It's good to hear that there's some decent data, even if it isn't particularly encouraging for OIF.
On May 7, 2:52 pm, DW <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-iron-fed-plankton-... > Report: Iron-Fed Plankton Slow to Remove CO2 > > Two Berkeley Lab researchers have analyzed data from sea-diving > devices and found that seeding iron to boost plankton growth doesn’t > lead to the quick scrubbing of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. > > Can spreading iron in oceans reduce a lot of carbon dioxide in the > atmosphere? Not as much or quickly as you'd think, said researchers at > the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. > > After analyzing data from ocean-diving devices that trawled for carbon > dioxide in the deep sea for over a year, Jim Bishop and Todd Wood > concluded that phytoplankton aren't the carbon-dioxide removal > machines that some believe them to be. > > "Just adding iron to the ocean hasn't been demonstrated as a good plan > for storing atmospheric carbon," says Bishop, who also is an earth > sciences professor at UC Berkeley, in a statement. "What counts is the > carbon that reaches the deep sea, and a lot of the carbon tied up in > plankton blooms appears not to sink very fast or very far." > > An upcoming issue of the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles will > publish the researchers' results, the lab said Wednesday. > > There has been a long-held theory, called Iron Hypothesis, that > stimulating plankton blooms could significantly remove carbon dioxide, > a key greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, from the > atmosphere and deposit them in the ocean. Like plants on land, > plankton would eat up carbon dioxide as part of its energy production > process under the sun. There are two ways for carbon to sink and get > buried in the deep sea. One is through the waste created by sea > creatures that eat plankton. And the other is through the death of the > plankton themselves. > > The earth's eco-system has its own, natural ways of producing and > removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But the system lacks the > power to absorb the growing amount of carbon dioxide and other > greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as generating > electricity and driving cars. > > Iron proved to be the steroid that could boost plankton growth, > according to research by John Martin at the Moss Landing Marine > Laboratories. Martin then proposed that seeding iron in the ocean > could turn plankton into weapons for fighting global climate change. > > Companies have emerged to try to make money from this carbon- > sequestration idea. One of them, Planktos, gave up on the idea last > year (see Planktos Seeks New Business Ideas). Climos, based in San > Francisco, is still in business. CEO Dan Whaley said the Berkeley Lab > researchers’ paper didn’t provide the necessary details, such as what > types of plankton were observed, to show that phytoplankton aren’t > good at burying carbon dioxide in the ocean. > > “I have the utmost respect for Jim Bishop. But this is clearly not an > iron experiment,” Whaley said. “He seems to suggest that growing more > plankton won’t store much more carbon – but I think that the > geological record argues that it has.” > > Bishop and Wood said their research showed that the notion of global > warming being halted or even reversed by boosting plankton growth is > not as easily achieved as some have claimed. > > The researchers based their findings on data provided by devices > called Carbon Explorers, which were first launched in 2002 as part of > project by the Moss Landing Marine Lab and the Monterey Bay Aquarium > Research Institute. The project set out to test Iron Hypothesis in the > ocean between New Zealand and Antarctica during the summer. > > The Carbon Explorers not only collected data during the iron-seeding > experiments, they also did so in the fall and winter for over a year, > after evidence of the iron scattering had disappeared, the lab said. > The devices were lowered into a depth of 800 meters and more. > > Results from initial studies showed that, indeed, an artificially > induced plankton bloom could remove 10 percent to 20 percent of the > carbon from the ocean surface and deposit them to below 100 meters. > The research team published a paper in the journal Science in April > 2004. > > Those results were based on data collected 60 days after the iron > seeding. But data from the Carbon Explorers in the subsequent 16 > months demonstrated that how much carbon can be sequestered by > plankton blooms depended largely on the feeding and lifecycle of the > zooplankton that eat phytoplankton. > > Zooplankton don't get easy access to phytoplankton throughout the > year, however, because of seasonable weather patterns and how they've > adopted to surviving in darkness when sun doesn't shine in Antarctica > during winter. As a result, the amount of carbon that can be absorbed > by plankton isn't as great as anticipated, the Berkeley Lab > researchers said. > > -- > > On May 6, 2:17 pm, DW <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090506131512.htm > > Science News > > Ocean Carbon: Dent In Iron Fertilization Hypothesis Previously > > Proposed To Address Climate Change > > > ScienceDaily (May 6, 2009) — Oceanographers Jim Bishop and Todd Wood > > of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National > > Laboratory have measured the fate of carbon particles originating in > > plankton blooms in the Southern Ocean, using data that deep-diving > > Carbon Explorer floats collected around the clock for well over a > > year. Their study reveals that most of the carbon from lush plankton > > blooms never reaches the deep ocean. > > > The surprising discovery deals a blow to the simplest version of the > > Iron Hypothesis, whose adherents believe global warming can be slowed > > or even reversed by fertilizing plankton with iron in regions that are > > iron-poor but rich in other nutrients like nitrogen, silicon, and > > phosphorus. The Southern Ocean is one of the most important such > > regions. > > > “Just adding iron to the ocean hasn’t been demonstrated as a good plan > > for storing atmospheric carbon,” says Bishop, a member of Berkeley > > Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and a professor of Earth and planetary > > sciences at the University of California at Berkeley. “What counts is > > the carbon that reaches the deep sea, and a lot of the carbon tied up > > in plankton blooms appears not to sink very fast or very far.” > > > The reasons, while complex, are most likely due to the seasonal > > feeding behavior of planktonic animal life, and specifically to the > > effects of the dark Antarctic winter on plant and animal growth and > > the mixing of surface and deep waters by winter storms. Phytoplankton > > blooms in the spring may indicate that much of the zooplankton > > (animal) population essential for carbon sedimentation has starved > > during the winter. > > > The Carbon Explorers involved in the study were launched in January, > > 2002, as part of the Southern Ocean Iron Experiment (SOFeX), a > > collaboration led by scientists from Moss Landing Marine Laboratory > > and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. SOFeX was meant to > > test the Iron Hypothesis in waters between New Zealand and Antarctica > > during the Antarctic summer. The Berkeley Lab Carbon Explorers were > > originally intended to monitor the iron-fertilization experiment for > > 60 days, but they continued to report by satellite throughout the > > Antarctic fall and winter and on into the following year. > > > “We would never have made these surprising observations if the > > autonomous Carbon Explorer floats hadn’t been recording data 24 hours > > a day, seven days a week, at depths down to 800 meters or more, for > > over a year after the experiment’s original iron signature had > > disappeared,” Bishop says. > > > He explains that “assumptions about the biological pump – the way > > ocean life circulates carbon – are mostly based on averaging > > measurements that have been made from ships, at intervals widely > > separated in time. Cost, not to mention the environment, would have > > made continuous ship-based observations impossible in this case. > > Luckily one Carbon Explorer float costs only about as much as a single > > day of ship time.” > > > The Iron Hypothesis, science and speculation > > > In the 1980s, oceanographer John Martin of the Moss Landing Marine > > Laboratories, who died in 1993, proposed that iron added to regions of > > the ocean that are otherwise rich in nutrients but poor in iron (so- > > called high-nutrient, low-chlorophyl, or HNLC, regions) can stimulate > > the growth of phytoplankton – a bold scientific hypothesis that has > > since been proven correct. > > > Martin went further, however, when he suggested that artificial iron > > fertilization of the oceans could change the climate. “Give me half a > > tankerful of iron and I’ll give you an Ice Age,” he boasted in 1988. > > > In testing the Iron Hypothesis, SOFeX’s investigators acknowledged > > that matters were not quite that simple, and that the crucial question > > was not whether plankton blooms could be induced but whether the > > carbon they captured was removed to the deep sea. > > > The SOFeX research vessels fertilized and measured two regions of > > ocean, one in an HNLC region at latitude 55 degrees south and another > > at 66 degrees south. Carbon Explorers were launched at both these > > sites; a third Carbon Explorer was launched well outside the iron- > > fertilized region at 55°S as a control. Berkeley Lab scientists Todd > > Wood, Christopher Guay, and Phoebe Lam were members of the expedition, > > while Bishop monitored and communicated with the Carbon Explorers from > > Berkeley over a computer link to communications satellites. > > > One question was whether the relatively silicate-poor waters of the > > more northerly 55° region would allow plankton known as diatoms to > > form silicon skeletons. If large diatoms could not grow in this HNLC > > region, the SOFeX researchers > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
