Hi Robert,
The drill cores taken from Arctic and Antarctic ice shields and ocean
sediments revealed for the last million years, that the iron containing
dust driven through the atmosphere had several influences on surface
temperature processing: During times of high dust concentration,
manyfold higher than recent, the surface temperature level decreased up
to 8 °C below normal. During times of low dust concentration, lower than
recent, the surface temperature increased to levels above the recent
surface level generating subtropical climate in central Europe. While
the dusty glacial age eolic dust sediment generated fertile soils on the
continent surfaces it produced phytoplankton blooms at the ocean
surfaces and activated the conversion of the gaseous greenhouse carbons
into solid carbon fixed as carbonate rock and organic bound carbon in
ocean sediments and ocean crust fissures. This dust-induced carbon
conversion had been very active because it induced more than halfening
of the greenhouse gases methane and CO2 levels.
On the basis of todays scientific knowledge nobody can deny the iron
induced activation of the transformation of the greenhouse gases into
solid and other condensed carbon forms. Further: any CO2 carbon bound by
the phytoplankton as organic and carbonate carbon becomes at last fixed
as sediment carbon or mineralizes within the ocean crust. And the
pretended CO2 desorption of reoxidized former phytoplankton organic
carbon litter back to the atmosphere is nothing but a mystery: it has
been assertet often but has never been proved. And as far as the oxygen
content of the fertilized ocean areal is kept at sufficient levels and
as far as no algae toxins develope, even the food chain including fish
might become activated.
But additional to this phytoplankton ferilizing effect dust has some
more cooling effects on the climate. Even within the atmosphere dust
induces photolytic methane depletion, cloud whitening, and depletes
tropospheric ozone greenhouse gas.
And said fertilizing effect of dust may be spread over a multiple of the
ocean surface of the square which can be fertilized by the liquid iron
salt dump method.
The ocean fertilization tests by liquid iron salt solution dumping into
the ocean carried out so far aiming to induce the activation of certain
parts of the ocean food chain undoubtly might have had success; but to
my opinion these methods are rather unlike to the natural example and
they might induce problems to the ecosystems. But the latter can be
avoided by a closer mimic to the natural processing. In the order to do
this and inspired by this natural dust process we developed the ISA
method to optimize this nature process and made it technical
controllable and described it very recently. If interested you can
dounload our paper at:http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/.
Franz
gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168
Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068
[email protected]
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering"
<[email protected]>
An: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>;
"geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Gesendet: 26.05.2017 14:28:35
Betreff: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
This article from Nature
<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031>
contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon Experiment.
The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence
that the experiment worked." This alleged failure to see any evidence
ignores extensive data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results.
Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not
exist. Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right |
PlanetSave
<http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/>
states the Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more
dramatically than anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery
showed that a massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had
developed in the Gulf of Alaska, centred around the area which was
seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, in 2013, catches of pink
salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% increase over the
previous year."
The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by
this failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and
fact checking to its false statement about evidence for the Haida
Salmon experiment.
Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs. You are up against a venal
climate lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate
repair, and who are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean
iron fertilization in support of dubious political objectives.
Robert Tulip
Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave
A rogue ocean fertilization experiment carried out in 2012 may well
prove to be the saviour of the world-renowne...
<http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
To: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 25 May 2017, 17:11
Subject: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031
Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in
Chile, but researchers doubt its motives.
Jeff Tollefson
<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#auth-1>
23 May 2017
Article toolsPDF
<http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22031!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/545393a.pdf>Rights
& Permissions
<https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Jeff+Tollefson&title=Iron-dumping+ocean+experiment+sparks+controversy&publisherName=NPG&contentID=10.1038%2F545393a&publicationDate=05%2F23%2F2017&publication=Nature+News>
Blickwinkel/Alamy
Phytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis.
Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes
of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of
phytoplankton, the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind
the plan says that it wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has
ties to a controversial 2012 project in Canada that was accused of
violating an international moratorium on commercial ocean
fertilization.
The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that
it is seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10
tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as
early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the
organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental
Solutions of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization
technologies. Some researchers suspect that the foundation is
ultimately seeking to profit from an unproven and potentially harmful
activity.
“They claim that by producing more phytoplankton, they could help the
recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo Ulloa, director of the
Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, Chile. “We don’t
see any evidence to support that claim.”
Related storiesEmissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods
<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/530153a>Climate
geoengineering schemes come under fire
<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2015.16887>Climate
tinkerers thrash out a plan
<https://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/516020a>
More related stories
<https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031#related-links>
Tensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute went public
with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the
project. The government has since requested input from the Chilean
Academy of Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the
project and related research on 25 May, at a marine-sciences meeting in
Valparaíso, Chile. The Oceaneos foundation, which declined an
invitation, has accused the scientists of improperly classifying its
work as geoengineering, rather than ocean restoration. Oceaneos
president Michael Riedijk says that his team wants to work with Chilean
scientists and will make all the data from its experiment public. The
foundation plans to hold its own forum later, but if scientists aren’t
willing to engage, he says, “we’ll just move on without them”.
Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization
experiments in the open ocean since 1990. All have sought to test
whether stimulating phytoplankton growth
<http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028>
can increase the amount of carbon dioxide that the organisms pull out
of the atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when they die.
Determining how much carbon is sequestered during such experiments has
proved difficult, however, and scientists have raised concerns about
potential adverse effects, such as toxic algal blooms. In 2008, the
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity put in place a
moratorium on all ocean-fertilization projects
<https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080603/full/453704b.html> apart from
small ones in coastal waters. Five years later, the London Convention
on ocean pollution adopted rules for evaluating such studies.
Because Oceaneos’s planned experiment would take place in Chilean
waters, it is allowed under those rules. Riedijk says that the
foundation will voluntarily follow international protocols for such
studies; it is unclear whether that will allay fears that the group is
promoting an unproven technology, rather than conducting basic
research.
“If they want to partner with academics, then surely transparency is
their best foot forward.”
Philip Boyd, a marine ecologist at the University of Tasmania in
Hobart, Australia, wants to see the foundation publish research based
on lab experiments before heading out into the field. “If they are a
not-for-profit scientific venture that wants to partner with academics,
then surely transparency is their best foot forward,” he says.
Oceaneos’s links to a 2012 iron-fertilization project off the coast of
British Columbia, Canada, have made some researchers wary. In that
project, US entrepreneur Russ George convinced a Haida Nation village
to pursue iron fertilization to boost salmon populations, with the
potential to sell carbon credits based on the amount of CO2 that would
be sequestered in the ocean. News of the plan broke after project
organizers had dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulfate into the open
ocean. In the years since, scientists have seen no evidence that the
experiment worked.
Riedijk says he was intrigued when he read about the Haida experiment
in 2013, and contacted one of its organizers, Jason McNamee. McNamee
later served as chief operating officer of Oceaneos Environmental
Solutions — which Riedijk co-founded — before leaving the company last
year.
Despite the Haida project’s problems, Riedijk says that ocean
fertilization merits further research: “If this actually does work, it
does have global implications.” Oceaneos Environ-mental Solutions has
developed an iron compound that can be consumed efficiently by
phytoplankton, he adds, but he declined to release details. Riedijk
also says that the foundation is working on a method to trace the
movement of iron up the food chain and into fish populations.
In the meantime, scientists say that it will be difficult to get solid
data from the Oceaneos foundation’s planned experiment. The geology off
the Chilean coast, and the patterns of currents there, create a mosaic
of low- and high-iron waters. Anchovies, horse mackerel and other fish
move freely between these areas.
And adding iron could shift the location and timing of phytoplankton
blooms to favour fast-growing species, says Adrian Marchetti, a
biological oceanographer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. One of those, the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia, produces domoic acid,
a neurotoxin that can kill mammals and birds. Oceaneos’s experiment
will probably increase plankton growth in low-iron waters, Marchetti
says, “but it’s not to say that that is actually good for the higher
levels of the food chain”.
Nature 545, 393–394 ( 25 May 2017 ) doi :10.1038/545393a
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
