Ah, thanks for looking it up. Some ridiculous hype was being thrown around. The promoters of this are unlikely to repent and learn to make a few sums before posting to millions, unfortunately.
No......this is one of those " good intentions " mentioned by Dave Allen , the comedian , as in "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions " ! [ meaning that actions, even those started with good intentions, can have unintended and negative consequences. .......and usually do.......but unless a 'follow-up analysis' is carried out....the assumptions that a universal-good has been performed tend to persist DESPITE the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that they have created a disaster !.................. Just look around you with wide-open eyes !! ]
e.g.
*********************************This article is more than 10 years old.
Out of the blue, on the edge of the world, killer whales converge to feast ,
at Bremer Bay Canyon.
What is known is that there is a sudden, annual explosion of life that leads to feasting by an array of animals, attracting every level of the marine food chain – from bacteria and jellyfish through to killer whales, large pelagic sharks and wandering albatross.
"We think that hydrocarbons, under pressure, are … slowly leaking to the surface, providing a rich source of nutrients. " David Riggs, film-maker
.
With us that day was a film-maker, David Riggs, whose 2013 film, The Search for the Ocean’s Super Predator, featured a story about the mystery of what ate a tagged three-metre white shark. As part of the research for that documentary Riggs discovered the annual killer whale aggregation off Bremer Bay. He now spends every February and March filming and studying the event.
And yet it is the very existence of the hydrocarbons stored under the seabed ------slowly leaking to the surface-----that may be the fuel for the Bremer Canyon killer whale phenomenon. [ THAT'S GOOD !! ]
.
AND YET.,OIL SPILLS ARE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY WILL PRECIPITATE ARMAGEDDON !
"If an oil spill is left untreated, ocean ecosystems can take anywhere from a few years to decades to recover, with the time frame depending on factors like the spill's size, the type of oil, and the specific environment affected". Quite often , the detergents used to emulsify the oil causes most of the damage !
TRUE: Animal life suffers in the short term and the oil can be "inconvenient' ....but bacteria WILL CLEAN IT UP ! ........SO.........LEAVE IT ALONE !
.
So......are 'hydrocarbons' [ oil ] in sea-water a benefit or a threat ? It all depends !
.
Likewise , muck around with the Earth's ecosystems at your peril !
Ignorance is rife ! Leave well enough alone !
The current and RISING LEVELS of WARMTH and CO2 are proving BENEFICIAL !
The planet is GREENING ...HUMANS and PLANTS are thriving !
Ignorance is rife ! and so is HUBRIS !............ Leave well enough alone !
Thanks Hannah. As we have so few whales, it’s hypothetically possible that we could accelerate their recovery, and the recovery of ecosystems that no longer have the full benefit of the “Whale Pump” by adding a trace nutrient like iron at the surface in other ways while we wait. Perhaps using a couple of modified bulk carriers and the iron rich soils from Australia and South Africa in the southern ocean? Is this considered to be a very bad idea? After all they are trialling inorganic chemical CO2 sequestration enhancements in the sea now.
Great analysis on a sort of silly idea. We should absolutely focus on rewilding the ecosystems that humanity has destroyed or harmed, but for the sake of the ecosystems and biodiversity themselves. Creating a ridiculous "market" around the whales for some insignificant climate benefit distracts from the real issues and benefits and gives the impression that nature is for sale. As with most "carbon offset" schemes, this one indeed seems to be plagued with issues.
This was such an interesting read! I am also wondering if this would lead to false carbon accounting where offshore wind developers could say they offset emissions by avoiding xx whale deaths and thus leading to worse overall biodiversity impacts because they were able to exaggerate their minimising strategies!
Thanks are due Hannah Ritchie for focusing public attention on the origins of the now endangered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the whaling-driven researches of the first Oceanogeapher of the Navy, Admiral Maury
Very few whales would have survived New York’s off shore wind development. Thankfully Trump and rising prices have pretty much killed it before it killed more whales.
Thanks for the deep dive. Yes, we need to focus on reducing emissions. However, billions of dollars are being spent/wasted to develop "carbon capture technology" when there's already a lot of carbon capture ability in our natural systems. If the question were posed as "Should we spend our precious money restoring nature or keep investing in carbon capture technology?" where would the statistics and science point us?
Level heads and sound science are the key, appreciate that from you. Too many people crying wolf and going off on ideas that are not fully vetted are not helpful at all.
Good article, and I agree it would be wonderful to have more whales swimming the oceans, even if they don’t lock up carbon dioxide. There are more efficient ways to increase phytoplankton in the ocean than whale activity, such as having ships dump fertilizer to cause algae to grow and increase the amount of phytoplankton and carbon they consume.
Hannah ! Thanks for this "fact finding fun".........of course it is a total load of..................manure !
But , at least , that means it can be firmly entrenched in the whole " Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Farce" with at least SOME CREDIBILITY...........unlike ALL the others !
Humans also make a HUGE FECAL CONTRIBUTION .......and I don't just mean politicians and "activists".....although I think that "The Greta Effect" ....or "Affectation" ......would aptly describe most of that almost incessant , strident , ignorant verbal pollution !
Seriously ! "Over a lifetime, a person, on average, produces around 25,000 pounds (11,340 kilograms) of fecal material." [ women MORE than men......longer lifespan....they claim !!??? ]
"Therefore, a man living to age 76 would produce about 24,320 lbs. (11,030 kg) of poop over his lifetime, and a woman living to age 81 would produce about 25,920 lbs. (11,757 kg)"
THAT IS ABOUT 12.5 US TONS !!!
On a dry basis, human feces contain approximately 44% to 55% carbon.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Water Content: Fresh feces are about 75% water.
Solid Matter: The remaining 25% is solid matter, primarily organic matter.
Organic Matter: A significant portion of the organic matter is composed of carbon.
Other Components: Fecal solids also include dead bacteria, indigestible food matter, cholesterol, fats, and inorganic substances.
Carbon content of dried solids: is between 44% and 55%
SO.....ROUGHLY 50% of 12.5 TONS is 6.25 TONS PER PERSON ....or ABOUT HALF-A-WHALE !!!!!
"..............assume that the average whale stores around 10 tonnes of carbon — or the equivalent of 30 to 40 tonnes of CO2 in its body.
SO.....while humans are "going about their business' , sewerage systems are consigning CARBON to the depths [ in many cases ] ....so ...as you sit there enthroned , solving your crossword puzzles and working things out .......YOU are being ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE in doing your part in the CARBON CYCLE TOO !
Hannah , you say : .............."Yes, they might store a bit of carbon and that’s a nice bonus.
But I think their impact is likely to be small." Try telling THAT to a yachtsman who has just lost his boat after an unfortunate collision with a whale !!! Huge impact !!!
Thanks for introducing a little levity ! Whimsical ! Most enjoyable ! Regards , Trevor.
Ah, thanks for looking it up. Some ridiculous hype was being thrown around. The promoters of this are unlikely to repent and learn to make a few sums before posting to millions, unfortunately.
What about this related idea of fertilising ocean deserts? https://open.substack.com/pub/persuasion1/p/how-to-save-the-climate-despite-everything?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1qxc0f
Couple of articles on that, Alastair,
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-weather/ocean-based-climate-solutions/iron-fertilization/
https://news.mongabay.com/2023/11/is-ocean-iron-fertilization-back-from-the-dead-as-a-co%E2%82%82-removal-tool/
It is too bad that we have wasted decades that could have been spent researching solutions. E.g., our kid wrote about this over a decade ago:
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/enhanced-rock-weathering
Hi Alastair ! Hi Maddy !
No......this is one of those " good intentions " mentioned by Dave Allen , the comedian , as in "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions " ! [ meaning that actions, even those started with good intentions, can have unintended and negative consequences. .......and usually do.......but unless a 'follow-up analysis' is carried out....the assumptions that a universal-good has been performed tend to persist DESPITE the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that they have created a disaster !.................. Just look around you with wide-open eyes !! ]
e.g.
*********************************This article is more than 10 years old.
Out of the blue, on the edge of the world, killer whales converge to feast ,
at Bremer Bay Canyon.
What is known is that there is a sudden, annual explosion of life that leads to feasting by an array of animals, attracting every level of the marine food chain – from bacteria and jellyfish through to killer whales, large pelagic sharks and wandering albatross.
"We think that hydrocarbons, under pressure, are … slowly leaking to the surface, providing a rich source of nutrients. " David Riggs, film-maker
.
With us that day was a film-maker, David Riggs, whose 2013 film, The Search for the Ocean’s Super Predator, featured a story about the mystery of what ate a tagged three-metre white shark. As part of the research for that documentary Riggs discovered the annual killer whale aggregation off Bremer Bay. He now spends every February and March filming and studying the event.
And yet it is the very existence of the hydrocarbons stored under the seabed ------slowly leaking to the surface-----that may be the fuel for the Bremer Canyon killer whale phenomenon. [ THAT'S GOOD !! ]
.
AND YET.,OIL SPILLS ARE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY WILL PRECIPITATE ARMAGEDDON !
"If an oil spill is left untreated, ocean ecosystems can take anywhere from a few years to decades to recover, with the time frame depending on factors like the spill's size, the type of oil, and the specific environment affected". Quite often , the detergents used to emulsify the oil causes most of the damage !
TRUE: Animal life suffers in the short term and the oil can be "inconvenient' ....but bacteria WILL CLEAN IT UP ! ........SO.........LEAVE IT ALONE !
.
So......are 'hydrocarbons' [ oil ] in sea-water a benefit or a threat ? It all depends !
.
Likewise , muck around with the Earth's ecosystems at your peril !
Ignorance is rife ! Leave well enough alone !
The current and RISING LEVELS of WARMTH and CO2 are proving BENEFICIAL !
The planet is GREENING ...HUMANS and PLANTS are thriving !
Ignorance is rife ! and so is HUBRIS !............ Leave well enough alone !
Thanks Hannah. As we have so few whales, it’s hypothetically possible that we could accelerate their recovery, and the recovery of ecosystems that no longer have the full benefit of the “Whale Pump” by adding a trace nutrient like iron at the surface in other ways while we wait. Perhaps using a couple of modified bulk carriers and the iron rich soils from Australia and South Africa in the southern ocean? Is this considered to be a very bad idea? After all they are trialling inorganic chemical CO2 sequestration enhancements in the sea now.
Great analysis on a sort of silly idea. We should absolutely focus on rewilding the ecosystems that humanity has destroyed or harmed, but for the sake of the ecosystems and biodiversity themselves. Creating a ridiculous "market" around the whales for some insignificant climate benefit distracts from the real issues and benefits and gives the impression that nature is for sale. As with most "carbon offset" schemes, this one indeed seems to be plagued with issues.
This was such an interesting read! I am also wondering if this would lead to false carbon accounting where offshore wind developers could say they offset emissions by avoiding xx whale deaths and thus leading to worse overall biodiversity impacts because they were able to exaggerate their minimising strategies!
Thanks are due Hannah Ritchie for focusing public attention on the origins of the now endangered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the whaling-driven researches of the first Oceanogeapher of the Navy, Admiral Maury
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/11/did-whale-oil-industry-know-about.html
Very few whales would have survived New York’s off shore wind development. Thankfully Trump and rising prices have pretty much killed it before it killed more whales.
Thanks for the deep dive. Yes, we need to focus on reducing emissions. However, billions of dollars are being spent/wasted to develop "carbon capture technology" when there's already a lot of carbon capture ability in our natural systems. If the question were posed as "Should we spend our precious money restoring nature or keep investing in carbon capture technology?" where would the statistics and science point us?
PS, this paper in Scientific American estimated 700,000 whale falls at the bottom of the ocean: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-prolific-afterlife-of-whales/
Level heads and sound science are the key, appreciate that from you. Too many people crying wolf and going off on ideas that are not fully vetted are not helpful at all.
Sounds like another case of distraction from what actually needs to happen. As always live your breakdowns and data dives
Good article, and I agree it would be wonderful to have more whales swimming the oceans, even if they don’t lock up carbon dioxide. There are more efficient ways to increase phytoplankton in the ocean than whale activity, such as having ships dump fertilizer to cause algae to grow and increase the amount of phytoplankton and carbon they consume.
https://open.substack.com/pub/franciscotoro/p/fertilizing-the-ocean-does-two-things
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf
CO2........................yielding an atmospheric residence time of 3.5 to 4 years
This shorter estimate reflects the rapid turnover of CO₂ through
natural sinks, challenging the IPCC’s prolonged retention narrative.[ of 500 years !!!]
.
and all the rest ! A VERY GOOD READ THANKS LSGV !!!
Hannah ! Thanks for this "fact finding fun".........of course it is a total load of..................manure !
But , at least , that means it can be firmly entrenched in the whole " Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Farce" with at least SOME CREDIBILITY...........unlike ALL the others !
Humans also make a HUGE FECAL CONTRIBUTION .......and I don't just mean politicians and "activists".....although I think that "The Greta Effect" ....or "Affectation" ......would aptly describe most of that almost incessant , strident , ignorant verbal pollution !
Seriously ! "Over a lifetime, a person, on average, produces around 25,000 pounds (11,340 kilograms) of fecal material." [ women MORE than men......longer lifespan....they claim !!??? ]
"Therefore, a man living to age 76 would produce about 24,320 lbs. (11,030 kg) of poop over his lifetime, and a woman living to age 81 would produce about 25,920 lbs. (11,757 kg)"
THAT IS ABOUT 12.5 US TONS !!!
On a dry basis, human feces contain approximately 44% to 55% carbon.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Water Content: Fresh feces are about 75% water.
Solid Matter: The remaining 25% is solid matter, primarily organic matter.
Organic Matter: A significant portion of the organic matter is composed of carbon.
Other Components: Fecal solids also include dead bacteria, indigestible food matter, cholesterol, fats, and inorganic substances.
Carbon content of dried solids: is between 44% and 55%
SO.....ROUGHLY 50% of 12.5 TONS is 6.25 TONS PER PERSON ....or ABOUT HALF-A-WHALE !!!!!
"..............assume that the average whale stores around 10 tonnes of carbon — or the equivalent of 30 to 40 tonnes of CO2 in its body.
SO.....while humans are "going about their business' , sewerage systems are consigning CARBON to the depths [ in many cases ] ....so ...as you sit there enthroned , solving your crossword puzzles and working things out .......YOU are being ECOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE in doing your part in the CARBON CYCLE TOO !
Hannah , you say : .............."Yes, they might store a bit of carbon and that’s a nice bonus.
But I think their impact is likely to be small." Try telling THAT to a yachtsman who has just lost his boat after an unfortunate collision with a whale !!! Huge impact !!!
Thanks for introducing a little levity ! Whimsical ! Most enjoyable ! Regards , Trevor.