Comments on: Iron Fertilization Will Not Help Global Warming

By: Mal fabian

Mal fabian — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:00:47 +0000

Adding iron to the sea will not only cure global warming , it will feed billions more people . one day they will ” discover ” that adding used food tin cans to the ocean as artificial reefs , will add the required iron fertilization as a slow release fertilizer and nursery for all the extra fish .There are far too many people lining up to make billions from global warming to let it be cured for a few cents .Some governments see a carbon tax as the perfect way to tax the air we breath and control who gets the right to breathe . As we increase the amount of irrigation we decrease the amount of natural iron flowing into the ocean , Lack of iron is the CAUSE of global warming , the algae can not remove theCO2 from the air because we stop rivers carrying iron into the oceans , adding tin cans to ocean WILL cure global warming for free as well as save the whales and feed billions with extra fish , once we remove the greedy experts

By: romunov

romunov — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:37:16 +0000

Angelo, I’m a Futurama junkee myself. ^_^

Kevin: A few years ago some student came to me with an idea to sequester CO2 in small “greenwater” aquaria where phytoplankton could be grown. I told him that the idea is not feasible because the CO2 will go right back as soon as the phytoplankton degrades.
I did get a better idea what to do with algae, though. :)

By: Angelo Villagomez

Angelo Villagomez — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:34:01 +0000

Can’t we just drop a giant icecube in the middle of the ocean?

By: Some Geoengineering problems « Path To Sustainable

Some Geoengineering problems « Path To Sustainable — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:08:11 +0000

[...] March 25, 2009 by Richard Iron Fertilization Will Not Help Global Warming: [Via Deep Sea News] BERLIN (AFP) — Indian and German scientists have said that a controversial experiment has “dampened hopes” that dumping hundreds of tonnes of dissolved iron in the Southern Ocean can lessen global warming. The experiment involved “fertilising” a 300-square-kilometre (115-sqare-mile) area of ocean inside the core of an eddy — an immense rotating column of water [More] [...]

By: Kevin Z

Kevin Z — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:29:03 +0000

Its beyond me really. If only 10% of surface production can make it down to the bottom anyways, why is this even economically viable? It makes me wonder what they plan to say to people and companies in their sales pitch for carbon sequestration…

By: Dr. M

Dr. M — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:14:17 +0000

Exactly

By: Peter Etnoyer

Peter Etnoyer — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:32:20 +0000

Provided the twilight zone doesn’t act as a Gate, right?

http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/04/the_twilight_zone_the_gate_and.php

By: Dr. M

Dr. M — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:19:16 +0000

I think probably the researchers were unclear of what the lag time between the phytoplankton and zooplankton cropping would be. The longer the lag for the zooplankton population to utilize all the phytoplankton production the more that production that will be transported to the deep.

By: Peter Etnoyer

Peter Etnoyer — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:54:30 +0000

They didn’t know that zooplankton eat phytoplankton? Next time (if there is one) they should plan to bring a biologist along.