The iron fertililty controversy

The German government has at least temporarily suspended an experiment that would see 20 tonnes of iron dust dumped into the ocean between Argentina and Antarctica in hopes of inducing plankton bloom that sucks up atmospheric CO2, according to Nature. First, says the government, you have to do an environmental impact study. But the very experiment itself is a study in environmental consequences. After all, if it works, then we might have at our disposal a simple way to draw down as much as 10% of the atmospheric carbon that's heating the planet. But wait.

There's this international convention that amounts to a voluntary moratorium on ocean fertilization activities until there is "an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities." Seems like a bit of a Catch-22, don't you think? We're never going to get a scientific basis nailed down until we've carried out a fair number of pilot projects.

Now, maybe the good people at the Alfred Wegener Institute, which is leading the attempted experiment, should have floated some trial balloons first. Maybe they did. William Connelley says he can find no good reason for not letting them go head with the thing, and I'm tempted to agree, even with all my reservations about geoengineering schemes.

Dumping iron into the ocean may sound like pollution, but if it can actually draw down serious amounts of CO2, then we should be dumping money into such things as fast was we can. There are lots of unknowns at this point. A couple of years back, a long list of researchers published a review of the issue in Science. They wrote that:

A major unknown in the geological past is the fate of Fe incorporated into phytoplankton blooms. Was dust-mediated Fe supply lost to the deep ocean as declining blooms sank [as aggregates], or was it efficiently recycled by biota in the subsurface ocean and subsequently upwelled?

This is the key question. In theory, plankton fall to the bottom of the ocean when they die and take the carbon they've metabolized from the air with them. It's all part of the Earth's eons-long geochemical cycle, the one that we've accelerated by several orders of magnitude by sucking up fossil fuels and spewing the carbon back into the air from whence it came. But no one really knows if this will work in artificially induced circumstances, and there some hints it might not.

So we need to know. This is one of the more attractive geoengineering ideas. Unlike spraying sulfates into the stratosphere or lauching millions of mirrors into space, is relatively straightforward and inexpensive. Let's find at way to let the Germans go about their ocean dumping business.

Tags
Categories

More like this

It's hard to argue against funding scientific research. But let me try. This past week 18 experts assembled as the Task Force on Climate Remediation Research released the product of its collective wisdom. A creation of the Bipartisan Policy Center, which the New York Times' Cornelia Dean describes…
Russ comments in our previous post Au contrair. The record shows that Planktos was long advocating and involved in ecorestoration not merely recently. The Way Back machine easily proves this. The strawman of Planktos that was created and the ad hominem attacks that were and are the hallmark of…
In the words of Rick at MBSL&S So let's just say you have a couple hundred thousand metric tons of iron filings laying around the house. While in the tub one day, you conceive of a terrific idea of dumping all that iron into the ocean, thus seeding phytoplankton growth (iron is a limiting…
Ocean Nourishment Corporation of Sydney, Australia just got the green light to dump several hundred tons of industrially-produced urea in to the Sulu Sea between the Philippines and Borneo. Assuming you urinate about 1.5 liters a day (range is 800ml to 2000ml) that is about the same amount of 500…

James if the Moon was made out of barbecue spare ribs, would you eat it and wash it down with a nice cool Budweiser? I know I would.

By Harry Cary (not verified) on 15 Jan 2009 #permalink

Damn, you may have the worst troll infestation on ScienceBlogs. Why?

Meanwhile, back at the thread: Uh, don't big phytoplankton blooms have a rather unpleasant side effect of smothering, then choking, all the other fauna and flora in their vicinity as they expand to cover all the surface and then absorb all available oxygen while decomposing?

I have no idea what biota are to be found around the Straits of Magellan, but tend to suspect that killing it all off so we can continue driving SUVs and blow-drying our hair may not be the choice future generations would most appreciate.

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 15 Jan 2009 #permalink

I cannot excape the hilarity of one group of environmentalist wackos preventing another group of environmentalist wackos fron 'saving' the planet from CO2 by restricting and regulating their actions -based on environmental concerns. LOL, that is a riot! "Are we morally right to do this?"

To Pierce R. Butler (dude your name is ..... never mind, something for a stupid movie) anyways - the answer to "WHY" - is to just look at the body of "work" (hahahhahaha) James has laid down on paper or 10001000100100's. Read through it from a-z. Visit all his posts and lok at the honest responses and his responses to the responses. What a frickin' joke James H is (yes/no that is no proper sentence structure). When you reach a certain level of total stupidity and circleness and parrotocracy and hypocrisy + incompetence and ridiculousness, then people sorta catch on and notice and want to respond. I would summarize my point by saying that: "People know a total ass-bite when they see one." Yes you can quote me on that.

By Hazz Byte (not verified) on 15 Jan 2009 #permalink

Hazz Byte: I see you.

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 17 Jan 2009 #permalink

To Pierce Butler Junior the Third. Dude, you were AWESOME as James Bond. Seriously! good job.

By Dustin Hoffman (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

Damn, you may have the worst troll infestation on ScienceBlogs. Why?

I think it's his easy, laid-back biopic. The infantile trollers see James as a soft, non-threatening target. I don't like the idea of geo-engineering very much but I'm not against a good experiment or research project. Right now we are experimenting with the whole damn planet with a massive excessive CO2 geo-engineering project.

Damn, you may have the worst troll infestation on ScienceBlogs. Why? Because there a lot of people calling BS on your belittling holier than though crap.