Plankton are one celled plant and animal organisms in the ocean.
Stock the oceans with more plant plankton. This would use up more of the sun's energy in photosynthesis preventing the ocean water from getting as hot. It would decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and decrease the green house effect, slowing down or stopping global warming. It would increase the amount of oxygen and increase the number of fish in the ocean by providing them with more food.
Plant plankton is the main source of oxygen on the earth and the photosynthesis in plant plankton is the main mechanism of getting rid of carbon dioxide.
Just like fish hatcheries are used to stock ponds with fish, efforts could be made to grow more plant plankton and release it into the ocean. There it should increase further by its own growth and development.

There is already plankton in the ocean, it's already "stocked". The only way to grow more is to add fertilizer. I guess there are areas where nutrients are few, like the tropics.

There is already plankton in the ocean, it's already "stocked". The only way to grow more is to add fertilizer. I guess there are areas where nutrients are few, like the tropics.

Grow much more plant plankton outside of the ocean in specially prepared areas (similar to a fish hatchery where it would multiply greatly) and then release it into the ocean. I am proposing stocking the ocean with much more plant plankton. This should decrease global warming and provide more fish for the fishing boats to catch.

Grow much more plant plankton outside of the ocean in specially prepared areas (similar to a fish hatchery where it would multiply greatly) and then release it into the ocean. I am proposing stocking the ocean with much more plant plankton. This should decrease global warming and provide more fish for the fishing boats to catch.

It sounds like a good idea but simply won't work. As the previous poster pointed out, the problem isn't a lack of plankton at all - there's plenty already - the real problem is a lack of nutrients. You could grow and release all you want, but without the nutrients being available the population wouldn't increase at all. Net effect? No change.

If you REALLY want to do something like this, you need to develop a way to bring the deep, nutrient-laden water to the surface. THEN you'd get the results you're talking about. The problem is cost. Find an economical way of doing it and you'll have a winner! :)

How could you keep the plankton from multiplying so much as to reduce CO2 levels to the extent that you would start the next ice age?

How could you keep the plankton from multiplying so much as to reduce CO2 levels to the extent that you would start the next ice age?

If you're refering to what I just said about pumping the nutrients to the surface, simply reduce the pumping.

In reality, though, you'd not likely need to do that. Extra plankton will be eaten by the fish - which will increase in number and keep the plankton population in check naturally. It would also result in more fish being produced and caught for food. Truthfully, you could never get ahead to the point of causing a "global cooling" effect.

Then the plankton die or are eaten and the carbon goes right back in the loop again.

Then the plankton die or are eaten and the carbon goes right back in the loop again.

No, not all of it. A pretty big amount are eaten by shellfish which lock the carbon up in a carbonate. And a large portion of than rains down onto the seafloor and stays there. That's exactly how our huge beds of limestone and marble were formed in the first place.

It sounds like a good idea but simply won't work. As the previous poster pointed out, the problem isn't a lack of plankton at all - there's plenty already - the real problem is a lack of nutrients. You could grow and release all you want, but without the nutrients being available the population wouldn't increase at all. Net effect? No change.

If you REALLY want to do something like this, you need to develop a way to bring the deep, nutrient-laden water to the surface. THEN you'd get the results you're talking about. The problem is cost. Find an economical way of doing it and you'll have a winner! :)

Making a claim that there is not enough nutrients is easy. Give data to prove it before I believe that.
Photosynthesis requires, water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight, as I recall. The photosynthesis itself produces the nutrients, carbohydrates or sugars. The plant feeds on this to grow, storing up energy in the form of carbohydrates for fish and others to feed on. There are nutrients that can be pulled right out of the air, by plants with aerial roots. Couldn't plankton do the same? use a plankton that does that, if as you say, there isn't enough nutrients in the water. Find one. There are many varieties. [I don't believe there are not enough nutrients.]
Burning fossil fuels is taking the cabon hydrogen chains from fossils and changing them into heat, carbon dioxide, and water. Photosynthesis is the reverse of this, changing the carbon dioxide and water back into plant material.
Increase the photosynthesis taking place on Earth to keep up with the increased burning of fossil fuels by man and reverse the damage that has already been done. What better way to increase the photosynthesis than to increase plankton?

Plankton are one celled plant and animal organisms in the ocean.
Stock the oceans with more plant plankton. This would use up more of the sun's energy in photosynthesis preventing the ocean water from getting as hot. It would decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and decrease the green house effect, slowing down or stopping global warming. It would increase the amount of oxygen and increase the number of fish in the ocean by providing them with more food.
Plant plankton is the main source of oxygen on the earth and the photosynthesis in plant plankton is the main mechanism of getting rid of carbon dioxide.
Just like fish hatcheries are used to stock ponds with fish, efforts could be made to grow more plant plankton and release it into the ocean. There it should increase further by its own growth and development.Your thread is called "A Solution to Global Warming." How do you propose to "stock the oceans with more plankton"? They then would be a minute amount of CO2, hardly enough to even show any change at all in "green house effect" or global warming. No mention in the increased ozone level.

Making a claim that there is not enough nutrients is easy. Give data to prove it before I believe that.
Photosynthesis requires, water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight, as I recall. The photosynthesis itself produces the nutrients, carbohydrates or sugars. The plant feeds on this to grow, storing up energy in the form of carbohydrates for fish and others to feed on. There are nutrients that can be pulled right out of the air, by plants with aerial roots. Couldn't plankton do the same? use a plankton that does that, if as you say, there isn't enough nutrients in the water. Find one. There are many varieties. [I don't believe there are not enough nutrients.]
Burning fossil fuels is taking the cabon hydrogen chains from fossils and changing them into heat, carbon dioxide, and water. Photosynthesis is the reverse of this, changing the carbon dioxide and water back into plant material.
Increase the photosynthesis taking place on Earth to keep up with the increased burning of fossil fuels by man and reverse the damage that has already been done. What better way to increase the photosynthesis than to increase plankton?

Sorry, Ghost, but it appears you don't know quite enough about photosynthesis. Please don't think I'm being condescending because I'm not, it's just that you're not looking at the whole process.

In addition to the water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight you mentioned, it also requires life - and life requires amino acids. And amino acids (proteins) require nitrogen (in a usable salt form, not free N), potassium, and phosphorus as the main nutrients along with a host of trace minerals. (Incidentally, even though I mentioned it for nitrogen, ALL of those elements have to be in the form of a soluble salt. That's precisely what fertilizers are - and the top several feet of seawater are very poor in them, especially in the tropical regions.)

plankton is one of the possible solutions, but it's a ''critical'' lifeform. i believe seaweed is a better lifeform for solving this problem and it is also nutricious. we can live from it.

another problem rises when we choose for seaweed. how are we going to transport cargo? maybe by submarines or zeppelins. zeppelins containing one of the primary gasses, thats a problem.

Can we give loki some sort of non-sequiter award?

Growing plankton, lots of plankton, is very easy to accomplish. Just pour fertilizers into the ocean. American agriculture is doing this as we speak. More on this in a bit.

Iron is a limiting factor for phytoplankton's growth. By adding iron to seawater you increase the amount of phytoplankton.
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~cem181h/projects/96/iron/cem.html

However, fertilizers create massive algal blooms that eventually die. These then rot and the bacteria releases gobs of CO2. On top of that, the bacteria suck all the oxygen out of the water, killing ALL sea life around it. There's a massive dead zone at the outlet of the Mississippi because of all the agricultural stuff pouring out.

I thought Plankton was dying out by cause of pollution, and whales were dying out for two reasons 1.)lack of food source 2.)Contaminated food source :confused:

Sorry, Ghost, but it appears you don't know quite enough about photosynthesis. Please don't think I'm being condescending because I'm not, it's just that you're not looking at the whole process.

In addition to the water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight you mentioned, it also requires life - and life requires amino acids. And amino acids (proteins) require nitrogen (in a usable salt form, not free N), potassium, and phosphorus as the main nutrients along with a host of trace minerals. (Incidentally, even though I mentioned it for nitrogen, ALL of those elements have to be in the form of a soluble salt. That's precisely what fertilizers are - and the top several feet of seawater are very poor in them, especially in the tropical regions.)

A soluable salt is dissolved in water. If it is in the water at any depth, it will also be in the top several feet. Every time an animal plankton decays or a dead fish decays it puts the nutrients you are conscerned about in the water. Fish manure probably does that too. Dead fish float near the surface. Lightning strikes convert free nitrogen into usable nitrogen compounds for life; it falls from the sky.
The nutrients are there.
Plant plankton, mass produced in ideal conditions, in hatchery type facilities, then released into the oceans would eventually increase the overall stock of plant plankton in the sea and increase photosynthesis world wide.
Start releasing it in the areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the lower Eastern sea board, because increased photosynthisis in these regions would help keep the waters there cooler and prevent strong hurricaines from developing.

The sun radiates light and heat. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another. - Conservation of energy principle.
The chemical potential energy that is locked up in the sugars and carbohydrates that are produced by photosynthesis comes from the sun's radiation. That means that the sun's radiation has less energy left in it to warm the waters. That means that photosynthesis is taking some of the sun's energy and locking it up in the form of sugar and carbohydrates, so the sun radiation has less energy in it to warm the water. Increased photosynthesis in the sea will make the water cooler on that basis.

plankton is one of the possible solutions, but it's a ''critical'' lifeform. i believe seaweed is a better lifeform for solving this problem and it is also nutricious. we can live from it.

The idea is to increase photosythesis world wide. This could be done on land by having the general population plant grass or whatever, to make the land as green as they can.
But they are probably burning up the south American rain forest, destroying green things faster than it could be grown right now. Dry unproductive earth is usally left there.
I think 4/5 of the Earth is sea water. The plant plankton would be the most important way of increasing photosynthesis.

A soluable salt is dissolved in water. If it is in the water at any depth, it will also be in the top several feet. Every time an animal plankton decays or a dead fish decays it puts the nutrients you are conscerned about in the water. Fish manure probably does that too. Dead fish float near the surface. Lightning strikes convert free nitrogen into usable nitrogen compounds for life; it falls from the sky.
The nutrients are there.
Plant plankton, mass produced in ideal conditions, in hatchery type facilities, then released into the oceans would eventually increase the overall stock of plant plankton in the sea and increase photosynthesis world wide.
Start releasing it in the areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the lower Eastern sea board, because increased photosynthisis in these regions would help keep the waters there cooler and prevent strong hurricaines from developing.

The sun radiates light and heat. Energy cannot be created or destroyed it only changes from one form to another. - Conservation of energy principle.
The chemical potential energy that is locked up in the sugars and carbohydrates that are produced by photosynthesis comes from the sun's radiation. That means that the sun's radiation has less energy left in it to warm the waters. That means that photosynthesis is taking some of the sun's energy and locking it up in the form of sugar and carbohydrates, so the sun radiation has less energy in it to warm the water. Increased photosynthesis in the sea will make the water cooler on that basis.

You've got the right general idea, but incorrect information. The upper several feet of sea water is mostly depleted of necessary minerals because of the photosynthesis activity present there. It's very commonly known that the seas are highly stratified. The dissolved salts make the water denser which naturally causes it to sink. And the deeper you go, the denser it becomes - partly also due to the fact that there is less microbial activity.

The heating of the water you are talking about is primarily caused by the absorption of IR (infrared) which is pretty much useless to plants anyway. That won't change.

you're on the general track, I believe that you haven't fully grasped the facts of stratification and saline density.

How do you propose to "stock the oceans with more plankton"? There would be a minute change in the amount of O2, hardly enough to even show any change at all in "green house effect" or global warming. Not to mention the increased ozone level.

You've got the right general idea, but incorrect information. The upper several feet of sea water is mostly depleted of necessary minerals because of the photosynthesis activity present there. It's very commonly known that the seas are highly stratified. The dissolved salts make the water denser which naturally causes it to sink. And the deeper you go, the denser it becomes - partly also due to the fact that there is less microbial activity.

The heating of the water you are talking about is primarily caused by the absorption of IR (infrared) which is pretty much useless to plants anyway. That won't change.

you're on the general track, I believe that you haven't fully grasped the facts of stratification and saline density.


http://www.mos.org/oceans/life/surface.html

The most abundant plants in the ocean are known as phytoplankton. These are usually single-celled, minute floating plants that drift throughout the surface waters of the ocean. A bucket of sea water might hold a million microscopic diatoms which are relatives of seaweed encased in glassy boxes. To grow, phytoplankton need nutrients from the sea water and lots of sunlight. The most light occurs in the tropics but nutrients there, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, are often in short supply. When large quantities of diatoms and other phytoplankton are present they give a color to the sea. Spectacular phytoplankton blooms are found in cooler waters where nutrients are brought up from the sea floor during storms.

If you look at the satallite photos at that website, you can see that the tropics, (the violet areas) where some of the nutrients are in short supply, are only a small region compared to the whole of the oceans. Also, any storm in the tropics would bring up more nutrients from the bottom.
Why assume that the oceans can't support more phytoplankton if it is introduced in very large numbers? Ideas about what you think will work is one thing and experiment may show another. I say try to stock the oceans and see if it will support more phytoplankton.
Experiment.
The damage that fossil fuel burning has already done, and it is accelerating, dictates to try anything that will help.
The melting ice right now is absorbing heat by its melting. When the amount of ice melting decreases the temperature will rise dramatically.
If it wasn't for the melting glaciers and ice caps now, the atmosphere might be like a steam bath now!

This was discussed in an issue of Discover magazine. Adding iron to the world's oceans to produce large phytoplankton populations was discussed, and its even possible using large ocean-traversing ships that could release this iron. I understand that it won't work because such a large increase in phytoplankton could have serious effects on the ocean ecosystem as a whole. It's just not feasable.

Can we give loki some sort of non-sequiter award?

Growing plankton, lots of plankton, is very easy to accomplish. Just pour fertilizers into the ocean. American agriculture is doing this as we speak. More on this in a bit.



thanx roman,

i don't think fertilizers are any good for maintaining bio-diversity, but i am not a biologist.

maybe some biologists can create it in a lab. i think the floating ones are the best solution. the green or brown/black ones or a combination of both. i do not agree messing with dna material of animals or human or any other creatures.

This was discussed in an issue of Discover magazine. Adding iron to the world's oceans to produce large phytoplankton populations was discussed, and its even possible using large ocean-traversing ships that could release this iron. I understand that it won't work because such a large increase in phytoplankton could have serious effects on the ocean ecosystem as a whole. It's just not feasable.

Who cares about the ocean's eco system? Over fishing by mankind has already had a serious effect on it. More phytoplankton could cause more fish and restore the eco system back to a more healthy state.
If we don't stop global warming the ecosystem of the ocean land and the whole world is in jeopardy.
Thanks for showing me a way that it would work. More iron.

Wow.
This is all disturbing. Both stupid and ignorant. How is it that no-one realizes that it's this kind of f'ing egotistic engineeriing that has gotten us into the mess we're in?
The real solution to global warming is for us humans to stop fucking it all up. It boggles my mind that SUV's are legal, let alone glorified.
K riist people.

you people need to read the following book:
"angels don't play this haarp"
and read up on what the u.s.defense dept. has been up to.

maybe some biologists can create it in a lab. i think the floating ones are the best solution. the green or brown/black ones or a combination of both. i do not agree messing with dna material of animals or human or any other creatures.Even if you were able to cover the entire surfaces of the oceans with plankton or algae you would the be blocking out sunlight for the microbes and animal orgainisms that rely on it below the surface, leading to other, possibly even more severe, imbalances in our ecosystem. What would deep sea fish eat? This would decrease the seafood abundance that a large percentage of human population relies on for survival.