A ton of ocean life thrives as a result. Take a peek around there's tons of videos

Sometimes a ship is sunk on purpose to create habitats for fish, but yeah I guess it'll help in more than one way

@@HUGOGARCAO Awesome!

I was thinking the same thing lel. I guess unless it contains oil, it'll rust into a biome

ok now i want to know approx. how much weight a shipwreck loses per, let's say a decade, to the process of the steel hull slowly dissolving into the water.

Or that episode when they repelled an incoming giant trash ball with another giant trash ball God, loved those series

Tow a chunk of ice from the kuiper belt and have it crash into Antarctica

Rain The Draconic that would actually create a lot of heat as it crashes down actually causing ALOT more harm than good

@@lukereich3536 that's hilarious

Thus solving the problem once and for all Little girl: But... ONCE AND FOR ALL!

It's iron make sure you don't get anemia.

I think it’s in the Krusty Krab

Mistaken Rants . Consider the conspiracy required to not do it. By far the easiest and cheapest mitagation if CO2.

@@thebeautifulones5436 did 6ou not watch the end of the video? This would barley put a dent in our carbon emissions.

@snowpiercer

@@macaroon_nuggets8008 Even if most of the carbon is released over time, that would still help buy us more time to implement other measures. Humans love putting debts on future generations, might as well get a climate loan so we have time to figure out how to get rid of the CO2 for good.

I think Bill Gates sponsored this video

You my friend... are a genius

Best comment of the week

A very "periodic" comment.

Omg

LlamaStein, I feel the iron-y.

=ARGON IS INERT SO IT DOESNT CARE ABOUT THAT =HEHE

@@robotnikkkk001it cares, it just can’t do anything, cause it’s inert.

Hahah this genuinely made me laugh. Thanks

Underrated comment😂

Don't living things need sunlight to survive? What happens when this large algae blanket blots out the sun on kilometres of ocean surface? Nah... she'll be right mate! Algal bloom is always a boon for the environments that it occurs in! 👍👍😎

@@wormbo2 Yeah, algae blooms are really bad, but these regions are already almost depleted of life so I don't see how it could be so bad, if done properly.

@@ronaldovargaslopes5919 still, manmade algae blooms on such a large scale even on scarcely-populated ocean areas can have unforeseeable consequences. The main problem with this proposal is that its consequences can't be measured easily via smaller-scale experiments, so it's a pretty big risk to just create algae blooms willy-nilly. I don't think scientists are wrong to be cautious or dubious of this approach

What could go wrong? Just 1/3 of the world's waters turning to blood. Hmm! Wonder where I have heard that before? No biggie! Beautiful Blue Carrribean waters are so overrated. We are going to risk everything on this next new thing some group came up with. What's really amazing to me is the number of people applauding this idea and not falling out their chair in shock that this is even being discussed as "options to save the planet".

​@@iCarus_A yes but compared to what? We are talking about mass desertification along the equator, potential releases of enormous amounts of methane in the permafrost and the melting of the arctic as major feedback effects amplifying our existing warming to catastrophic levels - we're talking about near human extinction, and if not that then superhurricanes and the melting of glaciers causing serious geopolitical instability and mass migration that no country can handle. The effects on the local flora and fauna in the ocean are not a major concern in comparison...

lol true

BITCH YOU GUESSED IT!!! XD you was riiight...

A bulk of plastic pollution comes from Asia and Africa, by the way.

@@Iamwolf134 Then we need bacteria that can consume the plastic. I believe there is at least one species.

@@Iamwolf134 this is because a lot of more modern countries have shipped plastic to that area; all the while those nations have become increasingly modern and populous.

@@butterman0007 Even that's only because those areas chose to have western countries ship that plastic into them. Besides, what these poorer countries did with that plastic once they got it was of no western nation's inherent responsibility. In other words; buyer's responsibility.

@@Iamwolf134 well I don't know about you but if I buy a gun and end up shooting my fingers I'm going to sue a Pianist

If someone already does that and it works, then we should do more of that

Why have I never heard of it? U would think any video mentioning overfishing would mention this as a partial answer. I see ur comment 3 years old. Do they still dumb iron shavings in ocean to raise ocean life?

I just watched the video of the guys who led that experiment and he claims that the Canadian gov sent a swat team to the facility they were at and took all their research

if this is the case for you lot, imma eventually try that in my country too and hopefully we can eventually get better fish yield too

@@nikitaw1982 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n5p4odmQv7C3gY0.html

Capitalism: *+25 cards and skip next player*

@@gearandalthefirst7027 Return your phone idiot

@@riche3244 based

Y

Got nerfed :(

Add some lava ... to harvest the iron. You need to do something about all those flowers/roses, however.

@@zeryphex use those to stop desertification by planting them in the desert

@@akaeru1071 rip

navy war for life

Fertilizing oceans with iron that can and will strip the Earth's atmosphere free of carbon dioxide will be terrible for plant life for plants needs carbon dioxide to breath in in order to live AND PRODUCE FOODS AND MEDICINES for us! But it is an idea worth pursuing in a CONTAINED ENVIRONMENT where one is cultivating edible micro-algae such as chlorella and spirulina and scesdesmus and wolffia achira and duanellia and others and so forth and so on. Because if 1 kilogram of water soluble iron powder can produce 100,000 kilograms of plankton or edible micro-algae, then one can only imagine what positive effects it can do for food production.

darthvader5300 so don't put too much in? Edit: also, plant life etc seemed to have been able to survive before all this carbon dioxide was even extracted from the ground soooooo? Edit 2: aaannnnnnddddd I just watched the whole video. Good short term plan though lol, I guess...xd

@@hazzballgaming6790 These days there's just more of it available for more plants to be able to survive in, thus causing the earth to become increasingly verdant as a result.

​@@darthvader5300 they want CO2 levels below 200 at 150ppm plants (and WE) DIE. There is no climate/CO2 crisis, thats a $$$ tax crisis, airliners intercontinental fly since 1952 in jetstream which destroys ozonelayer , now half of level 1960 (and jetstream) since 1960, that slows since 1960 gulfstream (slowest since 1600 years) which causes WEATHER not climate change. UVindex now double from last years heatwave summer, and UV destroys fytoplankton....so BAN intercontinental flights airlines in jetstream WORLWIDE....

My mind is still blown that he does not have 100 million+ subscribers.

Miao!

hmm throwing terms like 'hit by meteors' instead of explaining the hypothesis to it which is what it is and the likes of the conflicting ice age phase hypothesis. seems a vague explanation to it all, he wont explain why or how there is 1% argon in our atmosphere as its not important, yet the 0.0002% of methane is?

@@Dockhead argon is a noble gas. It does not react with much. Methane on the other hand is a very potent greenhouse gas and an organic compound. And anyway you shouldn't look at how much of a percentage a gas is in the atmosphere but how much we are releasing into the atmosphere. Unless you you don't think humans cause climate change. But then I think your on the wrong channel.

💯 million coming soon.

Well it never is.

tbf it's a noble gas what're you gonna do with it

I hate you now ;)

What happened to the lake

@@talentleesdorito9771 they used most of it up

@@talentleesdorito9771 Mainly climate change.

@@dantew5810 it's not climate change though is it? It's cotton farming, no?

@@walruspanda8768 That's the Aral Sea you are thinking of. The same happend to that lake.

That's actually the cure for cancer!

And they succeeded at it.

Yeah psychologists scientists could solve to by telling everyone it is bullshit

Would be neat if everyone involved were also completely unbiased, to the point that they have to sign waivers on it (just to make sure).

OMG I'm mixing yellow water with green water ! OMG ! Science is so coool ! I'm must take a picture for Instagram !

Fe-llas

Oh the irony

water and food coloring

No way, really?!....

@@matanuskabutler7566 and dry ice, im positive dustmasks are also very useful

Ok, sarcasm aside, duh its water and food coloring. I'm merely commenting on the absurdity of mixing random amounts of chemicals with no concern for the size or scope of the reaction. How it's always showing science as swishing some liquids about it a shaped container

@@matanuskabutler7566 i know :p

Yepp, plenty of fish is a side-effect kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n5p4odmQv7C3gY0.html

lol

Need more minds like yours working on these tough global problems

I believe the Geneva convention restricts this under the conclusion of 'dude!' and the UN treaty of 'Bruh, seriously'.

That's where I plan on going when I'm done with my meat sack...

you first

This. Think of the possibilities for the food chain. Can algae be fermented and turned into plant food? Or dried and burned as cooking or heating fuel?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n5p4odmQv7C3gY0.html

Yes, because presumably if the natural process comes from deserts around the world, then it would follow that accelerating this process would also work (if more slowly than a more refined material).

Oceon pasture restoration. Its already underway and it works.

i think hydroxides would work too because according to what the video said, researchers has been using iron that had been dissolved in sulfuric acid, and iron hydroxides can dissolve in sulfuric acid too so i guess solutions containing iron ions should suffice, whether if we should use fe2+ or fe3+, that i am unsure

It's not 5% it's 0.05% (that's 1 half of 1 percent)

And if we remember how americans were smart enough to make lead gasoline and create ozone holes we could only imagine how screwed ocean could get.

There are still quite a few points missing from the equation. I'm missing the large oceanic currents in the picture, which would aid in the presence of increased productivity, simply for being in the right spot. This would also explain the reason why large areas simply aren't fertilized by the currents. It would explain the rather harsh dividing line between the north and south and the isolation of the southpole. Although briefed touched upon, I didn't see a picture depicting the yearly dust cloud from the sahara to the amazon which we now know to be one of the biggest influences on amazonian forests and life in general. But if anything, more plankton allows for more food in the foodchain and thus more sealife in general. More sealife is generally better for everybody.

@@kylorenkardashian79 0.05 is not half of one percent its half of 0.1 percent

The problem is not the method as much as the lack of will to actually do it.

Its almost like thats how language works

YellowBanan Yeah.. it’s almost like English takes words from other languages and makes it into their proper pronunciation.. weird..

@@jade4781 To be fair, there are languages that can/could express new concepts without foreign words. Icelandic, Inuktitut, German, Chinese and many others. Some of them use foreign words anyway, though.

THANK YOU. I was wondering about just such a thing.

Scientific American, www.google.com/url?q=www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy/ It was a dumb move yet shows what happens is an integrated, it's all connected deal.

It was a success that resulted in a big bump up of Salmon. Plankton increase causes an increase in marine life.

@@tomcop668 True, it caused blooms yet they weren't at all beneficial vs acidification dissolving pteropds , over 10% population loss vs 1970's to salmon fry & juveniles their primary food in the PacNW with no end in sight. The only global scale counter to grind base pH rocks_to_flour into seas raises pH, it's plankton that RemoveCO2. If this isn't done when emissions finally end oceans outgas their excess CO2 stays above 400ppm >> 120,000yrs, try to drop it more req's grinding rocks or we're extinct in 3.5ky-5ky. Too bad, tis so sad. 🦕

@@tomcop668 No. There's far more life in the ocean than plankton and salmon. And it's all critical to the full ecosystem. You algefy the ocean you essentially destroy all other plant life that is CRITICAL habitat and food for basically everything in the ocean. It's called a food CHAIN for a reason.

Thank you!!!

Fantastic! (I'm Norwegian)

@@cavedmanjim249 I actually think developed nations need the climate change thing to be as bad as Al Gore said so we have something productive to worry about. Our default status is war for motivation, disease, but rapid onset global warming would require some really cool solutions that will help us do a bunch of other important things with space and shit.

@@cavedmanjim249 it's not an excuse for anything, I just think our evolution has shown that climate change = change in selection pressures. May as well get on with it and take control while we still can. It would allow us an excuse to rebuild infrastructure, move cities around, fix demographic issues by taking migration seriously. Fixing disease and general poverty is well on the way, and climate change accelerating will only mean more resources are thrown at these issues generally. If we actually start having an honest global climate plan. Edited for spelling.

Earth smoke dank

Nice

Nice

The guy in this video mentions something about it kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n5p4odmQv7C3gY0.html

I think a lot. But you remember that the basic idea was to reduce the amount of CO2 which catching fish would counter because the CO2 would stay in the biosphere. One point he forgot to mention was that plankton rarely makes it down to the bottom of the sea while fish etc. make up the majority of the sediments.

?

@@TomMKW I mean if your specie is still struggling at creating a mechnical system that is either maintainence free or completely self maintaining for the next several millennia in order to perform these kind of "simple" planetary engineering projects, it might be a hint to just learn more about it before trying.

@@memk yeah let's just wait until we are extinct before we start trying to solve the problem. this has to be the stupidest comment i have ever read.

@@TomMKW If the "wait" can makes you go extinct then may be your priority should be improving your tech so that you wont first, THEN think about how to fix it long term. Because you are not going to be fast enough. Get that fusion power working and full automation first before start putting iron in your water and hope that you could might be saved in 3000 years.

@@memk i never said to not invest into technology. There's absolutely no reason we can't be doing both at the same time. Truth is, the longer we wait to adress the problem the bigger it's going to be in the future and the more it will end up costing. But i guess you don't mind and just want to leave the next generation with the costs while you try to live guilt free by rationalizing your idea what we're doing now aint bad.

That's how mafia works.

The main problem here is: solid clumps of iron sink to the bottom of the ocean, while the iron is needed in the upper layers where the sunlight supports cyanobacterial/phytoplanktonic growth.

@@SeaUrchinZone exactly. Iron would have to float like an icecube. Maybe it can be combined with lighter materials to make that happen. *shrug*

@@SeaUrchinZone that's where the ????? comes in

Yeah: add balloons for floating, place over deep see and sink when ready.

Correct but it also requires s high input energy. Also most renewable sources are inefficient

As the plastic decays? So after more than 100 years?

Alex Flügge well China and India aren’t going to stop dumping the shit into the ocean, so at least make it have some sort of positive impact.

Lol so true

Ja the optics look so lopsided. Especially when it's the UK where it looks like armageddon

So you're saying you're 167k people? :P

Up to 1.05 million now

No because of all the drowned in it

@@rydemk4168 then make it peaceful durr

starkgalaxy131 then he would drown

Respiration helmet?

What if I comment on it?

Are you happy now?

@@AtlasPro1 oh snap gottem

@@AtlasPro1 I'll be happier. Twice

@@griffinclements3908 Yes I do.

Solar and wind are garbage. Nuclear is the only viable solution. Yes, solar/wind produce more waste. The Fukushima Exclusion zone is less radioactive than Denver. Even at the worst case scenario for Chernobyl nuclear is a factor of 10 times safer than solar and a factor of 100,000 times safer than coal. Entire us solar capacity = 2 GW nuclear plant. most of this energy is provided when it is not needed which artificially deflates the price of solar. Adding nuclear to the grid increases supply 24 hrs a day reducing price across the board. Economies that rely on solar/wind suffer from having coal/nat gas plants which struggle to profit, during times when solar/wind are off (literally every single day at some point every day) people end up paying ridiculous amounts for electricity. Solar produces 300 times more waste than nuclear and panels have a half life of 30 years. A solid nuclear plant can last 80 years. Cost per GW in China,South Korea, and France is 3 billion and dropping, this is easily achievable or we can contract France to build for us. The time for the nuclear age is now. bitch ass solar and wind do nothing but cause problems and delay the solution. What to do with waste? up your ass. No seriously, steel barrels. It's solid material, it won't fly off. Nuclear when it goes wrong is better than solar when it goes wrong is better than coal when it goes right.

Show some respect for the bilingual among us

@@stevenutter3614 hey metal head.. I understood what he said.. If you dont understand,your head is garbage.. This is science channel dont use swear word.. If you are smart go and act somewhere else...

@@rohannapthali1658 as a bilingual, that comment was hard as fuck to read. Didn't have to wash my eyes after that though, so that's a plus.

@@xvladdy5928 hey.. What up with you? You internet bullies wont accept if others speak english.. You better use swear word somewhere else. I dont want to spend time with you bullies..

Humus?

@@user-do5zk6jh1k Humus ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus

@@user-do5zk6jh1k also sabra

@@Betterhose Cool. Thank you

3000

I have heard of it,it is definitely a real thing. There is a well known microbe which lives in diesel tanks,especially when water is present. It is a common problem in boat tanks for example,or underground storage tanks. Plastic is basically made from oil, so it makes sense that a similar organism could feed on plastic too. As a fisherman, I am very familiar with the ‘ diesel bug’ - and the havoc it can cause! 🤣

Iron fish?

Plankton Man?

AIDS.

Hes all about airplanes, air ports and Toyota Corollas. I guess he could squeeze boats in

@@petercarioscia9189 hey, wait a minute.....!

it's ok to smirk Toyota Corollas are RealLifeLore

Lol

It doesn't really affect the pacific as a whole, it's way too big. During the early days of nuclear power they just dumped the waste into the oceans since it dissolves in so much water that you are left pretty much just background radiation again. I'm not defending this as a good thing, they banned this practice for a reason, the point is that the ocean used to be systematically bombarded with nuclear waste of many nuclear plants and Fukushima is just one power plant that had a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly).

Igor Katchkin pretty low actually.....

@@thulyblu5486 The problem is that once you do some research on the health you start to hear about horror stories. Like whales being seen with massive tumors and the declining population of orcas in the pacific ocean. The problem is that this is the worst nuclear disaster since chernobyl but now instead of the radiation being contained its seeping into the ocean and has been for over 7 years. Something like this has never happened in the history of mankind and I truly believe that more people should talk about it.

@@detachsoup6061 looking at the stories told by fisherman about what they see on the pacific ocean is more than enough proof that something is really really wrong.

Igor Katchkin yess a lot is very wrong with our oceans, but you cant link it to fukisima, also in whole japan only 1 person died due this radiation, and yess people dont live in the ocean, but the effect should be more notible if it would be so bad. Fukisima was a horrible diseaster but it has been seemed worse than it is, nuclear energy is a the best energy for place without major natural diseaster, modern nuclear reactors are super safe and tjernobyl isnt a relevant argument, the earthquake in japan was one of the strongest ever notice by humans, so its not likely to ever happen again.

Exactly. There’s also ALWAYS unknown consequences when to trying to engineer ecosystems. It’s just too intricate for us to know what’s going to happen throughout the food chain. We would get caught in an endless loop of trying to mitigate our alterations. We’ve done many times with animals and thy become invasive species, so we then introduce more animals to control the problems we caused. I don’t trust that we’re smart enough to know how to do this kind of thing safely.

Screw fish, those eyelidless bastards are plotting something... I just know it.

Well, you must know how stocking ratio and system-volume affect stability, specially regarding the nitrogen cycle, right? Have you worked with planted tanks or saltwater with ats/alge refugiua? These systems are limited by Fe, and dose accordingly. Further; N often limits P-uptake, so N can be dosed, though gfo can do a good job of bringing P and Fe into balance.. Seems that the effect on atmospheric carbon is minimal, but I wonder what kind of local affect it has on dissolved CO2/acidification. Thinking an increased ph and abundance of food-particles would aid in reef calcification, sinking additional C in the form of coral carbonates. They also don't seem to have factored in whale migration's role as a carbon-pump..

Outside of science fiction is there any life that is not carbon based ?

But unique for life are the nitrogen containing amino groups of aminoacids as well as the nitrogen bases of RNA and DNA.

freewilly1193 what about argon based life?

Dogphlap Nitrogen and phosphorus are the limiting factors though. Carbon is everywhere, but nitrate and phosphate are highly sought after in nature.

You forgot hydrogen, as in H2O :P

Ah . . . well that w'ld make it 3rd then?

tried that for loooong time back before we used sewage treatment

@@hobog I don't mean coastal release. I mean deep sea pumps. We use tankers to harvest the methane and release the material once spent into the oceans. The algae blooms and the material enters the food chain safely.