Gaia scientist says pipe dream may fix climate

A series of giant pipes in the oceans to mix surface and deeper water could be an emergency fix for the earth's damaged climate system, says the scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis.

Professor James Lovelock, whose hypothesis says earth is a kind of superorganism composed of living and non-living elements, has fuelled controversy for three decades.

He thinks the stakes are so high that radical solutions must be tried to fix our climate, even if they ultimately fail.

In a letter to the journal Nature, he proposes vertical pipes 100 to 200 metres long and 10 metres wide be placed in the sea, so that wave motion pumps up water and fertilises algae on the surface.

This algal bloom would push down carbon dioxide levels and also produce dimethyl sulfide, helping to seed sunlight-reflecting clouds.

"If we can't heal the planet directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself," write Lovelock, of the University of Oxford, and co-author Professor Chris Rapley, from London's Science Museum.

As the planet's atmosphere heats up, they explain, certain cyclical processes that normally regulate climate are beginning to amplify the process of warming rather than holding it in check.

When Arctic sea ice recedes further each year, for example, sunlight falls on heat-absorbing blue water rather than white snow and ice that reflects heat back into space, accelerating the warming process.

Lovelock and Rapley suggest that climate change may have already pushed Earth past the 'tipping point' beyond which this, and other disrupted cycles, become part of a self-reinforcing, 'positive feedback' loop.

The two scientists argue it is unlikely any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for limiting carbon would restore the planet's status quo.

Lovelock says that entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered to fund a prototype experiment to test their pipe solution.

"We thought a small scale test at a tropical island with a coral reef would do for a start," says.

If that worked, the scheme could be extended to a larger area, such as the Gulf of Mexico, which might need 10,000 to 100,000 pipes at least 100 metres long.

"With average wave height, 1 metre, each pipe moves about [4.5 tonnes] of water per second. This might be enough to change the surface sufficiently for algal growth in a few years," he says.

Commenting on Lovelock's idea, Brian Hoskins, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading, says the proposal is scientifically sound but there are huge unknowns.

"In my opinion, our uncertainties over the likely regional impact of what our greenhouse gas emissions may do is high. The uncertainties over what these solutions may do is an order of magnitude higher."

I wouldn’t trust this genius with plunging my stopped-up toilet, much less re-directing the ocean currents.

radical solutions must be tried to fix our climate, even if they ultimately fail.

It's one thing if the radical solutions merely fail, but an entirely different matter if they have unforeseen negative consequences.

I just saw some yahoo on the news saying we need to cover the gulf of mexico seabed with with thousands of miles of pipes to bubble air to cool off the water during hurricane season.

He thinks the stakes are so high that radical solutions must be tried to fix our climate, even if they ultimately fail.

What is his reasoning if the attempted "fixes" make the problem(s) WORSE?! Have any of those dingbats ever consider THAT?

I'm sorry, but I consider it the height of arrogance and narcissism that those - I can't even come up with a strong enough word right now - believe THEY can "heal" the earth better than God and the laws of nature.

Somehow this brings to mind the various successes men have had bringing in plants and animals from other regions to “control” other native plants and animals.

You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.

These people are nuts and worse, disasters waiting to happen.

I think this must be satire. Lovelock has always sneered at the Global warming crowd and has made facetious comments in the past. I have read his books and they very good. This is bizarre coming from him.

He thinks the stakes are so high that radical solutions must be tried to fix our climate, even if they ultimately fail.

Well in that case why don't we all turn our car ACs up full blast and drive with the windows open. It's a radical solution that won't work but we have to TRY.

Perhaps this fella has considered removing central america, which when created by volcanoes and tectonic movements, stopped the currents from circulating between the atlantic and pacific oceans and cooling tropical waters.

Basic References:

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

Other References:

Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004:

This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). Â© (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science

16 posted on 09/26/2007 8:35:50 PM PDT by sourcery (Referring a "social conservative" to the Ninth Amendment is like showing the Cross to Dracula.)

“...and co-author Professor Chris Rapley...”

That name sounded familiar. He thinks the major environmental problem is too many people, so he’d probably love it if something really, really bad happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/22/climatechange.climatechange

but an entirely different matter if they have unforeseen negative consequences.

No "May" about it - it would be catastrophic - these people are evil, pure and simple - just chasing the money. Any guesses on how many billions they'd need just for the initial "studies"?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.