Hungry shrimp eat climate change experimenthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html)
QuoteIt is another nail in the coffin of using ocean fertilisation to cool the planet. Early results from the latest field experiment suggest the technique will fail.
"I think we are seeing the last gasps of ocean iron fertilisation as a carbon storage strategy," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.
Earlier this month, the controversial Indian-German Lohafex expedition fertilised 300 square kilometres of the Southern Atlantic with six tonnes of dissolved iron. The iron triggered a bloom of phytoplankton, which doubled their biomass within two weeks by taking in carbon dioxide from the seawater. Dead bloom particles were then expected to sink to the ocean bed, dragging carbon along with them.
Instead, the bloom attracted a swarm of hungry copepods. The tiny crustaceans graze on phytoplankton, which keeps the carbon in the food chain and prevents it from being stored in the ocean sink. Researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research reported that the copepods were in turn eaten by larger crustaceans called amphipods, which serve as food for squid and fin whales.
MORE (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html)
Damn, I always thought that idea might have gone somewhere.
Quote from: Telarus on March 27, 2009, 04:55:52 AM
Hungry shrimp eat climate change experiment
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html)
QuoteIt is another nail in the coffin of using ocean fertilisation to cool the planet. Early results from the latest field experiment suggest the technique will fail.
"I think we are seeing the last gasps of ocean iron fertilisation as a carbon storage strategy," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.
Earlier this month, the controversial Indian-German Lohafex expedition fertilised 300 square kilometres of the Southern Atlantic with six tonnes of dissolved iron. The iron triggered a bloom of phytoplankton, which doubled their biomass within two weeks by taking in carbon dioxide from the seawater. Dead bloom particles were then expected to sink to the ocean bed, dragging carbon along with them.
Instead, the bloom attracted a swarm of hungry copepods. The tiny crustaceans graze on phytoplankton, which keeps the carbon in the food chain and prevents it from being stored in the ocean sink. Researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research reported that the copepods were in turn eaten by larger crustaceans called amphipods, which serve as food for squid and fin whales.
MORE (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html)
There is nothing about this that is not funny.
I really hope that at some point when they were planning all this out, one scientist turned to the other and said, "what could possibly go wrong?"
is there no environment that phytoplankton can survive, but not the copepods?
OT this is the second thread this week that makes me want to get back into reef aquarium keeping. i never had enough copepods in my tank to support a mandarin...
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Quote from: Kai on April 03, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Nuh uh, Kai. This proves that all scientist are teh dumb and don't know anything ever. This also proves that my specific god exists. Take that, scientatheists!
\
:mullet:
:lulz:
It's only funny until you have somebody actually tell you that. Then it's :horrormirth:
Quote from: Vene on April 06, 2009, 11:15:26 PM
It's only funny until you have somebody actually tell you that. Then it's :horrormirth:
:horrormirth: has both :x and :lulz:, therefore it was :lulz:
Damn scienticians and their logic.
Quote from: Vene on April 06, 2009, 11:15:26 PM
It's only funny until you have somebody actually tell you that. Then it's :horrormirth:
I'm still convinced that 75% of online Creationists are actually trolls. There is no way that anyone could be that stupid and still figure out how to use a computer.
Quote from: Kai on April 03, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!
I blame this schmuck:
(http://www.myvideoprofessor.com/files/page0_1.jpg)
Quote from: Iptuous on April 07, 2009, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 03, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!
My point exactly.
Question: Why is it that we have to separate both pure and applied science? Why is it that applied science doesn't lead to pure science more often? Why is it that one or the other is looked down upon? Is it because people in "pure science" are seen as sitting in ivory towers, and that people in "applied science" are seen as amoral greedy businessmen?
From what I see, the one should lead to the other, and vice versa, and back and forth. Questions and systems both drive just as strongly, why not creative and applied inquiry?
Because applied scienticians have stars on their bellies. :p
(http://www.searchviews.com/images/sneetches.gif)
for seriousness, iawy
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 07, 2009, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 03, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!
My point exactly.
Question: Why is it that we have to separate both pure and applied science? Why is it that applied science doesn't lead to pure science more often? Why is it that one or the other is looked down upon? Is it because people in "pure science" are seen as sitting in ivory towers, and that people in "applied science" are seen as amoral greedy businessmen?
From what I see, the one should lead to the other, and vice versa, and back and forth. Questions and systems both drive just as strongly, why not creative and applied inquiry?
Simple answer, because we're monkeys.
But, I do see things the same way. Applied science figures out how the world around us works, and pure science leads to the knowledge needed for applied science to work. Both are needed.
Quote from: Vene on April 07, 2009, 11:26:15 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 07, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 07, 2009, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 03, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
What this shows is that even an experiment that failed in one sense can have interesting and useful results.
Applied Science rendered Pure through the refining fire of failure!
My point exactly.
Question: Why is it that we have to separate both pure and applied science? Why is it that applied science doesn't lead to pure science more often? Why is it that one or the other is looked down upon? Is it because people in "pure science" are seen as sitting in ivory towers, and that people in "applied science" are seen as amoral greedy businessmen?
From what I see, the one should lead to the other, and vice versa, and back and forth. Questions and systems both drive just as strongly, why not creative and applied inquiry?
Simple answer, because we're monkeys.
But, I do see things the same way. Applied science figures out how the world around us works, and pure science leads to the knowledge needed for applied science to work. Both are needed.
No, pure science figures out the way the world works, and applied science puts it to task for human use.
What I was asking was, why doesn't applied science lead to pure science questions more often? Why is pure science considered the stuff of universities and applied science considered the stuff of buisnessmen and engineers? Why don't applied science questions and systems flow into the queues of pure science? Why does there have to be this dichotomy?
Kai, just out of curiosity, what's the line between applied science and engineering?
Quote from: Vene on April 08, 2009, 12:38:54 AM
Kai, just out of curiosity, what's the line between applied science and engineering?
There isn't one. Engineering is a type of applied science.
I don't really think there is a dichotomy. at least not some enforced one. they don't drink from separate fountains or anything. Business R&D does pure science in large corporations. In electrical engineering, (my field) there is a good interplay between the two. the industry hits a wall and the universities etc. tackle the issues in a nice concert that leads to advancement and general understanding....
just because we have terminology to delineate the two doesn't put them at odds with each other really.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 08, 2009, 08:05:37 PM
I don't really think there is a dichotomy. at least not some enforced one. they don't drink from separate fountains or anything. Business R&D does pure science in large corporations. In electrical engineering, (my field) there is a good interplay between the two. the industry hits a wall and the universities etc. tackle the issues in a nice concert that leads to advancement and general understanding....
just because we have terminology to delineate the two doesn't put them at odds with each other really.
There's definitely this preconceived notion that they're at odds, even if they really aren't, and it influences peoples behavior.