[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Why can't we dump iron to cause blooms to trap CO2?

Why? Because according to you, we don't have a CO2 problem.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Because if we could limit/reduce/remove our CO2 then people who do think that CO2 is going to destroy the world wouldn't be screaming about it all the time. (and this iron seeding is a way to do it without spending trillions on the project) Those people would need a new and likely even more silly thing to cry about.

Remember when Greenpeace tried to ban the element chlorine?

So you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to address a problem that you say doesn't exist in order to--what?--placate people? Again, you're just not making any sense.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Why? Because according to you, we don't have a CO2 problem.

I wasn't aware that I was the deciding factor.

If CO2 is a problem why can't we develop a iron seeding project to eliminate man made CO2? A project which also seems able to create food for fish and other sea creatures, why can't we look into this?

$1:

So you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to address a problem that you say doesn't exist in order to--what?--placate people? Again, you're just not making any sense.

Yes, because a few hundred million a year is much better than hundreds of billions in other projects all trying for the same thing.

I'm making perfect sense.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

I wasn't aware that I was the deciding factor.

If CO2 is a problem why can't we develop a iron seeding project to eliminate man made CO2? A project which also seems able to create food for fish and other sea creatures, why can't we look into this?

If you thought that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past century or so was a problem, then perhaps I could buy your argument. But given that you clearly don't think CO2 is a problem, you're talkijng about taking hundreds of millions of dollars and literally dumping it into the ocean.

$1:

So you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to address a problem that you say doesn't exist in order to--what?--placate people? Again, you're just not making any sense.

Yes, because a few hundred million a year is much better than hundreds of billions in other projects all trying for the same thing.

I'm making perfect sense.

I would argue if CO2 concentration isn't a problem then we just let it accumulate. As for your costs, you haven't really provided much evidence to support your idea of costs. The technology is unproven, so if it's not effective, costs could be an order of magnitude or two high.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Ohhhhh....a theorist. Yeah, I guess that makes sense now.

Why can't we dump iron to cause blooms to trap CO2?

It might hurt the ocean. Well it might, so why don't we test it and see if it does?

Better yet what about the other times we tested this and it didn't hurt anything and cause a large bloom that trapped a boat load of CO2? Should we just ignore that?

What about when the natural winds shift and blow a huge amount of dirt into the oceans and it causes the same bloom? Should we ignore that, because it happened due to the wind and say it doesn't count?

Why shouldn't we be testing iron seeding if people think it might cause harm? We should be able to figure out with enough data a safe system of seeding amounts and times and locations. Why isn't this being tested as a top priority of the UN who are so very sure that CO2 is going to destroy the world?
~

When will you offer me some way to answer your question about what my score is with a pistol?

One can certainly postulate that an experiment be done to indeed see if this is a plausible way to trap CO2.

However, what was done was not an experiment in CO2 trapping, it was an experiment in seeding not done using a controlled scientific process but instead using a process motivated to create food. There does not appear to be much indication that the scientific community had bought off on this nor were they involved to any extent save for those who were hired by the company. In addition, does it not strike you as odd that all of the net benefits reported have come from company spokesman and not independent scientists and researchers?

Next I'll be accepting ecological studies of the Gulf of Mexico from BP because of course, they have no stake in anything right?

When one opts to fart around with Mother Nature, one might want to take it in measured well researched stages before saying ...huh, what's the worst that can happen?"

Funny, two scientists just on this forum have chimed in with their issues about this and you've brushed their years of education and training aside.

As for you pistol scores...well, as much fun as it must be for you to giggle to yourself as you wax obtuse I'll point out our conversation...

Xort Xort:

Update: It is reported that all the people wounded were hurt by the police, and the shooter they killed wasn't shooting at the police when they shot him (he did try to draw his gun on them, or maybe pointed it at them, which would be more than enough justification to kill him in my mind).

That last report I read said the police started shooting from about 8 feet away.

They fired 14 rounds. The dead man had 10 bullet wounds, which 3 were suggested to be exit wounds.

So they managed to hit the guy 50% of the time from 8 feet away.

$1:

Xort Xort:

What's your average?

Not a terribly complicated conversation really. The dripping arrogance of your posts strongly suggests a far higher degree of proficiency in this situation than the police had. Hence my query to you.

If you have no stats to back it up, then obviously that finger nail biting personal anecdote where in a similar circumstance, you heroically killed the bad guy surrounded by innocent civilians with that one or two well aimed shots would be amply sufficient.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I would argue if CO2 concentration isn't a problem then we just let it accumulate. As for your costs, you haven't really provided much evidence to support your idea of costs. The technology is unproven, so if it's not effective, costs could be an order of magnitude or two high.

Even then it would still be much cheaper than other CO2 reduction or management plans.

But again back to my point if it is unproven then maybe we should be testing it, so it is proven.

That we have people using the very same method to reach a different goal would remove the cost aspect compleatly as this would be a money making venture, and not some BS 'green' money maker (which are mostly more costly so they don't make money).

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

However, what was done was not an experiment in CO2 trapping, it was an experiment in seeding not done using a controlled scientific process but instead using a process motivated to create food.

So what? Happens all the time.

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

One can certainly postulate that an experiment be done to indeed see if this is a plausible way to trap CO2.

However, what was done was not an experiment in CO2 trapping, it was an experiment in seeding not done using a controlled scientific process but instead using a process motivated to create food.

Correct, and if they get more fish, or bigger fish or whatever they wanted to try and do, then as a byproduct of their fish feeding program we get some CO2 reduction. We could maybe ask them nicely if we could add some science into their economic activity and see if this sort of iron seeding could not only incress fish levels but also reduce CO2.

$1:

There does not appear to be much indication that the scientific community had bought off on this nor were they involved to any extent save for those who were hired by the company. In addition, does it not strike you as odd that all of the net benefits reported have come from company spokesman and not independent scientists and researchers?

Net benefits from the past iron seeding projects? Or are you talking about the yet unknown affect of this seeding effort?

$1:

Next I'll be accepting ecological studies of the Gulf of Mexico from BP because of course, they have no stake in anything right?

Which is why you can look at their data and see if they are trying to pull a fast one on you or not.

Just because a party has an intrest doesn't totaly remove them from being able to offer good studies. I'm willing to accept that a climate scientist will offer good data even if as you say 'they have no stake in anything' to do with a warming climate.

$1:

When one opts to fart around with Mother Nature, one might want to take it in measured well researched stages before saying ...huh, what's the worst that can happen?"

What is the worst that can happen? A short term zone of low oxygen in the water. A problem we have caused many times before close into the shore (which is a more sensitive area).

So as the voice of careful research you support a full effort to study what iron seeding may offer. Well this isn't a new idea I read about this when I worked in a gas station in Wired so that's at least 9 years old now. What futher research has been done? How many iron seeding research efforts are underway right now?

$1:

Funny, two scientists just on this forum have chimed in with their issues about this and you've brushed their years of education and training aside.

Who was that?

$1:

As for you pistol scores...well, as much fun as it must be for you to giggle to yourself as you wax obtuse I'll point out our conversation...

You ask what my score is, I ask you to define how you want me to give you a score.

Answer my question and I will be able to answer your question.

$1:

Not a terribly complicated conversation really. The dripping arrogance of your posts strongly suggests a far higher degree of proficiency in this situation than the police had. Hence my query to you.

I've never shot someone I didn't intend to shoot. Some of the people I shot, were shooting back at me. Those New York cops were panic firing at a person that never fired a shot at them from point blank range, and as you could expect they missed a lot. Yeah I'm much better than those guys at shooting. Futher, unless a police officer goes to a range more than once a month and spends at least a full day shooting, I'm better than all those officers as well. Shooting a pistol is a skill, you need to practice it.

$1:

If you have no stats to back it up, then obviously that finger nail biting personal anecdote where in a similar circumstance, you heroically killed the bad guy surrounded by innocent civilians with that one or two well aimed shots would be amply sufficient.

What stats would you like? That I can hit a man sized target 100% of the time at 8 feet?

Again, you keep asking me for my score, and I keep asking you to define how you want me to calcuate a score.

Also nice huge red herring, my skill with a firearm has nothing to do with, the iron seeding projects either for CO2 reduction or as fish food.

Want to get on topic? Or are you going to ask me another undefined question, or maybe run away and pretend like I'm not calling you out for your BS?

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

However, what was done was not an experiment in CO2 trapping, it was an experiment in seeding not done using a controlled scientific process but instead using a process motivated to create food.

So what? Happens all the time.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

Gunnair Gunnair:

One can certainly postulate that an experiment be done to indeed see if this is a plausible way to trap CO2.

However, what was done was not an experiment in CO2 trapping, it was an experiment in seeding not done using a controlled scientific process but instead using a process motivated to create food.

Correct, and if they get more fish, or bigger fish or whatever they wanted to try and do, then as a byproduct of their fish feeding program we get some CO2 reduction. We could maybe ask them nicely if we could add some science into their economic activity and see if this sort of iron seeding could not only incress fish levels but also reduce CO2.

$1:

There does not appear to be much indication that the scientific community had bought off on this nor were they involved to any extent save for those who were hired by the company. In addition, does it not strike you as odd that all of the net benefits reported have come from company spokesman and not independent scientists and researchers?

Net benefits from the past iron seeding projects? Or are you talking about the yet unknown affect of this seeding effort?

$1:

Next I'll be accepting ecological studies of the Gulf of Mexico from BP because of course, they have no stake in anything right?

Which is why you can look at their data and see if they are trying to pull a fast one on you or not.

Just because a party has an intrest doesn't totaly remove them from being able to offer good studies. I'm willing to accept that a climate scientist will offer good data even if as you say 'they have no stake in anything' to do with a warming climate.

$1:

When one opts to fart around with Mother Nature, one might want to take it in measured well researched stages before saying ...huh, what's the worst that can happen?"

What is the worst that can happen? A short term zone of low oxygen in the water. A problem we have caused many times before close into the shore (which is a more sensitive area).

So as the voice of careful research you support a full effort to study what iron seeding may offer. Well this isn't a new idea I read about this when I worked in a gas station in Wired so that's at least 9 years old now. What futher research has been done? How many iron seeding research efforts are underway right now?

$1:

Funny, two scientists just on this forum have chimed in with their issues about this and you've brushed their years of education and training aside.

Who was that?

$1:

As for you pistol scores...well, as much fun as it must be for you to giggle to yourself as you wax obtuse I'll point out our conversation...

You ask what my score is, I ask you to define how you want me to give you a score.

Answer my question and I will be able to answer your question.

$1:

Not a terribly complicated conversation really. The dripping arrogance of your posts strongly suggests a far higher degree of proficiency in this situation than the police had. Hence my query to you.

I've never shot someone I didn't intend to shoot. Some of the people I shot, were shooting back at me. Those New York cops were panic firing at a person that never fired a shot at them from point blank range, and as you could expect they missed a lot. Yeah I'm much better than those guys at shooting. Futher, unless a police officer goes to a range more than once a month and spends at least a full day shooting, I'm better than all those officers as well. Shooting a pistol is a skill, you need to practice it.

$1:

If you have no stats to back it up, then obviously that finger nail biting personal anecdote where in a similar circumstance, you heroically killed the bad guy surrounded by innocent civilians with that one or two well aimed shots would be amply sufficient.

What stats would you like? That I can hit a man sized target 100% of the time at 8 feet?

Again, you keep asking me for my score, and I keep asking you to define how you want me to calcuate a score.

Also nice huge red herring, my skill with a firearm has nothing to do with, the iron seeding projects either for CO2 reduction or as fish food.

Want to get on topic? Or are you going to ask me another undefined question, or maybe run away and pretend like I'm not calling you out for your BS?

Not a scientific process in any way shape or form. That would be the point here. One can certainly try this, but under scientifically controlled conditions with independent scrutiny and without situating the estimate.

As for the two scientists - that would be Mr. Fish and Caleb. They certainly seemed to have reservations and frankly, I'm more likely to take their opinions over a gas station attendant who read about in in Wired.

As for your shooting... well of course you're a better shot...and a black belt...and a millionaire with a trophy wife.

Actually, I'm not really looking for an answer here because I have no expectations you would answer truthfully. I'm just ribbing our latest Eureka that's all.

[BartSimpson]

I mean it, Gunny. So what if there's someone stimulating the ocean to provide more food? I really don't care if the experiment wasn't scientific but was instead aquacultural. It's no different that fertilizing a field to grow food instead of doing so for science.

I'm just not seeing a problem here.

And 100 tons of anything spread over 10,000 square kilometers is not really a lot.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I mean it, Gunny. So what if there's someone stimulating the ocean to provide more food? I really don't care if the experiment wasn't scientific but was instead aquacultural. It's no different that fertilizing a field to grow food instead of doing so for science.

I'm just not seeing a problem here.

And 100 tons of anything spread over 10,000 square kilometers is not really a lot.

Well let's not ignore what uncontrolled fertilization of land does firstly. Yes, pesticides and herbicides are not iron oxide, but introducing them into agriculture has had its issues and frankly, irrespective of Xort's reading at the gas pump, there does not appear to be a lot of consensus yet on the net benefits.

wiki wiki:

While ocean iron fertilization could represent a potent mean to slow global warming current debate raises a variety of concerns.

Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who would take the action. The side effects of large-scale iron fertilization are not yet known. Creating phytoplankton blooms in naturally iron-poor areas of the ocean is like watering the desert: in effect it changes one type of ecosystem into another.

The argument can be applied in reverse, by considering emissions to be the action and remediation an attempt to partially offset the damage.

20th-century phytoplankton decline

While advocates argue that iron addition would help to reverse a supposed decline in phytoplankton, this decline may not be real. One study reported a decline in ocean productivity comparing the 1979–1986 and 1997–2000 periods,[51] but two others found increases in phytoplankton.[52][53]

Comparison to prior phytoplankton cycles

Fertilization advocates respond that similar algal blooms have occurred naturally for millions of years with no observed ill effects. The Azolla event occurred around 49 million years ago and accomplished what fertilization is intended to achieve (but on a larger scale).

Sequestration efficiency

This section overlaps with other sections too much. It should be combined with the rest of the article.

Fertilization may sequester too little carbon per bloom, supporting the food chain rather than raining on the ocean floor, and thus require too many seeding voyages to be practical.[14][54] A 2009 Indo-German team of scientists examined the potential of the south-western Atlantic to sequester significant amounts of carbon dioxide, but found few positive results.[55]

The counter-argument to this is that the low sequestration estimates that emerged from some ocean trials are largely due to these factors:[citation needed]
Data: none of the ocean trials had enough boat time to monitor their blooms for more than five weeks, confining their measurements to that period. Blooms generally last 60–90 days with the heaviest "precipitation" occurring during the last two months.

Scale: most trials used less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) of iron and thus created small blooms that were quickly devoured by opportunistic zooplankton, krill, and fish that swarmed into the seeded region.

Some ocean trials reported positive results. IronEx II reported conversion of 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) to carbonaceous biomass equivalent to one hundred full-grown redwoods within two weeks. Eifex recorded fixation ratios of nearly 300,000 to 1.
Current estimates of the amount of iron required to restore all the lost plankton and sequester 3 gigatons/year of CO2 range widely, from approximately 2 hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. The latter scenario involves 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of approximately €20 billion ($27 billion).[citation needed]

[edit]Ecological issues
[edit]Algal blooms

Main article: Harmful algal bloom

A "red tide" off the coast of La Jolla, San Diego, California.
Critics are concerned that fertilization will create harmful algal blooms (HAB). The species that respond most strongly to fertilization vary by location and other factors and could possibly include species that cause red tides and other toxic phenomena. These factors affect only near-shore waters, although they show that increased phytoplankton populations are not universally benign.[citation needed]
Most species of phytoplankton are harmless or beneficial, given that they constitute the base of the marine food chain. Fertilization increases phytoplankton only in the deep oceans (far from shore) where iron deficiency is the problem. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect.[citation needed]

A 2010 study of iron fertilization in an oceanic high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll environment, however, found that fertilized Pseudo-nitzschia diatom spp., which are generally nontoxic in the open ocean, began producing toxic levels of domoic acid. Even short-lived blooms containing such toxins could have detrimental effects on marine food webs.[56]

Deep water oxygen levels

When organic bloom detritus sinks into the abyss, a significant fraction will be devoured by bacteria, other microorganisms and deep sea animals which also consume oxygen. A large enough bloom could render certain regions of the sea deep beneath it anoxic and threaten other benthic species.[citation needed]

The largest plankton replenishment projects under consideration are less than 10% the size of most natural wind-fed blooms. In the wake of major dust storms, natural blooms have been studied since the beginning of the 20th century and no such deep water dieoffs have been reported.[citation needed]

Ecosystem effects

Depending upon the composition and timing of delivery, iron infusions could preferentially favor certain species and alter surface ecosystems to unknown effect. Population explosions of jellyfish, that disturb the food chain impacting whale populations or fisheries is unlikely as iron fertilization experiments that are conducted in high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll waters favor the growth of larger diatoms over small flagellates. This has been shown to lead to increased abundance of fish and whales over jellyfish[57] A 2010 study shows that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas [58] which, the authors argue, raises "serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations".

However, CO2-induced surface water heating and rising carbonic acidity are already shifting population distributions for phytoplankton, zooplankton and many other creatures. Optimal fertilization could potentially help restore lost/threatened ecosystem services.[citation needed]

Conclusion and further research

Critics and advocates generally agree that most questions on the impact, safety and efficacy of ocean iron fertilization can only be answered by much larger studies.
A statement published in Science in 2008 maintained that it would be
premature to sell carbon offsets from the first generation of commercial-scale OIF experiments unless there is better demonstration that OIF effectively removes CO2, retains that carbon in the ocean for a quantifiable amount of time, and has acceptable and predictable environmental impacts.[59]

Note that previous trials used around 1000 kgs - significantly less than the 100 tons dropped in what was not a scientific experiment but a fertilization experiment. There are some very good points of concern here, such as deep water oxygen levels and ecosystem effects and yes, the call is for larger studies.

I support the scientific research because there appears to be cause for hope that this may provide an answer for man assisted climate change, but since we're tinkering with nature here, it only makes sense that it is done carefully and with significant scientific analysis.

Frankly, aquaculture got a big thumbs up on the coast as a way to increase food stocks and that has not worked out quite so well, so I'm rather leery of even bigger experiments going on with even less scientific oversight.

[Thanos]

I'll wait to see if an anoxic zone actually results before I condemn this project. It's not like the government signed off on dumping radioactive waste into the harbour outside of Vancouver. Given the dead zone that results all the time from Victoria and Halifax jettisoning untreated raw sewage directly into the sea I have a difficult time freaking out over what's essentially a tiny concentration of iron powder.

[Gunnair]

Thanos Thanos:

I'll wait to see if an anoxic zone actually results before I condemn this project. It's not like the government signed off on dumping radioactive waste into the harbour outside of Vancouver. Given the dead zone that results all the time from Victoria and Halifax jettisoning untreated raw sewage directly into the sea I have a difficult time freaking out over what's essentially a tiny concentration of iron powder.

You should come out to Victoria and see if you can find this dead zone. It doesn't exist.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

Even then it would still be much cheaper than other CO2 reduction or management plans.

Sez you. You haven't really presented any evidence to support this. I think the root of your irrational reasoning is because you enjoy the aspect of pissing of environmentalists. Or perhapws you just enjoy being contrarian. Either way, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

$1:

But again back to my point if it is unproven then maybe we should be testing it, so it is proven.

If it is unproven? I would offer that it's given that it is unproven.

You're right, we should be testing it. And people are testing it. But testing involves collecting data, and there dosn't seem to be much of that going on in this case.

[Thanos]

Sorry. Just assuming that pouring thousands of gallons of piss and shit into something every day isn't too healthy for anything that lives in or near it.