I think the nature headline is fairly rejected by the authors of the paper, based on subsequent conversations as well as the guardian article.
Clearly this is one data point, which is both at wide variance with other island/seamount induced natural iron seedings (77 times lower than the Kerguelen results) as well as purposeful studies. Also, note that the reference to 15-50 times lower than geoengineering estimates cites a 2003 Buesseler/Boyd paper which both overstates the hurdle for 'significant contribution' of 30% of anthropogenic CO2 as well as considerably underestimating the potential of OIF based on newer results such as the 2004 EIFEX cruise. D On Jan 29, 10:23 am, Steven Lutz <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090128/full/457520b.html > > Game Over - "Ocean iron fertilization is simply no longer to be taken as a > viable option for mitigation of the CO2 problem" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
