A conversation with Peter Wadhams : Oceans and Carbon Capture 

Thanks for the video. I'm glad Peter explained the sinking of the salt in the Greenland Sea since I didn't quite grasp the concept in his book. He explained it very simply. Funny that no one talked about the Windyday Concept for stopping fossil fuel use. That is the WW2 style program where we would build worker coop factories for batteries, solar panels, wind % tide turbines, tiny homes and training. We sould also use local farms and plant hemp linseed, bamboo to replace plastic.

We better start OMTEC now folks. The professor is excited about it and is very smart..

At 6:03 to 6:42 I'm really pleased that Peter either didn't twig what's going on with ice salt or said it poorly (I think maybe he didn't twig) considering that he's the physicist / oceanographer and I only worked that out in my brain 4 years ago as the only possible explanation before I even knew the place where it was sinking. He keeps saying the clues "waves break it up", "keeps forming more ice", "pancake ice", "strong cold wind". It's the wind you see. Ice rejecting salt and making the water saltier is a red herring because the ice is still there so there's no change in pressure so it can't help at all to drive thermohaline circulation (THC). Ice rejecting salt only helps if the ice departs that place, which leaves a dent in the ocean there, which gets filled immediately by salt water, which makes new ice which loses salt and then departs leaving its salt behind in the water, and so on. It is crucial that the ice must leave so that it takes the light fresh water away. This is why it could not happen if it was a vast solid sheet of ice (it can't leave) or if there's wasn't wind (it would hang around and not take its fresh water away). The strong wind and the ice being in little pancakes means the fresh water can keep being driven off by wind and new heavy salty water take it place. That's what makes the water column heavy. Also, this business of surface water getting heavy & sinking is a load of rubbish. What actually happens is that the entire column of water to 2500 m deep gets heavier than any other column of water 2500 m deep all the way down the Atlantic Ocean to the place where it surfaces north of Antarctica. It isn't the cold, salty surface water sinking. It's the entire column of water 2500 m tall dropping like a pile driver because it pushed the 2500 m water south. If it didn't drop then there'd be a bloody great hole in the ocean underneath it where the water went south. Not the same thing as "surface water getting heavy & sinking", that one is just water switching with the water below it, not travelling horizontally 15,000 km you muppets.

As long as politicians depend on vested interests to finance their next election campaign, the politicians will do the bidding of the vested interests. Who Pays the Pipe Calls the Tune. The first step in getting some needed action is obvious.

8:32 ocean based heat engine based on anhydrous ammonia. Can't see that thing going wrong in any explody/poisony way, no not at all.

Ok so.... Episode 3 of Professor Peter Wadhams interview on "Just Have A Think" is in and he mentions that OMTEC technology is exciting a few different times. He also mentions it is suprising that no one has thought of that before. You can listen to the whole interview here or scroll to 7:55 and listen until the end.. Perhaps, Cambridge University would work with me on this folks..Keep your fingers crossed.. The solution has arrived.. Who wants to take the ball and run with it???

Mr. Wadhams asserts that humans aren't going to curtail emissions. Why not? As renewables get better and less expensive, won't there come a time quite soon actually where it's simply cheaper to get one's go juice from renewable sources?

Highly confused, how does otec or motec relate? It’s a great opportunity for renewable energy but I thought this video was about things related to solving the bigger carbon issues. Btw otec in Hawaii has been discussed/under test since early 1980s , whereas pv technology is getting widely implemented. Was there a point being made that otec is an order of magnitude better than PV or other renewables and therefore can play a bigger role in reducing temperature rise?

kelp foresting is one of the best, cheapest things we can do to save ourselves. regeneration 2040 is a documentary from australia about kelp forests. they can restore lost marine ecosystems because they create trophic pyramids around them. they absorb carbonic acid better than anything else, and they can dampen waves and cool the surface strata of the ocean, and a hot upper layer is the primary cause of hurricanes and superstorms. this is not to be confused with typical marine fertilization involving microalgae, which have an entirely different lifecycle and effect, THEY would emit nitrous oxide as a byproduct of their metabolism, giant kelp forests would not. its not absolutely without risk, but macroalgae have been the earths thermostate for millenia. we should enlist their help.

Thanks. So Peter's giving snippets here not in his book. Like in his book he says his one drives thermohaline circulation (THC) so I told everybody that and did calculations. Now he says there are others and his one has stopped. I've figured out what's going on, Peter wants a payment for each snippet as he gives it so he can rent a Russian trawler and go scuba diving to find methane. I'll be 119 years old by the time Peter reveals all the things he didn't bother to put in his book.

Since 1751 we have released 400GT of CO2 from fossil fuel burning and cement production. Two questions. At what rate will we be required to remove greenhouse gases from our environment to make an improvement sufficient to be actually helpful and is it even possible to do it at that rate (assuming full co-operation from those in power). I don't know the answers but I'd guess tens of GT/year CO2 removal would be helpful and I don't see that as being achievable, why we can't even get our politicians to move away from coal burning (coal burning power production is dropping but only because it can't compete with natural gas and wind, not because those with the power to shape this are working to help save life on this planet).

@Just Have a Think Can you provide a link to the specific Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) you refer to? Thanks.

And #BoycottOil

once again. nuclear power. we must stop burning coal. nuclear. I used to be the biggest solar advocate, but then i read a few books that showed the numbers. woops.

he CO 2 numbers are fact. The CO 2 latency period of decades is fact. The Methane numbers are fact. The feedback loops are fact. The melting ice is fact. The ocean and land temp increases are fact. Exponential as a mathematical concept is fully understandable. Global dimming is a fact. The baseline is 1750, not 1850 and we are easily past 1.5 C and already very near 2.0; actually 4.0 in the Arctic where it really matters. There are known temperature numbers for decline and failure of agriculture which we are now flirting with. The world population continues to grow as does the use of fossil fuels. The 6th mass extinction is factually underway. Literally nothing of a meaningful nature was done 40 years ago when it mattered and nothing is being done or will be done even now when it is too late. Human beings will vanish from this planet in very short order, probably years.

Carbon dioxide is not "the villain of the piece", I do object to blaming the life-giving gas which sustains all plant life and subsequently ours and all other "consumers". We, or rather, western industrial culture, is the villain of the piece (as you put it) and that is what needs to go, forth with. Professor Wadhams, I respect your erudition, but I deplore your geo-engineerig stance.

We may come up with a variety of solutions for removing CO2 but the over population remains. The resources needed to keep 7-10 billion people alive is not sustainable. If it's not climate change it will be something else. The core of our difficulties seems to me to be population.

What about global dimming?

in kim stanly robinson's "science and capital" trilogy, he outlines a few strategies for dealing with the conveyer belt problem. a hundred billion dollar operation to dump trillions of tons of salt down the gyre in the conveyer belt. also nuclear powered navy battleships could pump water out as it melts off and spray it back on the farside of the glacier to re-freeze it among other things.

marine permaculture arrays! brian von herzmon!

Dave do any of these scientists really believe this is possible without mitigation starting now and drastically?