Which poses the greater threat to ecology Global Ocean Acidification or Warming?

  • $\begingroup$ Although I'm not an expert in either field but I imagine this is a highly philosophical argument, leading to a fairly high degree of opinions being presented since for example the word threat has to be defined. Please consider highlighting specific concerns/issues/questions you may have about the above topics. $\endgroup$ – Behzad Rowshanravan Aug 25 '14 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ which will kill us and the planet soonest is not an opion $\endgroup$ – user1357 Aug 26 '14 at 6:55

The issues of global ocean acidification and global warming are two symptoms of the same disease, too much carbon in the atmosphere. And they have 1 solution, put less carbon into the atmosphere. It doesn't really matter which aspect is the more harmful one, you can't treat one without treating the other.

If reducing carbon output were simple, we would have done it by now. However, it will most likely require radical changes to our energy infrastructure, with moves away from coal, oil, and natural gas and towards solar, wind, and nuclear power. It will probably require changes to our agricultural practices, and you should really watch Allan Savory's TED Talk for how those changes should be implemented.

People are very slow to change their habits, and short term profit is a powerful motivator against change, but I believe these we can and must solve these problems if humanity is to continue to thrive on Earth.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ No if we artificially explode a few volcanos to block radiation with sulfur...acidification becomes a problem but global warming basically ends $\endgroup$ – user1357 Aug 25 '14 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ Geological engineering is pretty risky. 1: How to trigger volcanoes? 2: How to stop volcanoes? It sounds like a good way to cause more problems than it solves. $\endgroup$ – user137 Aug 25 '14 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ Hans Lechner thinks he can stall one into oblivion with magma chambers...meh...starting one would be pretty easy bunker buster bomb somewhere around magma chamber...might need to trigger a small series of quake events...no big deal $\endgroup$ – user1357 Aug 26 '14 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ If we were to use sulfates, we'd probably deliver it by airplane, but the questions about how much and when to stop remain. Climate is hard to model, and intentionally messing around with it can cause a lot of issues. That said, sulfate delivery is one of the better ideas out there. But if you try to bandaid global warming with sulfates while not reducing carbon emissions you have to come back every few years with more and more sulfate. Look at Venus, it has a lot a sulfate, it has a lot of carbon, it's still hot. I don't think we can get that bad, we'd die first. $\endgroup$ – user137 Aug 26 '14 at 0:08
  • $\begingroup$ with that i can agree...but sulfates and iron (regardless of delivery method) would stem the tide until politicians could get their act together on emissions. $\endgroup$ – user1357 Aug 26 '14 at 0:16