Newswise — A Texas A&M University research team has examined a 100,000-year-old ocean core and found that there have been at least eight occurrences of iron penetrating the Pacific Ocean, each likely associated with abrupt global climate change over thousands of years.
Texas A&M scientists Franco Marcantonio, Matthew Loveley and Marilyn Wisler, all in the Department of Geology and Geophysics in the College of Geosciences, and colleagues from the University of Connecticut, Oregon State University and Old Dominion University have had their findings published in Nature Geoscience.
The team examined ocean sediment cores and found that over the past 100,000 years, at least 8 “pulses” of iron have penetrated the eastern equatorial Pacific. The iron came in the form of dust blown into the ocean during the last glacial period 71,000 to 14,000 years ago.
Each pulse of iron into the Pacific almost certainly resulted in some sort of climate change event that affected temperatures, their findings show.
“Dust was blown into the ocean, and much of this dust contained iron,” explains Marcantonio.
“Some of the dust dissolved and released iron to the surface waters of the ocean. Each time the dust and iron were added to the surface ocean, we found that there was a corresponding pulse of algae growth. The timing of the pulses is associated with cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere.
“The connection to carbon dioxide levels is not clear,” he adds, “but we do raise the provocative idea that the last time global carbon dioxide levels were rising in the past, adding iron to the equatorial Pacific Ocean may have acted to lower these levels to some extent.”
He notes that some researchers think that by seeding the ocean with iron, we can capture large amounts of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas which makes the atmosphere warmer — the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer it is, and the less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the colder it is.
“What does iron have to do with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Plants need trace amounts of iron to photosynthesize,” Marcantonio says.
“So adding iron to the oceans would fertilize the growth of algae. The algae would absorb more atmospheric carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then sink to the seafloor when they die.
“If a lot of atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed and removed from the atmosphere by algae and then transported to the deep ocean, then the atmosphere should theoretically stop warming and get cooler.”
Their research gives us more clues about past climate change events on Earth and the impacts these have had through time.
The project was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Jane and R. Ken Williams ’45 Chair in Ocean Drilling Science, Technology and Education.
HT | Ian H
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“A Texas A&M University research team…”
There’s an Aggie joke in there somewhere.
yes but more is produced and the deeper ocean nutrients may pass by the surface then sink again without the Fe present.
I think you are correct to predict that the outcome may be more complex than some simple sprinkle and behold process but an intelligent process could alter fish stocks and CO2 saturation levels in the ocean.
The cod fishery in the grand banks etc is potentially a casualty of the Fe depletion in the St L river region.
Well known cyclical event off the coast of Africa into the Atlantic. Makes sense that it happens in the Pacific.
you can actually see the dust blowing into the atlantic from africa when on the canary islands. quite a sight.
Just speculation. “almost certainly resulted in some sort of climate change event”. Maybe. No significant evidence this isn’t just correlation (assuming that’s true). Who pays for this schist?
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/travel-and-recreation/fishing/shellfish-biotoxin-alerts/toxic-algal-blooms/
Toxic algal blooms in the seas off New Zealand..
–“Some of the dust dissolved and released iron to the surface waters of the ocean. Each time the dust and iron were added to the surface ocean, we found that there was a corresponding pulse of algae growth. The timing of the pulses is associated with cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere.–
The open oceans are basically sterile and very transparent.
If you add plant food then waters become murky and the oceans near tropics absorb less sunlight and the long term affect is global cooling- because only a few meters get warm rather more than 100 meters.
Or if you want to seed ocean, don’t do it in or near tropics, instead do above 40 degrees latitude.
A core. One core.
From one core using an unknown dating technique.
Eight pulses of iron containing dust.
Source unidentified.
Area of dust unknown.
“Some of the dust dissolved and released iron to the surface waters of the ocean. Each time the dust and iron were added to the surface ocean, we found that there was a corresponding pulse of algae growth”
Some dust dissolved. Gross assumption.
Corresponding algae growth pulses are more gross assumptions. Or have they somehow managed to identify algae growth pulses in the core sample? Then proven that iron in the algae samples is identical to the iron dust.
“The connection to carbon dioxide levels is not clear,” he adds, “but we do raise the provocative idea that the last time global carbon dioxide levels were rising in the past, adding iron to the equatorial Pacific Ocean may have acted to lower these levels to some extent.”
“provocative idea”? As in another gross assumption? Because it fits their confirmation bias?
NB the nebulous waffle words that form the basis of their claims.
“Their research gives us more clues about past climate change events on Earth and the impacts these have had through time.”
Another amazing feat sowing confusion. Claim success in spite of sheer lack of evidence for their claims.
Our wasted tax dollars, in action. Sending researchers on East Pacific vacation trips.
Will someone actually do a study on how much jet fuel is dumped on the oceans?
And if natural cooling kicks in and the irony will be very real. (Yes, pun intended).
Iron seeding is perfectly natural and there are ways to quantify the rate.
Iron is everywhere, it is most often iron oxide, practically worthless biologically. When there is a large volcanic eruption, sulfur dioxide injection into the stratosphere creates sulfur trioxide via UV driven oxidation. This creates iron sulfate which then fertilizes oceans.
How much? Pinatubo 1991 released 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dropped a few ppm for the following months.
Dr Martin scared the CAGW acolytes when he claimed “give me a tanker of iron and I will give you an ice age”. We now know iron has a very short lifespan in the ocean. Vertical migration transports it to the sea floor far faster than natural sedimentation rate.
This is an interesting paper that illustrates that there are always additional factors that might have an effect on the climate that few have considered previously or are figuring into their climate models.
My grandparents property was taken by eminent domain to build a school. They moved across the street. The city used the property for the city dump instead. A few years later our well water became fouled. Part of the problem was additional iron got into the water and caused excessive algae growth. So I have seen in my own personal experience that adding iron to water definitely promotes algae growth.
Whether this would have much of an effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown. Whether this would have much of an effect on worldwide or even local weather conditions is extremely questionable. I am surprised that the authors of the paper would come to the conclusion that they know with some level of certainty what the measurable effects would be. This kind of sloppiness makes the entire paper much less credible.
Iron does not cause algae growth. Iron reducing bacteria is another issue.
Wow, several episodes of subaerial basaltic eruptions, radiolarian blooms, and iron. You don’t say. Then the bloom ended, the rads fell to the sea bottom makes siliceous rad ooze. Iron reducing bacteria decomposed them. Big climate change bro. BTW, red silica rock is called jasper.
Despite of CACA premises, we’ve seen worse.
Iron Seeding of thePacific Ocean May Have Played a Role in Global Climate Change.A small step towards a giant leap next.
Thank you Donald:
…and this is what I’ve been ranting on about round here since t=0 – bacteria and ‘a particular chemical’
Would I be correct in saying that should a vote be taken of the contributors here that chemical fertilisation a(with iron) of the ocean is a bad idea. It would be A geo-engineering experiment that ‘may go wrong’
The ocean is too big and too important for The Climate
(Good progress, climate always seems to be someplace about 5 or 6 feet above the dirt, where climate measuring thermometers are usually placed)
btw, just how does that downwelling radiation heat the water?
Yet there is one humongous elephant in this room – an elephant that weighs in at probably circa 500 megatons. Annually. And growing
A chemical agent that affects bacteria. Bacteria that are feeding on (mostly) cellulose. That are producing carbon dioxide from doing that.
That are changing the very fabric of the dirt we stand upon.
Changing the dirt that creates upwelling radiation, dirt that holds water (so much better than bare rock, gravel, rubble or sand might do. Water that determines The Weather.
Water that determines temperature via its epic thermal/mechanical properties
Everything about weather (hence climate) evolves from what water is getting up to. Especially how much of it there is at any given location.
Yet ALWAYS when a vote for this particular chemical might be taken, the result is 100% in favour of its continued (and expanded) use.
The real killer is that Emotional Blackmail forces the 100% vote – how could anyone (other than Malthus or Prince Chuckles) vote against something that seemingly and magically grows food?
No-one simply cannot – it is “Food From Air” as its early proponents described it.
(That the ‘food’ being grown is nutrient free tasteless mush that slowly yet completely destroys human minds, bodies and brains is another matter)
That geo-engineering is being done with nitrogen.
(I got my 500M tons from 200M tons of ‘artificial’ fertiliser, typically ammonium nitrate, a similar amount from manures and maybe 100M ton from NOx coming from our inbuilt urge (desperation) to burn everything.
And we burn ever more in the safe and sure knowledge that doing so will somehow save us from Climate Change. There is the damage that carbohydrate food does to people – it destroys minds & thinking and perfectly exemplified by the current ‘rage’ about Climate Change)
Carbohydrates are not bad, it is just they have become too easy to acquire, leading to over consumption. Carbohydrates are the most efficient fuel for animals.
Study of sub Milankovic cycles. Aka natural cycles. All the other info is fluff.
I guess it’s what you have to do to get published these days.
Can you say, undersea volcanic activity? https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26745-volcanic-iron-delayed-explosion-of-life-on-earth/
I just wonder how much iron is dumped is the water by ships, through corrosion of their hull (that happens notwithstanding actions to prevent it)
Next to nothing. Even a sunken ship contributes nil due to the oxidation state of +3 which is not available to plankton.
The limiting factor is sulfate anion. Before sulfur scrubbers were mandated on coal burning furnaces, sulfate emissions helped in iron fertilization by reacting with iron dust blown from deserts. Of course damage from acid rain is far worse but sulfate scrubbers have reduced iron fertilization which has reduced carbon sequestration.
hum … One sure thing about life is, if something turns into a limiting factor when other are plenty, then a living being or another will work a way to bypass the limitation. So if Fe+3 is there, and Fe is all that is needed, then some plankton would turn Fe+3 into Fe and thrive. Beside, i bet most of the Fe in dust also comes in the +3 oxidation state.
Now, if it is the sulfate that is the limiting factor, it will be harder to bypass.
Apparently the Sturgeon General had no comment regarding this experiment or this article.
Or ! perhaps , it got warmer and lots of dust was blown in to the ocean and then it got colder and more rain happened and washed more dust (mud) into the ocean. perhaps natural climate change happened and the iron sulfate compounds did nothing or very little.
I can’t see the paper but it appears they took some sediment cores in the Eastern Pacific and then dreamed up a tory about them. Good they took data.
“The connection to carbon dioxide levels is not clear,”
The first time ever I heard that voiced by an AGW fanatic.
“… the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer it is, and the less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the colder it is.”
Neglects to mention which is chicken and which is egg.
So the bottom line is that the Chinese now have a road map to the Paris Agreement by seeding the Pacific with iron starting in the 2025 in order to cool the earth and lower CO2 by the 2030 deadline for them. The Australians can do their part by diverting the conveyor belts of iron ore into the sea instead of the ore carriers. The other hapless countries can shiver in the dark.
Consider: if the supposed link between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and global warming is invalid, so are the conclusions of this report. This general statement could be applied to hundreds, if not thousands, of such research papers. Small wonder that there’s so much resistance to the idea that there could be anything wrong with the CO2/warming link. Food for thought.