Cumulus clouds over the Atlantic Ocean [image credit: Tiago Fioreze @ Wikipedia]
That’s their opening offer anyway, according to Phys.org. Another attempt to cash in on the ‘something must be done’ propaganda of climate alarmism that demonises the essential trace gas carbon dioxide. Usual unproven ‘heat trapping’ claims presented as fact here.
– – –
The United States should research how to tinker with the oceans—even zapping them with electricity—to get them to suck more carbon dioxide out of the air to fight climate change, the National Academy of Sciences recommends.
The panel outlines six ways that could help oceans remove more heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The scientists said the most promising possibilities include making the seas less acidic with minerals or jolts of electricity, adding phosphorous or nitrogen to spur plankton growth and creating massive seaweed farms.
But it’s unknown if they would work, would cost too much or cause more harm than good. So the panel of science advisers to the federal government Wednesday proposed spending more than $1 billion over the next decade to figure out the potential pitfalls and most effective methods of getting the world’s oceans to suck up more carbon.
The issue needs to be examined, the academy said, because something more than reducing carbon emissions likely needs to be done to take heat-trapping gases out of the air if the world is to meet the 2015 Paris climate goals of limiting future warming to a few more tenths of a degree from now.
By mid-century, the world will probably need to take about 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the air annually, the report said.
Previous academy reports looked at geoengineering as well as efforts to take in carbon, including planting more trees. This new report, funded by the non-profit ClimateWorks, examines what’s now absorbing most of excess carbon dioxide: the seas.
The report doesn’t advocate geoengineering the oceans, just exploring how it could be done.
“We don’t answer the question, ‘Should we’?” said panel chairman Scott Doney, a biogeochemist at the University of Virginia. “The question is, ‘Can we?’ And if we do, what would be the impacts, and one of the things we try to highlight is that all of these approaches will have impacts.”
“What are the consequences to the environment?” Doney said.
The report looked at the following ways for oceans to take more carbon dioxide from the air:
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Yes, …. heard about this a few days ago, – so I wasn’t daydreaming under all the current stress! Methinks some “soodough” scientists should be getting their brains zapped. Maaybe they’re all pre-covid affected covidiots.
Well, to save this panel a lot of bother and huge cost to we the taxpayers, this is what they will have to do:
Alter the way the vapour pressure of water relates to temperature. This is found in a number of empirical equations to cover various temperature ranges; the Antoine Equation being one of them. However, being empirical there may be difficulties in doing this.
This relationship is basically responsible for ensuring that the oceans never get much above 32deg.C and therefore sets the level at which CO2 is absorbed.
Fiddling about with the constituents of the oceans will get one nowhere.
This 32deg.C figure has a spectrum; but applies equally across the planet and not only to the oceans. The panel needs to be taken to one side and have the reasons for this explained, before it goes charging off on wild goose chases.
Do they not know the basics of ocean chemistry, and how CO2 absorbidity is fundamentally determined by temperature? Geez!
‘By mid-century, the world will probably need to take about 10 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the air annually, the report said.’
Don’t be ridiculous.
Now try calculating 10Bn tons as a % of total atmospheric mass, and you’ll see how utterly absurd the proposition is.
[…] Panel: Consider tinkering with oceans to suck up more carbon – but first, give us a $1 billion… […]
Geoengineering: billions will die.
What do you propose is a better way to approach the situation?
[reply] reject climate mythology
“The scientists said the most promising possibilities include making the seas less acidic.” What absolute rubbish. To make them less acidic they would have to be acidic to start with but they are nowhere near acidic with an average PH of 8.1.
grandstanding billionaires bristle at the notion there should be no city with more than 250 000 people anywhere on earth — why? seems quite obvious: they want more slaves — they want 90% oversupply so they are guaranteed nearly-unlimited potential to abusively financially cancel on whatever inverted-totalitarian grounds they personally (as individuals) “feel” necessary
the politicians seem to like seeing the billionaires push inequality to extremes — helps them circumvent democracy (which tells you what capital is in charge now)
“oceans suck up carbon” — indeed
Dear panel,
Please understand NOTHING need be done as nature decides what the level of CO2 is in the atmosphere not puny little humans. You have nothing to do but monitor this natural and very welcome increase in atmospheric CO2 as it greens the planet.
typo correction:
“oceans suck up carbon” — indeed
should read:
“oceans$suck up carbon” — indeed
The benefits we are supposed to get from this polluting f the oceans are based on computer models.
Given the abject failure of all climate models** for the past 30 years, why do it?
**the best is the Russian one which doesn’t include warming from CO2 – yet there are 18 ships stuck in earlier than forecast arctic ice.
“The panel outlines six ways that could help oceans remove more heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
1) give us your money
2) give us your money
3) give us your money
4) give us your money
5) give us your money
6) give us your money
Didn’t work? Rinse. Repeat.