The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[magnemoe]

On 11/11/2021 at 7:03 AM, kerbiloid said:

A half of the 25 Q&As is a labeling.

While still no explanation about the 10kya ocean level raising by 20..100+ meters, 1 km-thick glaciers melting, and why has the Earth not been devastated that time, compared to the modern centimeters (from the link, ~4 cm), and how did the hunter-gatherer fires caused that climatic change, as the mentioned researches prove that there can be no such dramatic climatic change without the human activity.

So, the total human industry can cause just centimeters of the ocean level raising, while 10 kya, with no industry but campfires, it raised by a hundred of meters because the ice shield had melted.

As well, the Viking vs Rembrandt epochs. First when Greenland was somewhere green, next when the Dutch were skating at home.
The 30-year long chart is good, but it took about 500 years to make the Northmen skating, so the short straight line can be a short part of a sine wave as well.

Dynamically balanced, and permanently changing.

So, not just the input has grown, but also the output has reduced.
What about the forest cutting to make new plowlands for the human population having gotten increased from 2 bln in XIX/XX to 8 bln now, mostly in low-tech regions?

And as the population has grown for 3..4 times, it needs at least 3..4 times bigger industry and plowland, doesn't it?

A word juggling.

Volumetric 0.2..0.5 % of the atmospheric water vs 0.03..0.04% of carbon dioxide means at least ten times greater warming input from the water steam.
And the CO2 concentration is a same feedback mechanism named "carbonate-bicarbonate buffer" (and btw where is it mentioned in the green alarms?)

And all 7+42 papers were equipped with same accurate charts and numbers.

Let's vote! Science means democracy. 7:42, they lose.

Brilliant.

We were wrong previously but fools doubt our word in advance.

The overwhelming majority was sure that the continents don't drift just a half-century ago.
Also funds. Any scientist needs food. Food means money. Money means grants. Grants mean those who are ready to give the grant.
The mainstream always rules in scientist feeding. Kepler was being fed by the astrology, not by the astronomy.

(This is also about several next "bad arguments" in the article).

Doing an fast pace reply here. No we do not exactly know why the ice age ended, axial tilt of earth is an popular theory but probably way more complex. 
Humans did not had an meaningful impact as in lots of other animals had more impact 

And we does not know why the reason for climate changes after the ice age, Greenland was never very green after all. 

And agree that its not an stable system at all, now rocking the boat more might be an bad idea  

Cutting down forests and draining wetland had some impact, later in that it increased flooding, so does removing ground water from areas just above the sea level. 

Still its obvious that the CO2 level has increased, yes feedback cycle makes so more of it got removed but levels are still going up. Read here that if we half the emissions it would be an steady state. 

Has not bothered reading the article. 
 

[magnemoe]

On 11/10/2021 at 10:06 PM, FleshJeb said:

The comment section of that ArsTechnica link was highly entertaining.

Very valuable link from the comments here: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/18/debunking-25-arguments-against-climate-change-in-5-sentences-or-less-each/

There are links within to longer versions of the debunkings.

With regards to the Australian algal bloom, I need to look into it some more. Here's a review of the science of intentional ocean fertilization.

And my own reply on this: 
1: true and this goes two ways.
Extra flooding will go up if you remove wetland, makes rivers into highways for ships and build close to them.
 
2: interesting and Antarctica is the largest ice deposit by far. 
Its is also way more protected than standard glaciers and Greenland and very dry, an wetter and warmer weather will make Antarctica grow.

3: This was true for an period 1995-2005 then the global warming debate started getting traction. Combined with urban heat islands it could explain much of it. 
Not so true anymore. 

4 agree: 

5 Here I kind of disagree, model predict climate getting hotter, climate get hotter. Granted the underlying theory is probably pretty accurate but the last 40 year data is messy. 
Also explain climate the last 1000 years
 

6 irrelevant i say, food sources is more important. 

7 ,8,9,10.11 mostly agree

12 it was the one who reached media
13 germ theory 
 

14-17 its lots of very bad science published regarding climate change, almost at the level of health and food and its something media love. 
And if you study the environment you want to get get part of all the money spent here. 
Not saying spending serious money researching climate change is not needed but that you will get lots trying to exploit it. 
18-20

21 its an counter I say. 
22 true. 

23 very true, I also say sea level is not an problem, climate change is the problem.  Also short term solutions solutions work as this is an short term problem. 
24-25
 

Edited November 14, 2021 by magnemoe

[magnemoe]

On 11/13/2021 at 3:56 PM, Codraroll said:

Using the Caspian Sea as an argument against sea level rise is like using indoor temperatures in an airconditioned building as an argument against global warming. The Caspian Sea is an inland sea primarily fed by the Volga, which the Soviets diverted quite a lot of water from in the 1930s for the purposes of agriculture and hydroelectric power. No wonder the sea level in that particular sea fell a bit back then. If there had been more substance to your argument, you might have had a less regulated sea to use as an example.

The main issue with sea level rise is the destruction of infrastructure on the coasts. As @SunlitZelkova said above, it's primarily a real estate problem ... but over the past couple of centuries we've built a lot of real estate on the ocean front. It's mostly a human issue, with potential millions of people who will be displaced by increasingly frequent flooding. Natural habitats will be destroyed too, of course, but that's not the part that makes things so hideously expensive. 

1) The human efforts happen alongside the natural effects. That's what makes things so drastic, because the equilibrium moves.

2) That "Maybe" is pulled out of your own backside and then you run with your assumption as an argument, which is troll logic. Half your arguments are variations of "All available data points to one conclusion, but maybe all the available data is wrong, and this conclusion for which there is no data whatsoever is true instead?" Give us the fricking data you're basing yourself on instead of saying "maybe, maybe", or face the idea that your uninformed opinion might be wrong. 

Yes the Caspian Sea is not relevant outside of showing human effects. 

Also flooding in rivers, as said you turn wetland into farmland or housing, straightening rivers so they take up less space and is better for boats, next you get an house with an at the edge of you garden.  Next spring you get flooded. 

As an kid I and a friend made an artificial pound in an 30x30 meter field who they probably was unable to change from farmland to housing and was just used for an horse. 
It had an drain we plugged then we build an dam with roofing plates who the farmer tear down then he found out making my friend basement to flood, he lived downstream  
Some other effects we miss out on, in an nearby town with an river they have an monument regarding flooding, its goes up to +3 meters except one back around 1750 and an an 10 meter one. I assume this was an earth slide who blocked the river and then the slide dam broke. No fast communication or much organisation it could not be prevented. 
It would not happened 100 years ago. 

 

[Codraroll]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:34 PM, kerbiloid said:

I just want to see the "working mathematical model" of catastrophic centimeters vs safe decameters and of total power of campfires melting glaciers and raising ocean vs industry causing the centimeters.

Just formulas.

The whole premise for that question rests on flawed assumptions and (deliberate?) misunderstandings. You bring to mind creationists asking why there are still monkeys if humans evolved from monkeys, then answering "that's not what I asked for, you cannot answer the question" when people try to point out the errors inherent in the question asked.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Codraroll

[Rakaydos]

The problem with the "kilometer of ice" arguments isnt the freezing temperature, but the evaporation temperature. Steam is ALSO a greenhouse gas, and the higher the global temperature average, the number of places with water that get significant evaporation also rises. (this is not, strictly speaking, "boiling the seas," but the closer the water gets to boiling temperature, the more likely  any given atom might recieve an anomalous spike of energy that leads to that atom turning to steam- which is the process of evaporation)

This means that as global temperatures rise, it will take less to KEEP them rising... While simultaneously leading to bigger storms and stronger pressure gradiants, as well as more flooding as rivers and coast experience more water than mere "sea level rise" would account for.

Melting glaciers and sea level rise are the wrong side to be looking at. Evaporation rates is. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 11/13/2021 at 5:54 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Assuming “climate remediation” is CO2 emission reductions

Climate Remediation is a term of art.  What you are talking about is Climate Mitigation.  Climate Remediation = geoengineering (although, those working in that space don't appreciate the term).

Quote

Geoengineering is controversial—indeed, the term itself is controversial because it is both broad and imprecise. The task force avoids using the term “geoengineering” in the body of this report.  We prefer the term “climate remediation,” which describes technologies that are intentionally designed to counteract the climate effects of past greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere

Quote

The task force defines the term “climate remediation” to mean intentional actions taken to counter the climate effects of past greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. This contrasts with the term “climate mitigation,” which we define as actions taken to reduce future net greenhouse gas emissions.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BPC-Climate-Remediation-Final-Report.pdf

...

On 11/13/2021 at 5:54 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

It also gives off a conspiratorial vibe, which sends many of the more emotional climate activists into “passion mode”- they react not based on logic but on what “feels right”, which is a no no when trying to accurately analyze data and present it to skeptical people.

That's an interesting note - and I'll have to think on that a bit... However, taken in context with the way I meant it to read (related to allowing proponents of geoengineering or Climate Remediation to enact policy), I think the caution is sound.  I find many of the proposed technologies or action plans interesting in small doses or foolhardy in large.  I'd much rather see people looking into point-specific capture of pollutants at the source, rather than large scale efforts at ocean or atmospheric seeding / remediation after the pollution has been dispersed.  In this way, the costs of mitigation of the pollutant goes to those who benefit from or cause the polluting.  It still allows them to make the beneficial products/services they provide, but increases the costs on them (distributed of course to users) without large scale tinkering with global systems we are only starting to understand.

 

On 11/13/2021 at 5:54 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I implore you not to see calls for climate change action as doomsday-saying over bad dreams (which is the vibe I get from your post)

Another interesting note.  Placing me squarely in the realm of something I had previously cautioned sevenperforce about, namely taking 'energy' from other arenas and applying it here.  To whit: I'd spent the previous week attending a bunch of American left leaning political functions and had to listen to impassioned speeches from people light on facts but heavy on emotion.  Evidently I carried some of my baggage onto this flight!  

 

...

Back to topic: I do feel that the Earth is a lot more resilient than a lot of people give it credit for.  Based largely on things like the Thames articles posted above, the Bikini Atolls, and other places where when we stop harming them seem to get better.  And yet, when we pull back the protections against pollution, bad things can happen. (51 Years Later, the Cuyahoga River Burns Again - Outside Online) Resiliency is built into Earth's systems by nature, and while we can cause a lot of damage in a short period of time, when we stop the harm ecologies do bounce back:

Quote

 

Of the 24 species that were listed by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council as injured because of the spill, 19 are considered recovered or likely recovered, including sea otters, bald eagles, harbor seals, and common loons. But lingering oil persists at hard-hit sites. Although only a fraction of the original 42 million liters, it remains nearly as toxic as the day it poured from the tanker. Research indicates it is not degrading. However, the oil is not on the surface and its decades-long threat to birds, shellfish, and marine mammals appears to have finally ceased.

While resiliency is a hopeful takeaway from the spill, it should not mask the ongoing impacts.

 

Wounded Wilderness: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 30 Years Later | Hakai Magazine

 

That's why I'd like to see efforts focus on root causes, mitigation at the source and realistic efforts that are easily understood, appreciated and actionable by people in their locales.  Governmental regulation - whether domestic or by treaty is a good start - as it sets the rules industry plays by.  Our foolish 'Former Guy' shows what can happen when short-term focused monied interests get to roll back those protections (Cuyahoga River article above).  But stronger than regulation, I feel, is education.  Market demand for cleaner, 'greener' products is having more of a salient effect on business than regulation alone.

Edited November 15, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Back to news and information: Climate Change is Raising the Top of the Troposphere | Inside Science

Planes may have to fly higher to avoid turbulence

Earth's lower atmosphere is expanding due to climate change | Live Science

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Because this issue comes up so often, I thought I'd post a large quote (but not in forum quotes for easy reading).  The emphasis is mine to enable the skimmer to get the gist.  The entire article is worth a read:

 

"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.    A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing.   These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions.  A slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. has been found since 1900, but its cause remains uncertain.

Therefore, we conclude that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming.  (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, there is increasing evidence that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols from human activity and volcanic forcing.  However, this does not imply that the increase will continue into the future, as a number of models project that greenhouse gas warming will lead to future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency.  Anthropogenic forcing may have already caused other changes in Atlantic hurricane activity that are not yet confidently detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or due to limitations in modeling and physical understanding (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate, uncertainties in simulation of Atlantic multidecadal variability).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, coastal inundation levels associated with tropical cyclones should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."

Source: Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (noaa.gov)

 

 

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Planes may have to fly higher to avoid turbulence

Planes can't just "fly higher". Most of the time they already fly about as high as they can fly, because it means less drag.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Planes can't just "fly higher". Most of the time they already fly about as high as they can fly, because it means less drag.

Makes sense - I was just quoting the article.  They were talking about turbulence, which I gather is just for passenger comfort. 

I'm guessing that most airlines and pilots actually choose altitude based upon efficiency (fuel, etc)?

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Climate Remediation is a term of art.  What you are talking about is Climate Mitigation.  Climate Remediation = geoengineering (although, those working in that space don't appreciate the term).

Thanks for the clarification! I have never heard of that term before. It should be noted most “mainstream” climate activists don’t support this- such plans have numerous holes and potential disastrous unintended side effects. I have not seen much support for such efforts in the wider climate movement, apart from the occasional mass media editorial article.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm guessing that most airlines and pilots actually choose altitude based upon efficiency (fuel, etc)?

I’m sure Mike can give you a more detailed and accurate answer, but higher altitude in general means higher fuel efficiency. Which means airliners high as fly as they can go, as he said.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I have not seen much support for such efforts in the wider climate movement, apart from the occasional mass media editorial article.

Start attending fund raising events for left leaning candidates.  You will get your fill.

Snark aside, I agree that most mainstream folks seem to have rational expectations... but (at least in American politics) knowledge of science and rationality are neither one required for 'stirring up the base' and getting elected.

[DDE]

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Start attending fund raising events for left leaning candidates.  You will get your fill.

Not sure that quip sticks the landing. Electorates want things that "make sense" psychologically. Mitigating a harmful effect of human activity on nature through radical intervention - more human activity - causes dissonance, hence everything from reducing the human resource footprint to the Voluntary Extinction Movement, but no geoengineering. There's often more than a little bit of misanthropy involved in popular discussion of climate change.

Edited November 15, 2021 by DDE
A few more qualifiers

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 minutes ago, DDE said:

Not sure that quip sticks the landing. Electorates want things that "make sense" psychologically. Mitigating a harmful effect of human activity on nature through radical intervention - more human activity - causes dissonance, hence everything from reducing the human resource footprint to the Voluntary Extinction Movement, but no geoengineering. There's often more than a little bit of misanthropy involved in popular discussion of climate change.

I had a weird week, last week. 

 

Edit: I've tried about a half dozen times to capture some sense of the absurd I experienced in writing, but each attempt fails.

Give me a bit to regain my normally balanced footing and maybe, just maybe I can keep one of them from flying into my mouth!

[MKI]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Not sure that quip sticks the landing. Electorates want things that "make sense" psychologically. Mitigating a harmful effect of human activity on nature through radical intervention - more human activity - causes dissonance, hence everything from reducing the human resource footprint to the Voluntary Extinction Movement, but no geoengineering. There's often more than a little bit of misanthropy involved in popular discussion of climate change.

This sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that ultimately leans on the premise of "electorates want things to 'make sense'".

Which doesn't always apply, at least in the US.

Prime example I can throw out there: rolling coal exists, and is legal in a majority of states. 

Its one thing to have "popular discussion", but that isn't possible if there is a majority in some form of willful ignorance, outright denial, or even outright hostility against competing viewpoints. And when one side of the discussion rises, there are those that will stoke the flames to make the other side rise to meet it. 

 

 

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, MKI said:

This sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that ultimately leans on the premise of "electorates want things to 'make sense'".

Which doesn't always apply, at least in the US.

Prime example I can throw out there: rolling coal exists, and is legal in a majority of states. 

Its one thing to have "popular discussion", but that isn't possible if there is a majority in some form of willful ignorance, outright denial, or even outright hostility against competing viewpoints. And when one side of the discussion rises, there are those that will stoke the flames to make the other side rise to meet it. 

 

 

 

A fair example of what I had to deal with.

[DDE]

15 hours ago, MKI said:

This sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that ultimately leans on the premise of "electorates want things to 'make sense'".

Which doesn't always apply, at least in the US.

Prime example I can throw out there: rolling coal exists, and is legal in a majority of states. 

Its one thing to have "popular discussion", but that isn't possible if there is a majority in some form of willful ignorance, outright denial, or even outright hostility against competing viewpoints. And when one side of the discussion rises, there are those that will stoke the flames to make the other side rise to meet it. 

It's possible we're suffering a semantic disconnect: I'm accustomed to referring to potential voters of a certain group as an electorate. Because of that, your attempt at a rebuttal doesn't work at all, but is rather another example on my favor: rolling coal makes sense to those who do it, logically and emotionally.

And since hostility to outsiders is the basis for all group identification, whenever the political stakes are high, you get this sort of fratricidal bloodthirst.

Edited November 16, 2021 by DDE

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

46 minutes ago, DDE said:

I'm accustomed to referring to potential voters of a certain group as an electorate

Interesting.  Americans typically refer to the electorate as either 'the whole group of eligible voters (regardless of party/affiliation)' which is basically, every adult citizen, or less commonly, 'those who voted in the last election'.

Edited November 16, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/08/1027908/carbon-removal-hype-is-a-dangerous-distraction-climate-change/amp/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=4340064412d6

These are both pretty good pieces. 

The gist is that some of the enthusiasm by some writers, investors and activists are hurting efforts of actual scientists and experts to communicate the changes that need to be made, as much as industry leaders who want to offset / capture as opposed to being required to reduce their emissions in the first place. 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[DDE]

32 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

as much as industry leaders who want to offset / capture as opposed to being required to reduce their emissions in the first place

Wait until you hear about entire national strategies based on forest offsetting.

https://www-kommersant-ru.translate.goog/doc/5018693?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui

Gazprom was also hoping to woo Japan with hydrogen produced from methane on Sakhalin, with carbon somehow captured.

[FleshJeb]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/08/1027908/carbon-removal-hype-is-a-dangerous-distraction-climate-change/amp/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/?sh=4340064412d6

These are both pretty good pieces. 

The gist is that some of the enthusiasm by some writers, investors and activists are hurting efforts of actual scientists and experts to communicate the changes that need to be made, as much as industry leaders who want to offset / capture as opposed to being required to reduce their emissions in the first place. 

 

I appreciate that you often provide good food for thought and interesting sources.

---

Carbon removal DOES seem to be being promoted as a panacea in order to delay making hard choices, and the article presents a solid critique. (This supports your criticism of Climate Remediation earlier in the thread.) My personal opinion is that it's not something we should rely on, but look at as a bonus should it ever become technologically and economically viable. Extra credit to make up for some of the inevitable policy failures we'll encounter.

---

Shellenberger on the other hand...I spent a couple hours reading his articles, and then some criticism of his work. He DOES have compelling and valuable critiques of the apparent zeitgeist around climate change. His arguments get a bit rough in tone. I've found that people who engage in "argument from snideness" are ideologues who often misrepresent things in order to sell their position. The same critique applies to the more extreme purveyors of climate alarmism.

This is an excellent, critical review of Shellenberger's latest climate book, and Peter Gleick's CV on climate science is VERY impressive: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/

Another critical review that I don't think is as well-presented, but adds valuable additional insights is here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-stories-michael-shellenberger-tells/

Ultimately, Shellenberger's entire career has been in Public Relations, not science, and even his own former co-author and fellow founder of the Breakthrough Institute, Ted Nordhaus has distanced himself from him. (Breakthrough has some decent, nuanced articles, BTW.)

[DDE]

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Carbon removal DOES seem to be being promoted as a panacea in order to delay making hard choices

It nicely partitions green projects away into a silo where they don't impact your "brown" legacy operations. And it's orobably easier to shift the pricetag of a standalone green project onto the taxpayer than it is to solicit public funding for a full overahul of your private enterprise.

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Shellenberger on the other hand...I spent a couple hours reading his articles, and then some criticism of his work. He DOES have compelling and valuable critiques of the apparent zeitgeist around climate change. His arguments get a bit rough in tone. I've found that people who engage in "argument from snideness" are ideologues who often misrepresent things in order to sell their position. The same critique applies to the more extreme purveyors of climate alarmism.

There is a high to be had in contrarianism. Some people outright chase it over having an actual opinion.

[kerbiloid]

What if stick the smoke pipes underwater?

 

[kerbiloid]

But if stick it into algae, we'll get a green ocean.

[Rakaydos]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

What if stick the smoke pipes underwater?

 

Ocean acidification