Do humans pumping iron bring cleaner skies? Prof says ‘maybe’

[gulfcoastliberal]

Lecturer: Adding iron to oceans might cut greenhouse gasses

Michael McKay delivered the first College of Arts and Science Distinguished Faculty Lecture of the 2005-2006 academic year at the Bowen-Thompson Union Theater yesterday.

The lecture, “Bioengineering Our Climate,” explained how the use of iron fertilization in the ocean can affect our climate’s temperature. This is done by removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

According to McKay, implanting iron into the ocean can actually reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is possible because the ocean is 50 percent more efficient in trapping carbon than the atmosphere.

“Over the past century, since the industrial revolution, the atmospheric carbon levels have increased about 30 percent,” McKay said. “We can attribute this to the emission of human activities. It is not just carbon dioxide, but other greenhouse gases as well.”

More at

http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/07/4370b6676bcd5

I distinctly remember a geology professor commenting on this - said some scientists actually feared creating an ice-age because the phytoplankton blooms created by the iron fertilization sequester atmospheric CO2 so well.

[Richard D]

1. Interesting idea

I wonder how much iron it would take to be effective. Also seems like one of those things that could have an unknown blowback effect.
Then again, something like this might be our only hope.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Self delete...

Answered my own question.
=================

Here's a joke instead:

A woman rubbed a bottle and out popped a genie. The amazed woman asked if she got three wishes.

The genie said, "Nope, sorry, three-wish genies are a storybook myth. I'm a one-wish genie. So... what'll it be?"

The woman did not hesitate. She said, "I want peace in the Middle East. See this map? I want these countries to stop fighting with each other and I want all the Arabs to love the Jews and Americans and vice-versa. It will bring about world peace and harmony."

The genie looked at the map and exclaimed, "Lady, be reasonable. These countries have been at war for thousands of years. I'm out of shape after being in a bottle for five hundred years.. I'm good but not THAT good! I don't think it can be done. Make another wish and please be reasonable."

The woman thought for a minute and said, "Well, I've never been able to find the right man. You know - one that's considerate and fun, likes to cook and help with the house cleaning, is great in bed, and gets along with my family, doesn't watch sports all the time, and is faithful. That is what I wish for...a good man."

The genie let out a sigh.

"Let me see that fucking map again."

[applegrove]

3. The other thing to do would be to grow little shellfish - the microscopic

kind. And when they die their shells sink to the bottom. Full of carbon. Where they stay there for billions of years.

[Odin2005]

4. I've been a supporter of this ever since I head of the idea.

We need to start doing this NOW.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. I was sure that my lifting weights would help the world!

I guess I'll keep on doing it.

[NNadir]

6. Changing the chemistry of the oceans is one of the best ideas I have ever

heard.

This is certainly a brilliant idea, and almost risk free.

It is much easier than choosing a path other than stopping the discharge of fossil fuels. After all, human history is notable for our avoidance of the law of unintended consequences.

An excellent source of iron would certainly be the rotting hulks of hummers, after the fossil fuels run out. I propose auto junkyards at sea.

[Viking12]

7. It is a great idea....

Almost as good as changing the chemistry of the atmosphere :eyes: Ideas like this remind me of my when 3-year old makes a mess and then tries to clean up by himself. He compounds the problem and make the mess worse.

[NNadir]

8. That's a good analogy.

Three year olds probably constitute the largest class of human beings who can be observed without pretense and self deception.

[jpak]

11. Nonsesense

Iron fertilization experiments have never resulted in sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Any stimulated phytoplankton production is quickly remineralized back to CO2 and none is exported from the euphotic zone.

Several studies have further indicated that Fe fertilization may enhance GHG emissions by stimulating the production of methane and nitrous oxide.

These schemes will result in the eutrophication of large areas of the ocean - just like the Louisiana "Dead Zone", Chesapeake Bay and the Baltic Sea.

It's nonsense and the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography is dead set against it.

(jpak posting from New Zealand - ciao)

[Viking12]

12. I think you missed something...

NNadir's post is :sarcasm:

[NNadir]

13. Um, I guess when working with poor readers, one should use the sarcasm

button. I guess that's why one can post a "sarcasm" icon:

Some people lack the wit to understand sarcasm and need to have it spelled out for them explicitly.

As we work our reading comprehension skills, one should note in my post the line about Hummers and the remark about the law of unintended consequences.

Usually one is safe to over-estimate readers on this site, but not always.

[DJ MEW]

9. And the effects on coral reefs, arctic and antarctic ice sheets,

and endangered marine species would be.

It is a sad testament to the state of our planet when we have to intentionally alter the chemical balance of nature in order keep our atmosphere live-able.

[Boomer]

10. The oceans WERE a good carbon sink

But gues what, we've been using that carbon sink already and it's just about full.

Numerous articles on this forum have described how the oceans are approaching saturation level and may not be able to bind any more carbon. And what carbon is already present has turned ocean waters into a weak solution of carbolic acid that is bleaching coral reefs and dissolving the shells of sea life.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. And we can get that much iron for FREE, right?

Let's see ... iron must be mined and smelted and then converted into some kind of form where it can be assimilated easily in seawater. That takes energy. Unless that energy comes from hundreds of non-existent nukes or huge banks of windplants, a lot of atmospheric carbon is going to be generated.

We must also be willing to destroy most or all sealife that is sensitive to high levels of iron. Say good-bye to Charlie the Tuna. (Of course, with the seas dying, we should say good-bye to him anyway.) Maybe we could just grow lots of spinach instead, eh?

The way I see it, unless we can convert about 90% of our energy sources to carbon-free status by, let's say, this coming April, we might as well prepare for massive climate and agricultural changes and focus on saving peoples' lives. We've set an avalanche in motion that can not be stopped quickly enough to help us out directly. We ought to work on what we can and minimize the damage.

Of course, I could be wrong. Any rebuttals?

--p!