chain. If you could build an ecosystem with kelp, fish & other marine life where you intend to put the iron. It would become self sustaining ecosystem as the fish eat the plankton, they deposit fertiliser (poo) on the kelp (which also helps convert CO2 to O2), I believe the kelp naturally draws up iron from the bed. Then when bits of the the kelp decompose, they will break down further helping the phytoplankton in a positive feedback loop. The scientists just need to carefully select the plants fish & organisms to create the positive feedback ecosystem.
If Atlas Pro hearts this comment. I'll be happier
What if I comment on it?
Are you happy now?
@@AtlasPro1 oh snap gottem
@@AtlasPro1 I'll be happier. Twice
@@griffinclements3908 Yes I do.
I've been subbed since you had 20k subs. Crazy how fast your channel exploded
Well, WW2 dumped a ton of iron in the sea in the form of sunk ships. Therefore my impeccable logic suggests we need WW3.
or just get germans to do their typical thing, and make sure nobody uses nukes as well.
kain viktor well technically germany didn't start ww1 imperial russia did when they mobilize their army
As for where to get the processed iron all you need to do is go to an integrated steel mill. When they blow a heat in the oxygen furnace a scrubber called a precipitator pulls out fine iron oxide from the escaping heated air mass, and does so by the ton. The one I worked at disposed of at least twenty bags (2 ton each) daily.
RUST -- TETANUS -- Only in regulated, contained areas -- potentially in ponds IF AND ONLY IF neighboring watershed is monitored and expert enough to neutralize chemical emergencies
Ah, iron, an element only second to oxygen and carbon in how essential it is
You forgot hydrogen, as in H2O :P
Ah . . . well that w'ld make it 3rd then?
Moral of the story : Every humanic solutions has a problem 😑
So let environment do everything
kill humans? Cause that is what the environment is good at.
Did we put plenty of iron in the oceans both in World War I and World War II,,,, Really!!!!!!
And the Titanic
@@rydemk4168 - Titanic is nothing compared to all the vessels sunk in WW2
Awesome vid. Yeah, please make more of this great topic on ideas to change the climate.
Just get started fertilizing now! Climate change if far worse already than most people realize. The worst part is aridification from changing weather patterns causing major rivers & reservoirs around the world to drop significantly. Rainfall is now too sporadic, falling hard in some places causing flood damage while most places are not getting enough. A partial list of locations around the world becoming increasingly arid are: US Southwest, parts of China, Italy, France, Portugal, Chile, and many others.
If China Just dump the sand in the middle of the ocean.
Wait... They doing it in the disputed waters instead.
As a result it destroys reefs, everybody likes to hate on America for not being green enough when China literally does not care about the environment they dump garbage and chemicals into their rivers and put zero effort to reduce their carbon emissions
Um, I’m not sure if like iron in my water, Baka.
A fuckin cute "baka" japanese term dafuq? I'm not GAE.
Oh, you like drinking salt water too?
So the problem is going to fix the problem, not a very good track record there.
"You planted grass?"
"GRASS?! HYAHYAHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"
That is really fun to watch and a mysterious thread: Yes it's iron... No, it's not? So informative, I had to get my notepad.
Info is off in this video. Do your own research. Carbon is cyclical and cam be tracked in the ice samples from Antartica. Carbon would still be rising regardless of human influence.
planktons *doing their best producing O2 to support ecosystem*
humans : "I'm going to end all these morons whole career"
We humans don't need their O2, we have our own crops for that.
Like: We want to hear about other CO2 reduction/capture methods!
Komment:
Ironically, the wrecks of the titanic and lusitania are exactly in the locations of the two cooling loops of the AMOC, like a hint to drop some metal there to increase cloud cover via dsm etc.
That was really interesting and deeply analysed. I'm glad to have found this channel.