[late]

Do any of you really think that if there was a serious expectation this could work, a group of richer than god oil guys wouldn't have paid for the experiment themselves? It wouldn't be expensive to them.

Btw, the idea that scientists could prevent billionaires from doing anything, that little conspiracy theory is what they call a tell.

They know their audience.

[Steve_American]

It's not like no other limiting nutrient could be supplied. The appeal of iron is that it seems to be the limiting factor in a lot of places, only very small amounts are needed, and it is very cheap to supply.

Way back in the 60s Isaac Asimov wrote that the limiting element in the oceans was phosphorus.
Maybe we could add a little phosphorus to the mix.

PS --- a trillion tons is 1000 gigatons.

.

[Pants-of-dog]

I still say that this will probably cause a bloom in iron eating planktons and not carbon eating plankton, and that the places in the ocean where iron is the limiting factor may not be close to shipping routes.

[late]

I still say that this will probably cause a bloom in iron eating planktons and not carbon eating plankton, and that the places in the ocean where iron is the limiting factor may not be close to shipping routes.

If we could generate gigatonnes of plankton, then they would absorb carbon, die, and fall to the sea floor, sequestering that carbon.

It's been tried before, without much success. There is a pattern here, Big Oil will come up with an excuse (like trees). And then the science will prove that could never work, so they will come up with a new excuse.

This is just the usual sleaze, to be blunt about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

If we could generate gigatonnes of plankton, then they would absorb carbon, die, and fall to the sea floor, sequestering that carbon.

It's been tried before, without much success. There is a pattern here, Big Oil will come up with an excuse (like trees). And then the science will prove that could never work, so they will come up with a new excuse.

This is just the usual sleaze, to be blunt about it.

The path from iron being dumped off the side of a freighter to carbon at the bottom of the ocean is fraught with many side paths.

While the few experiments did show promise, the impact on anthropogenic global warming might be insignificant.

[late]

The path from iron being dumped off the side of a freighter to carbon at the bottom of the ocean is fraught with many side paths.

While the few experiments did show promise, the impact on anthropogenic global warming might be insignificant.

My thought exactly.

[Truth To Power]

Way back in the 60s Isaac Asimov wrote that the limiting element in the oceans was phosphorus.
Maybe we could add a little phosphorus to the mix.

Phosphorus is needed in much larger quantities than iron, and it is not cheap because it is already in widespread use as an agricultural fertilizer. So probably it would be impractical to significantly fertilize the oceans with it.

[Truth To Power]

I still say that this will probably cause a bloom in iron eating planktons and not carbon eating plankton,

All planktons eat carbon in vastly larger quantities than iron. The question is whether the plankton that need iron will sequester the carbon in indigestible carbonate shells or just be eaten by some larger organism, releasing the carbon again.

and that the places in the ocean where iron is the limiting factor may not be close to shipping routes.

Ocean circulation will mix the iron to a fairly uniform concentration very quickly.

[Truth To Power]

The path from iron being dumped off the side of a freighter to carbon at the bottom of the ocean is fraught with many side paths.

But some portion of almost any increase in marine biomass is likely to end up as the indigestible carbonate shells of molluscs, crustaceans, etc., so there is a potential for carbon sequestration.

While the few experiments did show promise, the impact on anthropogenic global warming might be insignificant.

The albedo effect of turning the oceans green would almost certainly be larger -- possibly much larger -- than the modest effect of CO2 emissions on temperature.

[Pants-of-dog]

All planktons eat carbon in vastly larger quantities than iron.

Prove it.

The question is whether the plankton that need iron will sequester the carbon in indigestible carbonate shells or just be eaten by some larger organism, releasing the carbon again.

That is one of the many ways in which this hypothesis could fail, yes.

Ocean circulation will mix the iron to a fairly uniform concentration very quickly.

Prove it.

But some portion of almost any increase in marine biomass is likely to end up as the indigestible carbonate shells of molluscs, crustaceans, etc., so there is a potential for carbon sequestration.

It could be an insignificant amount.

The albedo effect of turning the oceans green would almost certainly be larger -- possibly much larger -- than the modest effect of CO2 emissions on temperature.

Prove it.

[ckaihatsu]

Kelp Is Weirdly Great at Carbon Removal

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... al/638421/


(Haven't read it, though.)

[BlutoSays]

[ckaihatsu]

Kelp Is Weirdly Great at Carbon Removal

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... al/638421/


(Haven't read it, though.)

Okay, I read it now. (grin)

[BlutoSays]

Steve gets a "great idea" and suddenly half of sea life becomes extinct.

[late]

Steve gets a "great idea" and suddenly half of sea life becomes extinct.

That is what we call your basic 100% wrong goof.

[Steve_American]

That is what we call your basic 100% wrong goof.

This is an example of why 1 line posts are to be avoided.

Late, the "That" there can refer to a few things. It is confusing. And the "your" didn't help.

You might even be saying that I suggested something stupid.
.

[Rancid]

I do wonder how much my farts contribute to this problem.

[late]

This is an example of why 1 line posts are to be avoided.

Late, the "That" there can refer to a few things. It is confusing. And the "your" didn't help.

You might even be saying that I suggested something stupid.

I quoted the idiotic part.

The area under discussion isn't barren, but there isn't much there. So even if you dumped poison, it would have much of an effect globally.

[BlutoSays]

[late]

1989

By the time that was published, climatology had already made fun of it, and moved on.

Seriously, you have more ways to be wrong than Carter has Little Liver Pills.