English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I was just thinking that it would kill two birds with one stone. You would feed the starving fish that depend on it, and the (plant bacteria) would breath up the excess carbon dioxide levels. It would kind of be like a bio-factory.

2006-06-15 18:18:58 · 7 answers · asked by lanthus1 2 in Science & Mathematics Earth Sciences & Geology

7 answers

There is a term in biology called Homeostasis, what it basically says is that a biological system will maintain itself in equilibrium suited to the environment. Small organisms can reproduce at rates that are astonishing, if the environment could support a large increase in population, the plankton would naturally increase their numbers. Actually most biologists think that organisms reproduce at rates larger than the environment can handle, and the die off of the organisms that environment can't handle is part of natural selection.

So long story short, as nice as it would be to produce micro-organisms to handle our carbon output, I don't think it's actually feasible to do. I don't have any actual numbers, but it would be interesting to know the amount of plankton-like organisms we would need to curb our carbon output, I bet the actual number itself would be astonishing and impossible to do, at least in any meaningful time-frame.

2006-06-15 18:34:46 · answer #1 · answered by wellarmedsheep 4 · 1 2

No, it can’t work. The first problem is that what you are talking about is producing an algal bloom. Algal blooms are bad, mmkay?

Really bad.

I mean it!

Algal blooms produce massive amounts of toxins and suck all the oxygen out of the ocean. Ever heard of a red tide? If not I suggest you look it up. That’s the sort of thing you are trying to produce. Very, very, very bad.

Far from providing food for fish your plan would result in the death of every fish in the area.

Bad, bad, bad.


The second problem is that your suggestion requires that the algae have sufficient mineral nutrients to thrive, and that means dumping tones of fertilizer into ocean. Millions of tones of fertilizer. Every day. That fertiliser has to be produced using fossil fuels, and then it has to be flown out and sprayed onto the oceans using aircraft and boats with motors powered by fossil fuels.

So not only are you going to kill every animal over millions of square miles of ocean, you are not even going to have nay impact on the carbon balance. Or if you do you will be making things worse.

Do you want me to keep going pointing out the other massive problems with this idea? There are plenty.

2006-06-15 18:43:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There's no global warming. It's all natural stuff happening. Don't worry about it.

2006-06-15 18:20:23 · answer #3 · answered by jacksfullhouse 5 · 0 0

yes it will solve global warming and it will also reduce the risks of 'Tsunami'

2006-06-15 18:22:15 · answer #4 · answered by czar 3 · 0 0

yes,,and even more so getting rid of factory farming type techniques.

2006-06-15 18:20:21 · answer #5 · answered by Starchild 2 · 0 0

we need more people like you in todays society

2006-06-15 18:20:26 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

stop urinating in the water

2006-06-15 18:34:39 · answer #7 · answered by rickinobetz 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers