Ocean iron fertilization. Source: Woods Hole
From the best laid plans of mice and men department.
In the late 1980’s, the late John Martin advanced the idea that carbon uptake during plankton photosynthesis in many regions of the world’s surface ocean was limited not by light or the major nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, but rather by a lack of the trace metal iron. Correlations between dust input to the ocean (which is the major source of iron) and past climate changes and CO2 levels, led Martin’s to exclaim “Give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you the next ice age”.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute wrote a paper about it Effects of Ocean Fertilization with Iron to Remove Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere Reported April 2004 News Release from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
From Slashdot and New Scientist:
Earlier this month, the controversial Indian-German Lohafex expedition fertilised 300 square kilometres of the Southern Atlantic with six tonnes of dissolved iron.
This triggered a bloom of phytoplankton, which doubled their biomass within two weeks by taking in carbon dioxide from the seawater. The dead phytoplankton were then expected to sink to the ocean bed, dragging carbon along with them. Instead, the experiment turned into an example o f how the food chain works, as the bloom was eaten by a swarm of hungry copepods.
While the experiment failed to show ocean fertilization as a viable carbon storage strategy, it has pushed the old “My dog ate my homework” excuse to an unprecedented level.
h/t to Dan Watts (no relation)
CLARIFICATION: “I was making the point that we would not have such dire problems in the oceans if our species had not decimated its supply [OF VALUABLE MARINE LIFE] in the first place.”
Roger Knights wrote: “Here’s an analogy. I say that it’s great for the Simpsons that Lisa has persuaded them to eat more greens. You respond that I’m wrong, because the REAL issue is their exposure to Mr. Burns’s nuclear emissions. You may be right, but you were not right to say I was wrong.”
Folks here an example of how arguments cascade into little side issues and they try to take on a life of their own. If you go back to your original quote, Mr. Knights where you said:
But it’s great for the whales, so maybe when the threat of CAGW is debunked, greenies will embrace this fertilization technique.”
I did not really say that you are wrong. I was pointing to the REAL root cause of the problems in the oceans….some of them are absolutely anthropogenic.
And introducing another variable such as iron fertilization which may cascade the wrong direction as per the topic of this article and thread…is basically trying to fix one PROBLEM with ANOTHER! Makes no sense!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, U.S.A. [such as we are]
Louis Hissink (01:15:03) :
Facts – no where on the planet are there old accumulations of biomass. It gets continually recycled into the biosphere. Given the assumed age of the sea floors, Jurassic, then there shouls be some evidence of these accumulations. Except there are none.
I know there’s a theory that petroleum emanates from the magma, but I’m unaware of an abiotic explanation of coal.
savethesharks (21:54:48) :
Crosspatch wrote: “Please do not repeat that nonsense about declining whale populations because it is false. Whale populations have not been in decline for decades.”
Not nonsense bro. Neither nonsense about the declining eco-systems of our oceans.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/6/3308.full.pdf
I agree that over fishing is a disaster. Getting the facts is the first step in fixing the problem.
Dr. Nicholas Makris, MIT professor and Director of the Laboratory for Undersea Remote Sensing is tackling this problem.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16850-fish-megashoals-could-be-worlds-biggest-animal-group.html
“OAWRS is different from sonar-based technologies in that it sends out lower wavelength sound waves that travel further through the ocean.
Traditional high-frequency beams dissipate within about 100 metres. Yet with one vessel sending and another receiving the waves, researchers using OAWRS can take a snapshot of a 100-square-kilometre area every 75 seconds.”
“If we had this OAWRS system and we were looking [at Georges Bank] 500 years ago, all we would have seen is cod,” Makris says. “Now you look out there and there’s no cod to be seen.”
–Mike Ramsey
I wrote: “So how does one get the crosspatches, the George E. Smiths, the Pamela Grays, the Lief Svalgaards, the Geoff Sharps, the Robert Batemans, the Vuks, the tallblokes, the Smokeys. Squidlys, Anna Vs and every other smart person on here…..(lets not leave out our gracious host, Anthony).. to moblise here…..WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP??”
Crosspatch wrote:” Pay us more than we make in our day jobs. Show me the money, then we can talk about your “corporation”. Seriously. I am a capitalist.”
I can’t show the money just yet but i can certainly present to you my ideas for the corporation. Capitalist here, too. Would love for you to shoot me an email and i would be happy to forward you my thoughts. sharkhearted@gmail.com
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Is this really a failure? It’s only a failure if the net carbon budget is zero sum or worse. I haven’t seen that this was stated to be the case.
Roger Knights wrote: But that’s not what you implied in your original statement, where the two policies were presented as mutually exclusive:
“THE REAL PROBLEM vexing the oceans today is the STRIP-MINING of important biology that help balance the ocean’s health. THAT is where the focus to correct should be aimed…NOT at some unproven “iron fertilization” means to coax more phytoplankton growth.”
No where in that statement is any mutual exclusion going on. You can read into it what you would like. I was merely saying that we are trying to fix one problem with another.
Better trying to fix the root cause (disastrous overfishing) first, without introducing another unknown into the oceans (iron fertilization) which could cascade the wrong way, as per the theme of this thread article.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
“And the increase of the whale populations can not be ignored as being directly correlated to the international attempt to protect the same.”
I never said that. I said that the populations hadn’t been in decline for a long time. Where populations have recovered, it is probably better for them overall to harvest a certain amount of the population. Otherwise the population is moderated only by food supply resulting in a large population living constantly on the edge of starvation. Harvest of a certain portion of the population would probably improve the health of the remaining population.
We just can’t have an uncontrolled cull. Heck, I would even be in favor of a one or two year global fishing ban to allow fish stocks to recover. But then allow the fishermen to return.
I would like to point out that Robert Burns actually wrote:
I would like to point out that Robert Burns actually wrote:
From To a mouse
Perhaps more relevant that the corrupted line used.
Wow … looks like politicians have recently discovered a form of energy production that works 24×7 and doesn’t emit any CO2:
Crosspatch wrote: “I never said that. I said that the populations hadn’t been in decline for a long time. Where populations have recovered, it is probably better for them overall to harvest a certain amount of the population. Otherwise the population is moderated only by food supply resulting in a large population living constantly on the edge of starvation. Harvest of a certain portion of the population would probably improve the health of the remaining population.”
That is a very balanced and reasonable approach. Well said.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
“We just can’t have an uncontrolled cull. Heck, I would even be in favor of a one or two year global fishing ban to allow fish stocks to recover. But then allow the fishermen to return.”
I am inclined to agree with what you are saying….to an extent…and as i said in the previous post your logic makes sense.
The only problem with that approach though is that not all of marine life are created equal and reproduce that fast.
Whales and sharks are both very slow to reproduce.
Some studies indicate a 99% depletion of large predatory sharks in the north-west Atlantic (!)…and so it would take a lot more than one or two years to replenish.
And even with the 20-year international ban on whaling does not stop countries from abusing such.
Even worse, there are no international protections afforded for sharks.
And my point is we need to do something fast, or we are going to lose many of these apex predators forever.
Sharks have survived FIVE mass-extinctions and have ruled the deep, controlling the entire oceanic food web, until a new predator came along: homo sapiens.
This may seem a little OT but it really isn’t…
Because if Woods Hole and Scripps were busy championing saving the oceans, as opposed to wasting their time giving undeserved awards to Al Gore, and focusing on whether introducing another unknown (iron fertilization) into the already troubled seas is a good or bad idea, as opposed to aggressively tackling the problems that man has already caused in the ocean, then perhaps we could reverse the troubled seas a little more quickly.
Again…all of these REAL issues that we CAN solve get thrown under the AGW bus.
To Al Gore and his henchmen: Want to save the planet? Then save the oceans.
The oceans certainly deserve more airtime as they are the planet’s life-support system!
Chris
Norfolk, VA
They expect the CO2 to sequester, or sink to the bottom and hide there. fact is the dialectic layers of the ocean which are usually 4 degrees Celsius are warming up. If the cold water belts containing ancient CO2 are rising, dumping more CO2 into the surface may be doing more damage than good.
The issue seems to be about alkalinity “and” temperature.
Adding only iron seems shortsighted, I would think a broad spectrum mineral “food support” supplement would be superior. The food support supplement could be slanted toward having more iron, yet should consider other subtle nutritional needs as well.
Protecting these cold water layers is essential. These same dielectric layers of anomalous temperature bands also naturally exist in the atmosphere- and they are also under stress from pollutants, solar flares and rocket science . . . these deep sea rivers also help maintain proper pH (Salinity).
We need to protect these cold arteries of life the same as we need to protect and nurture the great living reefs and the continental rain forests . . . these need to be our priorities as stewards of this blue-green biosphere.
Let’s not make the common and absurd mistake of treating the symptoms and ignoring the true cause of the problem.
When you body becomes acidic over a prolonged period of time, calcium and other minerals are drawn from your bones in a last ditch effort to “alkalize” . . . this causes loss of bone density and other health challenges. Our planet is suffering from the same “acidosis” and the “blood of the planet,” or sea water, is drawing the minerals out of the coral.
My intuitive knowledge suggests perhaps recycling some of the dead coral calcium found along some shore lines in with the supplemental mineral mix.
All life is connected through the food chain to the environment and down to our very genetic switch boards . . . by helping to cure our environment we will discover how to heal the nations and our bodies. The same natural principles govern our health as well as the planets health.
If your body’s temperature rises above 98.6, you call it a fever . . . our living planet has a fever. We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but “the answer does exist” . . . let’s hope we discover it before irreversible damage has been done.
Suggested reading: Viktor Schauberger’s Living Water , or Living Energies, to understand the importance of “cooling” and revitalizing technologies.
“Viktor Schauberger’s basic thesis contains a universal, twofold movement principle. He meant that life sustains by a gathering, “implosive type of movement” and reversed, a spreading, explosive movement that leads to the extinguishing of life. “With the implosive movement coolness, suction growth and healthiness follows.”
The explosive movement generates heat, pressure, fragmentation, illness, and death. His opinion was that man had only succeeded in mastering the movement of death in order to release energy. All known engines are based on explosion, heat and pressure. To only use the explosive movement, definitely leads to the destruction of nature. These thoughts did not get any sympathy in his time, decades before the environmental problems showed up.”
Do I have a witness?
Tod Faassé
http://www.wisescribe.wordpress.com
Louis Hissink (01:15:03) “Facts – no where on the planet are there old accumulations of biomass. It gets continually recycled into the biosphere.”
I would think fossil beds are old accumulations of biomass.
I was in the Lostine Tavern yesterday talking with the local Indian who is responsible for distributing salmon smoltes back into the river systems here. He was completely unaware of the life cycle of the salmon, his people’s history of salmon catch here in Wallowa County, and the long term oscillation of salmon counts. He was also unaware of how oceanic upwelling determines food supplies for this fish. He had no knowledge of how trade winds figure into this cycle or how the rotation of the Earth on its axis causes the East to West direction of the trade winds. He thought it all had to do with how the white man took away his heart. My explanations of how this cycle works actually made him mad because I was taking the blame off the white settlers. He could not handle the thought of any discussion contrary to his belief.
Here is the address to a very well documented work on the salmon cycle as it pertains to oceanic oscillations.
Psi
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e00.HTM
Do you know where to find ancient global warmists?…Go to any phosphates mine, there you´ll find them…their bones turned into just calcium triphosphate. They just can´t cry any longer neither preaching crowds of morons nor profiting of fools´money.
I too enjoy the womanly scientific discussion at this website ;~). So to jump into the debate between overfishing and cyclical upwelling (regardless of debate foul and point), the common ground, for those willing to go there, would be to study this long term cycle and to manage fish catch according to the cycle. When the ocean is in its “green” stage, fishing can occur with fewer regulations as to total tonnage of fish. During the ocean’s “desert” stage, restrictions should be put into place. That would give me 4 marks would it not?
And by the way, if this cycle is what I think it is, it would make sense that the ultimate predator would be the last to show decline during the warm desert stage of the ocean. Overfishing at its lowest point would be playing with fire. It will also be the last to show a steady increase once the green stage is in place.
What we should not do, I think, is mess with a long term cycle, as much as we would like to. Many above water species also have long term cycles that have set up cascades of species that are dependent on these decades long cycles. Oceanically speaking, messing with one part of it in the hopes of increasing marine life during the desert period may, and not inconsequentially, screw up the entire chain for possibly 100’s of years.
In most scientific discussion circles, it is assumed that plant biomass can only be inferred, not directly measured, as a layer in oceanic sediment. The animal life that feeds on plant biomass is the measure used to determine plant life in the historical record. What may be the case is that some of the layered carbon rained down as dead and dying phytoplankton that was not consumed by well fed members of the chain just above it. Though the percent is hard to determine, it can be inferred with reasonable discussion. Initial sudden and massive blooms would definitely have dead and dying matter as there would not be sufficient grazers around to consume it all until that population increased from the now abundant food supply.
Wisescribe wrote:
If your body’s temperature rises above 98.6, you call it a fever . . . our living planet has a fever.
The optimal temperature of a human body for health has been determined, obviously.
What is the optimal temperature of “our living planet”, Tod, and who determined it?
If the optimal temperature is deemed to be what it has been recently, then this is called foolish sentimentality. Otherwise, to say the planet has a fever is just plain foolish.
“The only problem with that approach though is that not all of marine life are created equal and reproduce that fast. ”
True but we can’t go around “saving” them to death either. Or “saving” one thing that causes other things to suffer. An example might be whales wandering into fresh water rivers. Who “saved” them before we arrived? That is probably part of the natural balance of things. They wander up the river, get sick or stuck and die. Their carcass serves as food for birds, crabs, small species and immature large species of fish, and all sorts of other life. “Saving” those whales prevents other ecosystems from flourishing.
But in any case, attempting a logical discussion with someone who obviously has a strong emotional attachment to the subject of the discussion is usually futile.
And I believe that is the sort of pompous narcissism that causes more harm than good.
“Protecting” cold layers is “essential”? Climate has and will change dramatically, sometimes by huge amounts over short periods of time in both the warm and cool directions. Who “protected” the various layers in the past? Nobody. It is what it is. “Protecting” things to mollify someone’s emotional attachment to them might not be the best approach.
“we need to protect and nurture the great living reefs and the continental rain forests”
Every single “great living reef” on the planet is actually less than 12 or 13 thousand years old. Go back 20,000 years and they were at about 400 feet above sea level and dead as a doornail. The only reason they are alive today is due to “global warming” and a melting of the glacial ice that rose sea levels to where they are now. I would imagine that there are some quite dead reefs that are 400 feet under sea level that were closer to the surface during the last ice age. As ice ages last about 10 times longer than interglacials, I would expect those reefs to be a lot larger than the current “great reefs” but also dead as a doornail.
Stop trying to “protect” things and prevent change. Change is the norm. Climate always changes, and often dramatically.
“the continental rain forests”
Every continental rain forest that existed 30,000 years ago is probably long dead. During the last ice age, equatorial regions became too dry to support rain forests which died and turned to grasslands. Rain forests formed in two belts roughly centered on the tropics. At the end of the ice age, these forests died and the current rain forests formed.
crosspatch (11:18:02) :
Stop trying to “protect” things and prevent change. Change is the norm. Climate always changes, and often dramatically.
There are natural changes and a natural range of variability. I believe that the warming trend in the last half of the 20th century and the subsequent cooling trend in this first decade of the 21st century are part of the natural variabilty in the earth’s climate.
It is laughable to think that we can prevent these natural changes no matter how hard we try.
But human’s can do damage to the environment. China is polluting the air. Over fishing is damaging the oceans. These changes aren’t natural; they are caused by us. China can put scrubbers on their coal fired power plants and fishing can be done in a sustainable manner. And unlike global warming/cooling, these changes are within our control.
One man’s opinion anyway.
–Mike Ramsey
A friend of mine expressed some questions about the basic assumptions. Any answers to these questions?
I was working on this issue earlier in the week. I have two questions: (1) why does iron fertilization cause algae productivity to rise? and (2) why does consumption of the algae negae carbon sequestration?
The iron question stems from the fact that iron is not a micronutrient directly needed by the algae, but seems to play some indirect role, possibly chelating other micronutrients so they can be absorbed more readily by the algae.
The consumption question question stems from the fact the coccolithophores, the algae at issue, sequester carbon in the form of calcite. Some organizations can breakdown a small fraction of the calcite coccoliths, but I would still expect nearly all of the calcite end up on the ocean floor regardless of the complexity of the food chain.