Environment Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows

[tom_mai78101]

Dumping iron into the sea can bury carbon dioxide for centuries, potentially helping reduce the impact of climate change, according to a major new study. The work shows for the first time that much of the algae that blooms when iron filings are added dies and falls into the deep ocean.

Geoengineering – technologies aimed at alleviating global warming – are controversial, with critics warning of unintended environmental side effects or encouraging complacency in global deals to cut carbon emissions. But Prof Victor Smetacek, at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, who led the new research, said: "The time has come to differentiate: some geoengineering techniques are more dangerous than others. Doing nothing is probably the worst option."

Dave Reay, senior lecturer in carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, said: "This represents a whole new ball game in terms of iron fertilisation as a geoengineering technique. Maybe deliberate enhancement of carbon storage in the oceans has more legs than we thought but, as the scientists themselves acknowledge, it's still far too early to run with it."

A 2009 report from the Royal Society, the UK's science academy, concluded that while cutting emissions is the first priority, careful research into geoengineering was required in case drastic measures – such as trying to block sunlight by pumping sulphate into the atmosphere – were one day needed.

Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows

Iron fertilisation creates algae blooms that later die off and sink, taking the absorbed carbon deep towards the ocean floor

www.theguardian.com

 

[FireCat]

Yet more madness. Hmm creating massive algal blooms in the oceans "will certainly have massive ecological effects"

 

[KaerfNomekop]

Algae provides much of the oxygen we use. They're like sea trees.

 

[Fatmankev]

Honestly, being at the very, very bottom of the food chain, introducing algae at lower ocean depths would provide more food to fish that dwelling in those regions without any negative side effects, most likely. Should be pretty controllable, and might be a half-decent plan.

 

[Accname]

How could you know there are no side effects?

 

[FireCat]

They're like sea trees.

True But too much of a good thing isn't good.

Algal blooms prevent light from penetrating the water’s surface. They also prevent oxygen from being absorbed by organisms beneath them. Sunlight is necessary for plants and organisms like phytoplankton and algae, which manufacture their own nutrients from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. Oxygen is necessary for almost all aquatic life, from sea grasses to fish.

By depriving organisms of sunlight and oxygen, algal blooms negatively impact a variety of species that live below the water’s surface. The number and diversity of benthic, or bottom-dwelling, species are especially reduced.

Because algae dominates the aquatic ecosystem, algal blooms are sometimes referred to as “red tides” or “brown tides,” depending on the color of the algae. Red tides actually have nothing to do with tides. They also have nothing to do with algae. The organism that causes red tides is a bacteria, called cyanobacteria.

Algal blooms also cause larger-scale problems, such as human illness. Shellfish, such as oysters, are filter feeders. As they filter water, they absorb microbes associated with algal blooms. Many of these microbes are toxic to people. People may become sick or even die from shellfish poisoning.

Algal blooms can also lead to the death of marine mammals and shore birds that rely on the marine ecosystem for food. Wading birds, such as herons, and mammals, such as sea lions, depend on fish for survival. With fewer fish beneath algal blooms, these animals lose an important food source.
Read Moar Here.

So dumping stuff in the sea, It's pretty crazy!

 

[KaerfNomekop]

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.
Source.

So long as we don't leave the algae to grow out of control, there shouldn't be any problems. Over-fishing tends to lead to excessive algae populations that kill off other species.

 

[Fatmankev]

How could you know there are no side effects?

That's why I said, "[...], most likely." Same as, like, probably. I sure as hell don't know. I just figured that, being at the bottom of the food chain, it wouldn't have as dramatic an effect as trying to increase the numbers of some sort of predatory species, or even an herbivore.

I mean, it's a plant. Is too many plants really gonna be a bad thing?

 

[Accname]

I could imagine some problems it might evolve into.
But i meant it more in general, there is no way to know all consequences in advance, there is always a little risk. And since you can never know the possible side effects, just do it.

 

[FireCat]

And since you can never know the possible side effects, just do it.

Nope! Well, it's like jumping off a high cliff.. it will stop your illness from getting worse. That doesn't mean you should do it! Seriously, most of the water that exists on the earth "seas and oceans whatever are precious" And dumping iron in the ocean. Hmm could slow global warming? I actually don't buy that.

 

[Fatmankev]

Nope! Well, it's like jumping off a high cliff.. it will stop your illness from getting worse. That doesn't mean you should do it! Seriously, most of the water that exists on the earth "seas and oceans whatever are precious" And dumping iron in the ocean. Hmm could slow global warming? I actually don't buy that.

I'm not huge on the whole theory of Global Warming myself, so I can respect your skepticism.

 

[Hatebreeder]

It just postpones the effects of CO².
If one could control the emition rate of CO², like, for example dymanically release/save up the CO² according to the values in the Ozone, I think this might be a good method of controlling the CO².
I think though, that Nature will handle situations such as these. I mean, we're also animals. And Animals adjust themselves to the environment they're in, not the environment adjusts itself to the animals. It just takes time. Alot of books that revolve around the origin of laguages and gene-centered environment selection give a pretty good idea of what nature is capable of. Just look up the author "Herder".

 

[Accname]

Nope! Well, it's like jumping off a high cliff.. it will stop your illness from getting worse. That doesn't mean you should do it! Seriously, most of the water that exists on the earth "seas and oceans whatever are precious" And dumping iron in the ocean. Hmm could slow global warming? I actually don't buy that.

Nope, not exactly, jumping off that cliff might have some hidden side effects i am not aware of, but most importantly, it has some major effects which are pretty obvious and mostly unwanted.
Whereas dumping iron into the sea has no direct major effects i could imagine other then rust in the water (of which there is probably already a lot) but possibly many hidden side effects.
We can talk about it and move in circles, or we can do it. Either its bad or its good, but there s just one way to find out.

 

[Dan]

Hi guys. Don't worry, we will soon run out of oil and start busting out new hydrogen engines, etc. XD

 

[Fatmankev]

Hi guys. Don't worry, we will soon run out of oil and start busting out new hydrogen engines, etc. XD

People ain't gonna keep paying these crazy prices for gas when there are so many alternatives constantly being improved upon. Whether it's some complicated hydrogen or fusion-inspired stuffs or somethin' as simple as bio-diesel, I totally agree; we won't be using oil and coal widespread for much longer.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

How about human corpses?

 

[FireCat]

^ One word "Disgraceful"

 

[tom_mai78101]

^ One word "Disgraceful"

Another word, "Unethical."

 

[Fatmankev]

Another word, "Unethical."

That's more the point. As long as mankind holds true to its current ethics and morality, we could never use human bodies as fuel. I'm not a huge fan of the way people operate on the whole, but respect for the dead is one thing I hope we continue to practice until our final days.

 

[Accname]

How about human corpses?

I dont think you could even if you wanted to.