Here's an interesting idea.

The undersea is full of space. It is also full of sodium chloride. 

Now what happens when you pass Carbon dioxide over sodium chloride? You get a beautiful reaction full of carbonated results that sealife and seaweed find very useful to grow and reproduce.  

(There's one type that doesnt mind greenhouse gases at least. Imagine that, Al Gore the jellyfish. Haha.)

OK, so carbon dioxide UNDERWATER doesnt cause greenhouse gases, or any kind of harm to the natural envioronment, but rather it does good all around. 

Is that an argument in favour of starting underwater factories? 

One way this could be done is through oil rigs. 

Go ahead, let me know what you think!

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by thethinkertank

What about the fish? Wouldn't they die.

wouldnt the emissions take out the oxygen from the surrounding water?

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by Curious layman

20 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Here's an interesting idea.

The undersea is full of space. It is also full of sodium chloride. 

Now what happens when you pass Carbon dioxide over sodium chloride? You get a beautiful reaction full of carbonated results that sealife and seaweed find very useful to grow and reproduce.  

There's already a lot of CO2 in the water, so this reaction would already be happening. 

 

20 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

 OK, so carbon dioxide UNDERWATER doesnt cause greenhouse gases, or any kind of harm to the natural envioronment, but rather it does good all around. 

CO2 dissolved in the water makes the ocean acidic, which is not a good result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Just now, swansont said:

There's already a lot of CO2 in the water, so this reaction would already be happening. 

 

CO2 dissolved in the water makes the ocean acidic, which is not a good result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

There are also many good uses for carbonates to be found in undersea life forms. 

Just now, Curious layman said:

What about the fish? Wouldn't they die.

wouldnt the emissions take out the oxygen from the surrounding water?

These could be done in oil rigs in controlled locales, where fish are scarce, or only sharks live. LOL.

Fish love oil rigs, that's why there's sharks there :), plus sharks are top predators, there vital for the eco system. 

And how deep is this beach! 

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by Curious layman

Just now, Curious layman said:

Fish love oil rigs, that's why there's sharks there :), plus sharks are top predators, there vital for the eco system. 

WE are vital to the eco system. If greenhouse gases kill us all, there'll be nobody to eat the fish, and next thing you know, there'll be sharks overpopulating which will kill the fish anyway. 

So my point stands.

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by thethinkertank

3 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

WE are vital to the eco system. If greenhouse gases kill us all, there'll be nobody to eat the fish, and next thing you know, there'll be sharks overpopulating which will kill the fish anyway. 

So my point stands.

!

Moderator Note

As this is speculation (I saw your post before you edited it) I have moved it. Please be aware that this does not absolve you of supporting conjecture with evidence and/or models. This is not a place for WAGs.

 

 

Just now, thethinkertank said:

well you raise a good point. However, I was merely venturing a speculative solution, broadly touching on various possibilities on its implementation, to global warming. 

Which is good of course, but I think the marine environment is far too fragile for factory's. 

I think a dramatic change in the way people consume (plastics etc..) goods and our diets is the best way forward.

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

As this is speculation (I saw your post before you edited it) I have moved it. Please be aware that this does not absolve you of supporting conjecture with evidence and/or models. This is not a place for WAGs.

 

Jesus, it was a joke!

1 minute ago, thethinkertank said:

Jesus, it was a joke!

!

Moderator Note

It's not speculation? Then please back up your claims with mainstream science.

It doesn't matter if you're here in speculations or in the mainstream science sections — backing up claims is expected of you.  

 

14 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

WE are vital to the eco system. If greenhouse gases kill us all, there'll be nobody to eat the fish, and next thing you know, there'll be sharks overpopulating which will kill the fish anyway. 

So my point stands.

We are not vital to the eco system we're the problem with the eco system!

If greenhouse gases kill us all they'll be no fish left to eat anyway.

if we stop eating fish why would sharks overpopulate. Nature is balanced don't you know!

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by Curious layman

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

It's not speculation? Then please back up your claims with mainstream science.

It doesn't matter if you're here in speculations or in the mainstream science sections — backing up claims is expected of you.  

 

No, I meant the comment you moved the thread for, the sharks overpopulating comment, was a joke.

The original thread is speculation, I suppose. However dont you think observing the benefits of carbonating the undersea vs carbon dioxide emissions is sufficient backing via mainstream science? uhh no big deal i guess.

Just now, Curious layman said:

We are not vital to the eco system we're the problem with the eco system!

If greenhouse gases kill us all they'll be no fish left to eat anyway.

if we stop eating fish why would sharks overpopulated. Nature is balanced don't you know!

Because if we didnt eat fish, the fish would overpopulate. The sharks would then eat the fish, and overpopulate too.

 

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by thethinkertank

4 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

No, I meant the comment you moved the thread for, the sharks overpopulating comment, was a joke.

!

Moderator Note

That's not why it was moved.

 

4 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

The original thread is speculation, I suppose.

!

Moderator Note

That's why it was moved

 

4 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

However dont you think observing the benefits of carbonating the undersea vs carbon dioxide emissions is sufficient backing via mainstream science? uhh no big deal i guess.

!

Moderator Note

You can use accepted science to address speculations. But you have to actually include some science. As I said, it's not a place for WAGs.

 

12 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

No, I meant the comment you moved the thread for, the sharks overpopulating comment, was a joke.

The original thread is speculation, I suppose. However dont you think observing the benefits of carbonating the undersea vs carbon dioxide emissions is sufficient backing via mainstream science? uhh no big deal i guess.

Because if we didnt eat fish, the fish would overpopulate. The sharks would then eat the fish, and overpopulate too.

 

The fish would repopulate and the sharks would love it.

28 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Because if we didnt eat fish, the fish would overpopulate. The sharks would then eat the fish, and overpopulate too.

Population of fishes is limited by availability of plankton , primary source of food for almost the all sea living organisms.

Plankton likes colder water. Global warming causes increase of temperature of water and plankton cannot reproduce and dies. Which causes decrease of population of fishes and the all animals which relies on them in their food chains.

 

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by Sensei