Ocean Gardening Using Iron Fertilizer

This review has a good explanation of the concept. Note the verification problems:

Introduction

As evidence of the potential effects of global warming mounts, many people are already brainstorming means to minimize the atmospheric greenhouse gases which cause it. One of the most worrisome greenhouse gases comes from quite natural sources. In fact, all of us breathe out about two pounds of it a day. This gas is, of course, carbon dioxide. A number of ingenious and colorful ideas have been proposed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some of these plans include reducing the production of greenhouse gases from automobile and industrial emissions, and maximizing trees (including in urban areas) to act as a carbon sink. One of the more fantastic possibilities given scientific attention has been sequestering carbon dioxide in the oceans by fertilizing them with iron.

Iron? What does that have to do with carbon dioxide?

The basic idea underlying many of the solutions to global warming involves tinkering with the carbon budget. During the carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the atmosphere, and over thousands of years, a fraction of it is sequestered in the oceans for prolonged periods of time. The natural process which drives carbon towards the bottom of the ocean is termed the biological pump. Dead phytoplankton and other marine organisms act as carbon dioxide vessels, driving this pump as they sink towards the bottom of the ocean.

The biological pump has commanded attention from policy makers, entrepreneurs, and scientists for years as a method of intentional ocean carbon sequestration.1 Policy makers may be interested in carbon sequestration as one of a suite of greenhouse gas management methods. It is possible that this management method, if employed, may be used in conjunction with proposed international carbon trading markets. If so, some entrepreneurs speculate that ocean carbon sequestration may become a lucrative business. All this is dependent upon verifying the assumption that ocean carbon sequestration is a scientifically and ecologically sound method of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide...

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php

NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN?!

:banghead:

Why is there never a shortage of people willing to trash the planet
for the sake of a few more dollars?

:mad:

Not that I expect you're capable of a reasoned answer...

> If so, some entrepreneurs speculate that ocean carbon sequestration
> may become a lucrative business.

Who cares about whether it really works or the side effects of interfering
with the already-stressed natural mechanisms ... it may be *lucrative* for
the speculators who get in early (as long as they cash out before the cost
becomes too obvious) ...

Bloody Friedmanites ... :grr:

You are nothing but a blowhard. No substance to any of your blather.

> Long term effects of iron fertilization are still unknown

+

> As simple and attractive as this might look, ocean fertilization still
> poses many questions and uncertain effects, especially at a large scale.

+

> Oceans are uncontrollable, sequestration results are not easily
> verifiable, and unintended tangential consequences are likely.

+

> He (Martin) half jested Give me half a tanker of iron, and I will give
> you the next ice age

+

> Enrichment procedures were modified between IronEx I and IronEx II after
> initial failures to show an ability to significantly affect greenhouse
> gases, despite increased phytoplankton abundance and production.

+

> This change in procedure still increased plankton and diatom abundance
> and productivity, but also decreased nitrate concentrations.

+

> The long-term effect of the shift in community composition is
> still unknown.

+

> Models have predicted several possible unpleasant unintended results
> of iron fertilization. Long-term increased productivity resulting from
> iron enrichment could lead to deep ocean anoxia and marine life hypoxia.

+

> Similarly, anoxia often results from algal blooms in coastal waters after
> eutrophication from agrochemical runoff.

+

> Iron enrichment of our oceans purposefully alters the ecology of an
> uncontrollable environment.

+

> Current methods of iron enrichment do not emulate natural iron
> deposition either chemically or in time-scale.

+

> Despite these successes, shifts in plankton communities and lack of
> conclusive evidence relating to atmospheric gases leave concerns regarding
> other consequences, as well as long-term effectiveness at mitigating
> global warming.

+

> Moreover, the increased detritus and marine snow affecting the biological
> pump could shift microorganism community structure, ultimately changing
> oxygen levels in the ocean.

+ (possibly my favourite admission of all)

> Furthermore, such microorganisms may produce other greenhouse and climate
> related gases such as nitrous oxide, methane, or dimethylsulfide, which
> may offset the intended results.

i.e., after all the blind fucking around in the pursuit of greed, the
hoped-for benefits might not even provide a significant benefit.

Shove your pompous opinion up your pompous arse.

It's a bugger when you have to admit you are wrong.

and *none* of them sequestered atmospheric carbon to the deep ocean.

none

The hitch is it can't be shown to be done under current or proposed carbon control policies as there is no way to verify the amount that gets sequestered vs the amount that gets remixed into the biosphere. theoretically a high percentage is sequestered, but there is no mechanism for verification and thus, re-embursement.

> but there is no mechanism for verification and thus, re-embursement.

Yet again, your concern isn't for the atmosphere, certainly isn't for
marine life but is just for greed: disaster capitalism at its finest.

:eyes:

It just so happens that is what makes things happen. Ships don't just magically appear because you want them to; someone has to make a plan that gets them out there.

I see you're taking the chicken-shit way out instead of answering the question: what ecology is being "wasted"? You haven't got a clue about what you are talking about, do you?

> You haven't got a clue about what you are talking about, do you?

Talking to the mirror again I see. :eyes:

I am intensely skeptical of geo-engineering efforts like this. Violating the Law of Unintended Consequences can carry severe penalties.

But the potential always exists to some degree. In this case, potential negative effects are not a high level probability as I understand it from a friend that is a chemical oceanographer who had a finger in the research Both he and I agree with the statement about caution. The areas where this was being considered are not at all similar to the coastal waters mentioned. All of the negatives mentioned can be fairly well predicted in advance based on currents. I find concerns about the 'biological pump' to be a little strange since this is specific to areas where life of any kind is very, very sparse.

I'd like to see someone develop a way to verify the amount sequestered so we could include/exclude the technology in our inventory of available responses to GW.

Expanding and deepening oceanic oxygen minimum zones would be more than just a little counter-productive...

one edit: the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography is opposed to these schemes...

But the potential damage is based more on conjecture than an actual understanding of certain consequences.

Again, I'm not advocating we do it. I am encouraging we be prepared for massive action if we need it. If the choice is massive release of sequestered methane or a massive effort to draw down CO2, I want to know how to do the massive draw down so a decision is possible.

...I think we're passed the point of thinking happy thoughts and hoping the clathrates don't melt over the next few decades. While I don't see ironing the ocean as the solution, I'm prepared to accept a bit of terra-forming might actually be in order.

I'm of the opinion we're facing a re-run of the P-T event. If we wind up kicking 40% of species to save the other 55%, that's probably a price worth paying.

Did I really just think that? Shit.
Let's see how far we're come... :(

Have you ever read the recommendations of the US Ocean's Commission from 2005? It is a good source of information, but Shrub has ignored it, of course.

We must reduce uncertainty.

Although "reduce uncertainty" = "more study" = "time we don't have". :(

Personally...
{dons Helmet of Doom}
...I think we're fucked.

I get really nervous when I see clever monkeys jumping from branch to branch, brandishing new shiny bits of technology that are supposed to affect the whole frigging planet, and chattering that "it will all be worth it in the end, trust us".

I have a hard time with the ego and hubris of other people fucking with my only home, not to mention the home of millions of other species that don't get a say in what we do. Who died and made us God?

Which is why we're so fucked. :D

I'm fairly sure we've pushed things beyond Gaia's recovery envelope: Life will go on, but it may be back to the Induan if we don't fix our own fuck-up.

"Nothing left but dust and fundamentalists"

:grr:

But I agree it does happen all too often. My view is that we are here and we are part of the whole just as any other form of life. All we can do is to be what we are; if it doesn't work out and we snuff ourselves, then life is going to try again - to do what, I'm not sure. That isn't playing god any more than a whale that consumes billions of krill is playing god.

I believe we are privileged to be given a fleeting glimpse of self awareness, but at the same time I believe that centering our existence around that individual awareness is a fallacy because we function with greater happiness and greater engagement in our world as part of a human group first. That horizontal view of our place in the universe is in contrast to the 'god' view you refer to where there is an implicit vertical orientation regarding the value of life. Krill don't get a say in being eaten by the whale, but that makes them no less a part of the whole than the whale.

We don't.

Whales don't hunt down and kill off other species that try to eat "their" krill. We do.

Whales don't set out deliberately to alter the ocean ecology. We do.

We do what we do just as whales do as they do.

I wouldn't be so sure about your assertion of our uniqueness regarding territoriality.

And a billion years from now none of this will matter. Today, right now, though, it matters a great deal.

Don't you worry that your statement above is intrinsically amoral? Does our awareness confer on us any responsibility, or only authority? If so, to whom or what are we responsible beyond ourselves?

Regarding our unique human approach to ownership of resources (which is closer to what I mean than simple territoriality), please show me a counter-example. I haven't found a satisfactory one yet.

I think the distinction in our thinking is that I see our cultures as super-organisms that act in a fashion largely independent of conscious direction; instead they behave according to evolutionary dictates.
And no, I don't consider my views amoral. I act within my sphere of influence to do the least harm to other life that I can. That is all I personally can do. Within the context of the behavior of these larger entities we are driven to create, we have the obligation to respect life. However, I don't see the inability of individuals to control our species as a personal failure, or even as a failure at all. I consider such belief regarding vertically oriented 'authority' and 'responsibility' to be a rather arrogant expression of ego. To repeat and amplify, I prefer to think of my role as one that offers respect to all life and consequently seeks do the least harm I can.

No other species acts as though it "owns" any food or other resources that are surplus to its immediate needs.

Everyone should strive to do the least harm they can, and to expand their understanding of that imperative as much as they can (e.g. what constitutes "harm", and who or what suffers as a result of it?)

I agree that cultures and the individuals that compose them are largely unconscious, but that also means that their behaviour can be easily shaped by individuals that are conscious and acting deliberately. Thus my current preoccupation with waking up as many people as possible -- hopefully it will render them more resistant to any malign intent of such forces and give them an opportunity to participate in positively shaping our society's direction.

My use of the word "authority" in the context of our culture is that it means the sense of generalized ownership conferred by the notion of "dominion over the earth". The meaning of "responsibility" is embodied by the Christian concept of "stewardship". Our capacity for self-reflexive awareness and analysis gives these concepts their moral weight. Even if we are just another part of the web of life (which I also believe), we ignore our moral capacity at our peril.

One of the current theories regarding the formation of harmful algal blooms (HAB...red tides) involves a bloom of the cyanobacteria trichodesmium. Trichodesmium blooms often precede HAB blooms. It is hypothesized that they produce conditions that favor a red tide dinoflagellate. Trichodesmium are nitrogen fixers and are usually limited in production by iron. The blooms usually occur after a large amount of iron rich Saharan dust is transported over Florida. Tricho excrete the fixed nitrogen as amino acids and other forms that nitrogen limited species like Karina brevis (HAB dinoflagellate) can use. This can result in a HAB bloom. If any iron from a central grye area seeding event is advected near the coast then you could inadvertently trigger a HAB bloom.

Another other problem with iron enrichment is that it hasn't produced a sustainable bloom. The blooms occur but then rapidly mix with the water column. You'd have to come up with some system of transporting huge amounts of iron out to areas where there are micronutrient limitations like the equatorial upwelling region of the Pacific or the Southern Ocean. No one has come up with a feasible method of doing this that could sustain a bloom of algae long enough and large enough to effectively reduce atmospheric CO2.

A similar experiment to the Iron-Ex experiment was conducted using phosphate in the center of the Gulf of Mexico. A private investor thought that by fertilizing the water, he could produce an algal bloom that would lead to an expansion of fisheries in that region. He'd then make a fortune harvesting the fish. It was a bust for similar reasons as the iron fertilization idea.

Here's a paper summarizing the problems with iron fertilization as a means of reducing CO2.

I knew about the duration limitations imposed by the chemistry and the need to reseed if the process were to be adopted. I'm not sure I place much emphasis on the possibility of HAB due to unintended transport, however, for precisely that reason.

The problem is that we don't know the benefits. We are working in an area of uncertainty regarding our understanding of the near term significance of CO2 concentrations. Because of that I feel it is important that the efficacy (of technologies such as this) needs to be better understood in order to weigh the benefits against the costs. What seems insane under a warming scenario where there is a 500 year lag time between increased concentration of greenhouse gases might be the best option when we are looking at a massive cascade effect that will cause most ocean life to go extinct.

I was never a boy scout, but I like to be prepared.

PS I always take gray literature with a grain of salt.

I've read most of the peer reviewed journal articles that the Green Peace article references and they present an accurate summation of their finding. It's difficult to link to the journal articles since most folks can't read them without a subscription. I have worked with several of the scientists that wrote articles or listened to their talks on the subject and the Green Peace article presents an accurate summation of their research.

The horizontal transport doesn't have to be simply the iron enriched waters. Trichodesmium can occur in open ocean water. They or their exuded byproducts could potentially be advected close to the coast. I've observed in my research a cold core ring that broke off from the Gulf Stream and ended up lasting weeks in Onslo Bay, NC before the cooler waters finally dissipated.

The Green Peace article brings up several other concerns I've heard from colleagues. The fertilization results in a shift in species composition from picoplankton to diatoms. Any long term change in species composition by the primary producers can have dangerous consequences for the food web. There is no guarantee that the other nutrients would be sufficient to support a long lasting bloom. Once the bloom gets going, the phytoplankton could rapidly use up all the available nitrate, phosphate, or trace metals and be limited by them resulting in little net carbon sequesterization. They also point out that the majority of the biological material does not sink out of the upper ocean but is remineralized at slightly deeper depths. None of the Iron-Ex studies demonstrated a significant increase in the amount of carbon transport to deeper waters.

The article points out that a peer reviewed study estimated that it would take an area about the size of the Southern Ocean to achieve a reduction of 30% of the annual anthropogenic CO2 output. This would require a massive fertilization project. A concern that I would have about a large scale fertilization is that it would alter the optical properties of the water by increasing absorption near the surface. This would result in greater surface heating and could lead to changes in oceanic circulation. You could end up increasing stratification changing the vertical circulation because of warmer less dense surface water. The warmer waters would also take up less atmospheric CO2 possibly resulting in no net change in flux between the atmosphere and ocean.

The problem with the idea is that the fertilization experiments do not support the hypothesis that you could achieve significant carbon transport to the sediments. There are some potentially very bad consequences if you attempt ocean fertilization on a large scale. I'd prefer that we come up with a much more controllable method for sequestering carbon than iron fertilization of the ocean.

I probably have access, but I think you've answered most of the questions I had. As I said, I understand the limiting chemistry, but I didn't realize anyone had anything more than a WAG about net sequestration since measurement of distribution at depths had not been possible. I take it you are satisfied that the estimates have validity, and based on your remarks I can accept that judgment.

I hadn't considered the change in albedo, but that is interesting. It would be a complication of what we're trying to model now, wouldn't it?

It would certainly be preferable to choke the problem off at the source.

Have you ever been on the Hugh R. Sharp?

They were able to track the change in vertical transport of detritus over the period of the blooms. They usually use TH234 as a tracer to determine the sinking rate. A couple of the cruises stayed around until the blooms crashed and there was a significant change following those periods. However, a massive crash like that also pulls a lot of the nutrients out of the euphotic zone. The ideal conditions for carbon transport to the deep ocean would be a steady state bloom where most of the nutrients are remineralized near the surface but the refractory carbon sinks to a great depth.

I may be totally wrong about this, but it makes sense to me from an adaptive standpoint as to why that would be more difficult to achieve a high rate of carbon transport in these areas. The Southern Ocean and equatorial upwelling zones are High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll regions. The hypothesis supported by some is that if we could continually provide the missing iron to these regions, the higher levels of other nutrients would be enough to sustain a higher concentration of phytoplankton. These areas, in a way, are oceanic deserts with certain trace elements limiting production instead of water. I would speculate that the organisms that have adapted to these conditions would be much more efficient at breaking down the dead organic matter and returning it into production. The reason is that, above the level of primary production, the other organisms are limited by the availability of organic carbon and other nutrients. The result would be, like in a terrestrial desert, they would employ strategies to make the most use of what is available. Now, I'd SWAG that if there was enough continuous input of iron and the other inorganic nutrients and trace elements had a steady source of input, then you might could shift the food web into something closer to the coastal type through an eventual change in species composition. The potential problems with a change in species composition could do far more damage than the good accomplished by reducing atmospheric CO2.

Some have argued that the studies needed to be more focused on the carbon transport issue and cover an even wider area to get a better determination of the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and how much is eventually transported to depth. The Iron-EX studies were primarily focused on whether iron was the limiting factor in primary production instead of carbon transport. Several of the folks supporting this approach are not scientists but investors who want to use it as a way of selling carbon credits. There is huge opposition to this idea from most of the oceanographic community because of all the problems that could occur. In a times like these, where federal funding for oceanography is pretty abysmal, for scientists to be rejecting a huge pot of money for research tells you something about how many have problems with this idea.

The increase in diffuse attenuation (IMSO) would be a definite complication. It's probably one that they haven't even addressed yet since it would require a pretty complex model to include changes in thermohaline circulation, changes in primary production, and changes in optical properties. I only attempt simple optical models over depth. My primary expertise is in field measurements. However, it may interesting to attempt a depth model using several different attenuation values.

I've never been on the Sharp. Most of my work around that area was several years ago and we mainly used the RV Seward Johnson and RV Edwin Link out of Harbor Branch. I also went out on a NOAA vessel and a small boat run by Duke. I've mostly worked in the Gulf of Mexico.