From the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona a suggestion that ocean CO2 sequestration is driven by iron laden dust blown into the oceans that cause phytoplankton blooms, resulting in the ocean as a CO2 sink. It’s another take on the proposed experiment from a couple of years ago where a researcher wanted to drop a barge of powdered iron into the ocean to watch what happens. It was actually tried, and was reported to be a failure.
Climate in the past million years determined greatly by dust in the Southern Ocean
A group of scientists led by researchers from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich) has quantified dust and iron fluxes deposited in the Antarctic Ocean during the past 4 million years. The research study published in Nature evidences the close relation between the maximum contributions of dust to this ocean and climate changes occurring in the most intense glaciation periods of the Pleistocene period, some 1.25 million years ago. Data confirms the role of iron in the increase in phytoplankton levels during glacial periods, intensifying the function of this ocean as a CO2 sink.
Dust, formed by particles of soil, plants, etc. affects the climate by altering the energetic balance of the atmosphere and provides iron and other micronutrients necessary to marine organisms. Scientists considered that dust fluxes deposited by the wind into the Antarctic Ocean increased during glacial periods and that iron fertilisation may have stimulated marine productivity, contributing significantly to the CO2 reduction in the atmosphere during the most recent Pleistocene glacial periods (in the past 800,000 years). However, the magnitude of these effects and their role in the evolution of the climate system had remained unclear.
Records of the period studied in this research work – the longest and most detailed up to date on the Southern Ocean – reveal a sharp increase in dust and iron inputs during the Climate Transition of the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (1,250,000 years ago) in which fluxes tripled. This transition marked a global climate change with the beginning of glacial periods lasting 100,000 years, in comparison to the gradual intensification of glacial cycles occurring in the three million years immediately before, when periods lasted 41,000 years.
For the first time results show the close connection between the highest levels of dust deposited in the Antarctic Ocean and the lowest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, which gave way to the appearance of the deep glaciations typical of Earth’s recent history. The study indicates that the dust most probably played a key role in fertilising microscopic algae of the Southern Ocean, emphasising its role as a CO2 sink. These microorganisms grow uptaking the CO2 found in the atmosphere and when they die they sink releasing carbon into the depths of the ocean.
For Antoni Rosell Mele, ICREA researcher at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of UAB, and Alfredo Martínez Garcia, currently researcher at EHT Zürich who earned his PhD at UAB, the research carried out offers new clues on the causes behind the most intense glaciations of the Pleistocene Epoch, particularly on how interactions between dust with oceanic biology influence CO2 and the climate. It also allows scientists to understand how future changes in atmospheric circulation and the superficial biology of oceans can make the Antarctic Ocean change the efficiency with which it captures and removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
There are in fact initiatives to fertilise the Southern Ocean with iron with the purpose of reproducing the natural process observed during glaciations and reduce today’s levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is an issue which has generated much controversy. “Although our data indicates that this process occurred naturally during glacial periods, we must take into account that ocean circulation was completely different to what it is now, and this made the role of iron fertilisation more efficient in capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are also several unknown aspects of what could happen to marine ecosystems if iron were artificially added in large quantities, and therefore its commercial application continues to be unviable at the moment”, researchers conclude.
Researchers from the universities of Edinburgh and Princeton also participated in the research.
Caption: http://www.uab.es/uabdivulga/img/UAB_InvestigadorsPolsAntartic.jpg
Reference:
Martinez-Garcia, A.; Rosell-Melé, A; Jaccard, S.L.; Geibert, W.; Sigman, D.M.; Haug, G.H. (2011). “Southern Ocean dust-climate coupling during the past 4,000,000 years”. Nature, doi: 10.1038/nature10310.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It just keeps going on and on, the complete utter ridiculousness these idiots keep coming up with for causes of climate change. This is PATHETIC.
They are beyond clueless. It is the sun, it is Milankovitch Cycles for the major glaciations, combined with a prolong solar minimum which sets the tables for the items that control the climate to phase into a cold mode, which independent of Milankovitch cycles, is enough to cause the small climatic cycles and sometimes abrupt climatic changes..
Those items being
SOI INDEX- LA NINA VERSUS EL NINO
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
AO/NAO/.AAO ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATIONS TO NAME SOME
PDO/AMO
COSMIC RAYS -CLOUDS
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH
With all the above, if the degree of magnitude is strong enough and long enough then all of those factors will conspire to increase earth’s albedo through more low cloud cover,greater snow cover and more precip. which causes the temperature to change. Sometimes thresholds are met which explains the abrupt climatic changes.
Their Asinine theory, of dust versus co2 , does nothing to explain the many abrupt climatic changes that have constantly impacted the earth ,never mind change to climate itself. This is beyond stupid!
“The study indicates that the dust most probably played a key role in fertilising microscopic algae of the Southern Ocean, emphasising its role as a CO2 sink. These microorganisms grow uptaking the CO2 found in the atmosphere and when they die they sink releasing carbon into the depths of the ocean.”
Only some do. Most simply become part of the oceanic food chain. How much of a carbon sink even the ones that sink to the ocean floor are is debatable, since some of that would wind up being outgassed. The real carbon sink, as with green growth on land, lies in the period where biomass is increasing. Once that plateaus, though, there is no more sink effect, merely recycling.
Several posters above have mentioned a claim that the iron fertilisation experiments (one done in the 80’s that I recall) were ‘failures’. Well it depends on what you are looking for as a success. If the test is of the basic idea that iron-limited growth can be corrected/enhanced by adding iron, it is a spectacular success each and every time it is tried.
It is interesting to see the Greenie reaction to the first test which I think was about 1983 or 4 – can’t remember exactly. At that time a few tons of powdered iron was spread over a small patch of ocean. The CO2 absorbed over the next couple of days was huge – more than expected. The iron:CO2 ratio was huge.
The Greenie reaction was apoplectic and a campaign mounted to oppose the use of such a simple and cheap techinque. The reason? “It will mean that people will think they can continue polluting the air by burning coal.”
If that is not clear enough, let me explain. They said that coal combustion causes ‘pollution’ which in those days meant mercury and lead and uranium and ash raining down from ther sky downwind of coal fired generating plants without emission (dust) capture equipment installed. Real environmentalists had by then created an awareness of emissions from coal stations and were referring to the continuation of those emissions being made possible by the removable of CO2 from the atmosphere in an easy and cheap manner.
In the subsequent decades the term ‘pollution’ morphed into CO2 itself being a type of pollution. Witness the current directive to the EPA. So the Greenies know full well the implications of a simple, cheap and easy way to promote the uptake of CO2 by the ocean. All ships passing through the region can spray out a mist of iron oxide – say, ground-up old ships. Now, what is the current ‘Team’ response to this? It is to attack at every possible opportunity any plan to proceed with it. This includes the creation of apocalyptic chemistry scenarios which will turn the whole ocean into [insert armeggedon scene of choice] so no research should be allowed.
Compare the cost of CO2 capture and storage with ocean fertilization. The article above still makes its case on the basis that CO2 regulates global temperature, something far from being convincingly proven. It still appears that CO2 is a laggard not a leader.
How does this junk get through peer review? Didn’t someone bother to demand some sort of evidence supporting causation? At least it’s falsifiable, it might be a good High School science fair project to pick this study apart and falsify it. You might even get a guest post here, that would look good on a college application for a physics major.
So we see huge annual fluctuations in atmospheric CO2, right? Oh wait, we don’t.
The correct form of iron employed to seed oceans is Iron Sulphate
Speaking of dust… I do recall an Asian dust storm crossing the Pacific to North America and receiving a flight advisory to that affect. And coincidental, flying on through it. It was quite hazy. I also recall how unbearable the winter was after Pinatubo. No CO2 warnings, or advisory.
Now my question. Was that event after Pinatubo or before? Was the dust due to a cold dry Asia winter following the eruption, followed by a strong dry summer easterly wind? Is there more dust when it is colder?
By the way, where do the crazies get the idea to seed oceans with Fe? The price of steel is already high. We need CO2 for our sodas!
Sorry, but this fails the cause and effect test.
The differing climates (glacial/interglacial) of the past result in differing levels of global deserts. Much like the temperature of the oceans determines the atmospheric CO2 levels, the amount of global desert determines the amount of dust in the atmosphere.
Glacial periods cause extensive desert conditions in Africa and Australia. This in turn causes higher levels of dust which cause an increase in the iron flux to the oceans. It has been shown that iron levels do cause large plankton blooms, but fail to have significant CO2 impacts (not that CO2 matters anyway).
If the Milankovitch cycles cause the glacial / interglacial cycles, then the iron flux would be identical to the results of this paper. Much like CO2. Unless it can be shown that iron flux initiates the glacial/interglacial cycle INDEPENDENT of solar insolation, this is simply another side effect of the Milankovitch cycle.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/geo-engineering-more-about-bad-ideas-to-save-the-earth/
John Kehr says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Sorry, but this fails the cause and effect test.
I agree. The paper fails to show causation from the dust, just correlation. However it is known from the Devonian and Carboniferous that increased plant activity can cause global CO2 to decrease. There is a feedback response from plants – in the Devonian they evolved larger and more efficient leaves, sucking up CO2 even more efficiently [1]. Possibly the recent evolution of the C4 photosynthesis in monocot grasses, which fixed CO2 more efficiently, might be a response to falling CO2 levels.
Africa, where humans evolved, has been subject in the last few million years to large alternations in the dominant vegetation from forest to grasses, back and forth. Grass dominated periods I think coincided with glaciations and colder periods, with (possibly) less CO2.
In any case, levels of CO2 below 200 ppm are dangerously low for the green plant based ecosystem on earth. This is a fact lurking uneasily in the background of this study, so the AGW climate community will be well advised to handle it with care.
Plants on earth are a significant factor in climate, not only due to the gas exchange role and CO2, but also for creation and maintenance of soils (humic weathered silicates) which retain moisture on land, but also for the transpiration which drives the hydrological cycle and promotes rain far from coastlines (in Spain falling mainly on the plain etc.)
Thus it is even possible that excessively low CO2 could impact climate through a detrimental effect on global plant metabolism and resultant disruption of the hydrological cycle.
This graphic (ignore the irrelevant coloured lines) shows clearly that present CO2 levels are near to the low, not the high, end of the range of atmospheric CO2 levels that are favourable to life on earth.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Ref. 1: Beerling and Berner 2005, http://www.pnas.org/content/102/5/1302.full.pdf
phlogiston says:
“Levels of CO2 below 200 ppm are dangerously low for the green plant based ecosystem on earth”
So that is why there was more dust at the end of the ice-ages . Less CO2 = less plants on land = more dust
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Robertvdl says:
September 3, 2011 at 3:14 am
phlogiston says:
“Levels of CO2 below 200 ppm are dangerously low for the green plant based ecosystem on earth”
So that is why there was more dust at the end of the ice-ages . Less CO2 = less plants on land = more dust
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Interesting possibility.
Isn’t some 30,000 metric tons of extraterrestrial dust fall to Earth each year, mixing unobtrusively with the home-grown grime collecting on all surfaces great and small? Some excerpts gathered from http://www.thefreelibrary.com pages.
interplanetary medium – interplanetary space including forms of energy and gas and dust affects Earth gained prominence after a pair of scientists hypothesized that waves of space particles triggered the last 10 ice ages (SN: 10/4/97, p. 220). That possibility was raised by Richard A. Muller Richard A. Muller (January 6 1944 -) of San Francisco, California, U.S., is a physicist who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
In Muller and MacDonald’s model, the amount of dust reaching Earth rises and falls as the plane of Earth’s orbit tilts up and down through the plane of the solar system solar system, the sun and the surrounding planets, natural satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, meteoroids, and comets that are bound by its gravity. The sun is by far the most massive part of the solar system, containing almost 99.9% of the system’s total mass.
This orbital bobbing, they surmised, would cause the planet to pass through a thin band of dust every 100,000 years–a period that matches the ice age cycle. Every 100,000 years or so, the planet’s temperature plummets, then rises in short thaws like the one that has graced the climate for the last 10,000 years.
Kortenkamp and Dermott tested this hypothesis by creating a model that computes the path of dust leaving the asteroid belt and falling toward the sun. Such debris accounts for perhaps three-quarters of the interplanetary dust that reaches Earth; the rest comes from comets, say the researchers.
Over a period of 100,000 years, Earth’s orbit gradually shifts from a nearly perfect circle to a slight oval and back again. In the circular orbit the planet travels more slowly through the dust cloud and therefore sweeps up two to three times as much debris as it does in the oval orbit, according to the model. Kortenkamp compares this to a vacuum cleaner’s picking up more dirt when pushed slowly over a carpet.
Records of extraterrestrial dust gleaned from seafloor sediments confirm the model results in part, says Kenneth A. Farley of the California Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology, at Pasadena, Calif. Like the model, the sediments show dust increasing by a factor of 3 every 100,000 years. The problem lies in the timing. The sediments contain more dust when the model predicts that accumulations should be declining. “Something is really peculiar here,” says Farley.
Climate researchers are skeptical that a tripling of dust accumulation triggered the ice ages. Kortenkamp and Dermott leave that question aside but speculate that the amount of dust could rise to more than 300 times modern values following major collisions in the asteroid belt. Persisting for a million years or more, these dust storms could disrupt climate and bring about long periods of extinctions. Such collisions would also eject larger chunks, which could wallop Earth in the wake of the dust waves.
Models – go figure GK
As a teenagers we were taken just outside Wagga Wagga Australia by our school in 1976 to view a layer of wind blown soil in a gully 9 feet thick called the Brucedale layer .It was deposited during the last ice age by winds blowing from Central Australia S/E towards the Southern Ocean .The iron composition of a lot of Australian Desert soils is well known, and any Australian who has lived through a major dust storm will attest to the density such storms achieve .In a drying and fluctuating climate such as the onset of an ice age such storms would be expected to worsen and become more common ,hence more iron deposition in the Southern Ocean .
During the Second World War both the North Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific got a fair amount of iron (in the form of steel-hulled ships) dumped into them. What effect did that have?