Ken You are right to a certain extent when you say - "So, to some extent, iron fertilization concentrates productivity in space and in time."
However the facts are as follows - Human action has increased the amount of N and P in water. The Nitrogen (and Phosphorus) cycles have been both speeded up and increased in volume. About 100 million tons of urea is manufactured and used as fertilizer in agriculture, most of this is made by the Haber-Bosch process of capturing Nitrogen from atmosphere and converting it into ammonia and then into urea. Thus we are adding more N into water. Phosphate fertilizer is made by mining rock phosphate and converting this into phosphoric acid and then into super phosphate, etc. Thus insoluble rock phosphate and N2 gas in atmosphere are being converted into soluble N and P in water. Another way to calculate the increase in N and P due to human action is to compute the average food intake of people and the N and P content of this and multiply with the population. If we consume about 1 kg of food (wet weight) per day, this may contain say 50 mg of N and 10 mg of P. Multiply with the population of 1 billion 200 year ago, 7 billion today and projected population of 9 billion by 2050 and you can get the total increase in N and P in food and sewage input into lakes, rivers and oceans. I am not attempting to quantify the actual numbers, since there are too many variables and averages, the concept is adequate for the present. What is the consequence of this? 1000s of eutrophic lakes and 500+ dead zones in the coastal waters. This is the N and P that will be used up to sequester carbon when oceans are fertilized with iron. So there is no need to worry about depletion of macro nutrients in oceans. :) Once we run out of oil, we can use the defunct Oil tankers to transport sewage to Southern Ocean to provide the macro nutrients required. Prof John Martin's recommended dose of half a tanker load of iron can be matched with a 100 tanker loads of sewage. :) I guess physicists always get lost in space and time. regards Bhaskar On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > wrote: > Recall that this fertilization is using up macronutrients such as N and P > that may have been used elsewhere at a later date. > > So, to some extent, iron fertilization concentrates productivity in space > and in time. > > An important question is: how much of the P that was in the fertilized > water would have been mixed downward as phosphate and how much of it would > have been transported downward biologically at a later date somewhere else. > > It is only the fract of P that would not have been used biologically > somewhere else at a later date that represents the increase in > biological export. > > On top of this, there are additional questions of how the C/P ratio and > remineralization depth of this carbon that would have been naturally > exported differs from the C/P ratio and remineralization depth of the > carbon that was exported in the experiment. > > So, two difficulties in analyzing these results are > > (1) Determining effects that are distal in space and time associated with > the local (in space and time) consumption of macronutrients > > (1) establishing the counterfactual baseline that could be subtracted from > the experimental case to determine the delta, taking into consideration > effects that are distal in space and time (see previous point) > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Rau, Greg <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: > >> So 1 tone of added Fe captures 2786 tones of C or 10,214 tones of CO2 (?) >> Then the issue is how much of this stays in the ocean for how long. I'll >> have to read the fine print. >> -Greg >> >> From: Mick West <m...@mickwest.com> >> Reply-To: "m...@mickwest.com" <m...@mickwest.com> >> To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >> Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> Subject: Re: [geo] Nature eifex report >> >> It says 13,000 atoms, not tonnes: >> >> "Each atom of added iron pulled at least 13,000 atoms of carbon out of >> the atmosphere by encouraging algal growth which, through photosynthesis, >> captures carbon." >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Lockley < >> andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Personally I find the claims of 13000 tonnes to 1 atom of iron somewhat >>> difficult to comprehend! >>> >>> A >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11028 >>> >>> Dumping iron at sea does sink carbon >>> >>> Geoengineering hopes revived as study of iron-fertilized algal blooms >>> shows they deposit carbon in the deep ocean when they die. >>> Quirin Schiermeier >>> 18 July 2012 >>> >>> In the search for methods to limit global warming, it seems that >>> stimulating the growth of algae in the oceans might be an efficient way of >>> removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after all. >>> >>> Despite other studies suggesting that this approach was ineffective, a >>> recent analysis of an ocean-fertilization experiment eight years ago in the >>> Southern Ocean indicates that encouraging algal blooms to grow can soak up >>> carbon that is then deposited in the deep ocean as the algae die. >>> >>> In February 2004, researchers involved in the European Iron >>> Fertilization Experiment (EIFEX) fertilized 167 square kilometres of the >>> Southern Ocean with several tonnes of iron sulphate. For 37 days, the team >>> on board the German research vessel Polarstern monitored the bloom and >>> demise of single-cell algae (phytoplankton) in the iron-limited but >>> otherwise nutrient-rich ocean region. >>> >>> Each atom of added iron pulled at least 13,000 atoms of carbon out of >>> the atmosphere by encouraging algal growth which, through photosynthesis, >>> captures carbon. In a paper in Nature today, the team reports that much of >>> the captured carbon was transported to the deep ocean, where it will remain >>> sequestered for centuries1 — a 'carbon sink'. >>> >>> “At least half of the bloom was exported to depths greater than 1,000 >>> metres,” says Victor Smetacek, a marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener >>> Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, who led >>> the study. >>> >>> The team used a turbidity meter — a device that measures the degree to >>> which water becomes less transparent owing to the presence of suspended >>> particles — to establish the amount of biomass, such as dead algae, that >>> rained down the water column towards the sea floor. Samples collected >>> outside the experimental area showed substantially less carbon being >>> deposited in the deep ocean. >>> Iron findings >>> >>> The EIFEX results back up a hypothesis by the late oceanographer John >>> Martin, who first reported in 1988 that iron deficiency limits >>> phytoplankton growth in parts of the subarctic Pacific Ocean2. Martin later >>> proposed that vast quantities of iron-rich dust from dry and sparsely >>> vegetated continental regions may have led to enhanced ocean productivity >>> in the past, thus contributing to the drawdown of atmospheric carbon >>> dioxide during glacial climates3 — an idea given more weight by the EIFEX >>> findings. >>> >>> Some advocates of geoengineering think that this cooling mechanism might >>> help to mitigate present-day climate change. However, the idea of >>> deliberately stimulating plankton growth on a large scale is highly >>> controversial. After noting that there were gaps in the scientific >>> knowledge about this approach, the parties to the London Convention — the >>> international treaty governing ocean dumping — agreed in 2007 that >>> ‘commercial’ ocean fertilization is not justified (see 'Convention >>> discourages ocean fertilization'). >>> >>> The finding that ocean fertilization does work, although promising, is >>> not enough to soothe concerns over potentially harmful side effects on >>> ocean chemistry and marine ecosystems, says Smetacek. Some scientists fear >>> that massive ocean fertilization might produce toxic algal blooms or >>> deplete oxygen levels in the middle of the water column. Given the >>> controversy over another similar experiment (see 'Ocean fertilization >>> experiment draws fire'), which critics said should not have been approved >>> in the first place, the Alfred Wegener Institute will not conduct any >>> further artificial ocean-fertilization studies, according to Smetacek. >>> >>> “We just don’t know what might happen to species composition and so >>> forth if you were to continuously add iron to the sea,” says Smetacek. >>> “These issues can only be addressed by more experiments including >>> longer-term studies of natural blooms that occur around some Antarctic >>> islands.” >>> >>> But some experts argue that artificial ocean-fertilization studies >>> should not be abandoned altogether. “We are nowhere near the point of >>> recommending ocean fertilization as a geoengineering tool,” says Ken >>> Buesseler, a geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in >>> Massachusetts. “But just because we don't know all the answers, we >>> shouldn't say no to further research.” >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
