next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Hi All, June 21, 2012
It seems to me, iron fertilization, is a win-win-win idea. If conditions
are right (esp. adequate silicon and not excessive iron) then you get a
phytoplankton bloom containing diatoms/foraminifera (with Si or Ca carbonate
shells that sink on death [perhaps with enclosed oil globules]; win). Some
of the phytoplankton may serve as food for marine lifeforms and therby
increase marine productivity; win. And according to articles in the Ch. Hrd.
today & yesterday there are huge reserves of fine iron oxide dust that until
recently has been a useless by-product of iron ore processing. Another win.
If it is such a great idea then why has it not been implemented to the
hilt ? Rhetorical question. 1) Because people in general are very stupid.
For proof, look at the the politicians we elect. 2) Because it takes a
widely recognized crisis, such as an imminent invasion, to focus the
collective mind (borrowed from Samual Johnson). 3) Because the idea of iron
fertilization has been actively opposed by Environmental Organizations from
the start, probably because it threatened their cash cow.
A 2008 pilot project was cancelled largely due to Environmedallist's
activity; worrying e.g. that applying tons of iron dust would disrupt the
marine ecosystem. Well, in 1991 a volcano deposited 40,000 tons of iron dust
into the oceans and the sun still came up on time. So why make a big deal
over a test involving several tons ? Also it measurably decreased
atmospheric CO2 and increased O2.
It would not be practical to apply 40,000 tons of iron dust even once
but the volcanic dust did not always land where it would have maximum
effect. Whereas an effective iron fertilization program would avoid areas
where response would be minimal.
In addition (4), I think those who have run these fairly expensive
trials have been reluctant to apply less than an overdose of iron so they
can be sure of observing some response. And the flip side of this is the
real problem to be resolved; how to formulate a rate that leads to
satisfactory CO2 capture without triggering adverse effects associated with
massive blooms ?
It will happen when some functional agency, such as the US Corp of
Engineers, is assigned the job by some country that assumes a leadership
role.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb@istar.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Ocean acidification
> On 6/20/2012 11:45 AM, Christopher Majka wrote:
>
>> On 20-Jun-12, at 12:14 PM, Frederick W. Schueler wrote:
>
>>> whatever happened to the old proposal to suck carbon out of the
>>> atmosphere by releasing iron into iron-deficient tropical ocean
>>> currents to increase planktonic productivity, and depositing a plume
>>> of fixed carbon (and planktonic CaCO3 shells?) on the downstream ocean
>>> floor? How would this impact acidification?
>
>> "The only way to stop ocean acidification -- and the only way to stop
>> climate change -- is for all of us to emit less carbon dioxide. There's
>> no way to gerrymander this. We can't postpone action on climate change
>> and ocean acidification until economic conditions are ripe any more than
>> we can postpone death or taxes. We must grapple with these issues now.
>> ...Turning our climate into a hothouse and our oceans into a corrosive
>> brew would be a bleak monument to human stupidity, greed, and
>> shortsightedness. Now is the time to act before we create a corrosive
>> oceanic wasteland."
>
> * no question about that - no fossil fuels were directly used to heat our
> dwelling over the past year, and as I wrote at
> http://www.pinicola.ca/books/index.htm#HOW2 "Many philosophers have
> speculated, with the example of humanity before them, that intelligent
> life may be an ephemeral phenomenon, because the ability to over-exploit a
> planet may always outstrip the wisdom required to figure out how to
> sustain intelligent life on the long term."
>
>> Well, it is an idea, (adding finely ground iron can increase
>> photosynthesis in tropical regions thirty-fold) and if things continue
>> to deteriorate we may be forced to resort to such ocean engineering
>> strategies. It's hard to imagine the engineering challenges of doing
>> this on a scale large enough to make a difference to the world's oceans.
>> You would need to use enormous amounts of iron and you would generate
>> vast quantities of carbohydrates. Even if you did this over deep water,
>> how long would this remain stable before decomposing and releasing the
>> CO^2?
>
> * lots of questions here, but the main problem seems to be the small scale
> of the trials that have been held -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization - I should remember the
> rule of never writing about anything before reading the wikipedia article
> (which in this case is quite thorough).
>
> fred
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Bishops Mills Natural History Centre - http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> South Nation Basin Art & Science Book
> http://pinicola.ca/books/SNR_book.htm
> RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5080 - Release Date: 06/19/12
>
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects