Re: [geo] Adding Iron to the oceans
I am curious as to how much of these nutrients are contained below the photic zone of the ocean or in the sediment on the ocean floor of these patches. The first may relate to the application of a pump advocated by Lovelock. The second to the plausibility of moving sediment a few thousand meters vertically as opposed to hundreds of km horizontally. Yes, the second would affect the benthic ecosystems. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Adding Iron to the oceans
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Fertilizing the oceans to restore fisheries is NOT prohibited, that is why the Haida Salmon Restoration Project is perfectly legal. I hope you are right. There is a bit of a question there. I suppose as long as they are doing it to increase the Salmon catch and not for geoengineering it's legal. They are on the right path, I hope more people do similar projects. I hope so too. Deep sea fishing fleets go out with empty holds and return with the holds full of fish. They can easily carry Iron for fertilization and empty these in the fishing areas, before they start to fish. Agree with you. It's something that could be done without governments because the ratio of the cost of iron to the value of what they get back is so high. Social pressure might be enough to get people to do it and not just freeload on others. Regards Bhaskar On Sunday, 22 June 2014 14:58:31 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote: Approx 100MT annual catch Approx 1 part in 10 is iron Therefore need to replace 1000t iron pa into ocean ecosystems. But iron isn't a limiting nutrient everywhere, so perhaps far less. Should boats be tipping NPK fertiliser over the side, too? Far larger volumes are required. These are not often limiting. Marine reserves are likely a better way to protect ecosystems. This isn't protecting ecosystems, this is just fertilizing the ocean to increase the fish catch. Should not have been painted as geoengineering in the first place. Best wishes, Keith A -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] Adding Iron to the oceans
It's a shame this business got mixed up with geoengineering because it is something that should be done on it's own merits. Humans fish the seas. As a result they remove vast amounts of elements from the materials circulating in the ocean biosphere. We are going to fish, and remove elements, particularly iron, from the sea. We damn well should put it back. When a ship comes in with a load of fish and an estimated amount of iron in the fish, the next trip out they should be required to take an equivalent amount of iron out with them. Or buy credits from someone who does this as a business. It's not like it would be a significant cost burden on fishermen. And if it has positive effects on the catch, they should be overjoyed to do it. Any minor effects it has on CO2 is just a fortunate happenstance. Keith Henson -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Adding Iron to the oceans
Approx 100MT annual catch Approx 1 part in 10 is iron Therefore need to replace 1000t iron pa into ocean ecosystems. But iron isn't a limiting nutrient everywhere, so perhaps far less. Should boats be tipping NPK fertiliser over the side, too? Far larger volumes are required. Marine reserves are likely a better way to protect ecosystems. A On 22 Jun 2014 10:18, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: It's a shame this business got mixed up with geoengineering because it is something that should be done on it's own merits. Humans fish the seas. As a result they remove vast amounts of elements from the materials circulating in the ocean biosphere. We are going to fish, and remove elements, particularly iron, from the sea. We damn well should put it back. When a ship comes in with a load of fish and an estimated amount of iron in the fish, the next trip out they should be required to take an equivalent amount of iron out with them. Or buy credits from someone who does this as a business. It's not like it would be a significant cost burden on fishermen. And if it has positive effects on the catch, they should be overjoyed to do it. Any minor effects it has on CO2 is just a fortunate happenstance. Keith Henson -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Adding Iron to the oceans
Andrew You calculation is way of the mark. Iron does not cause growth of Fish directly, it only causes growth of phytoplankton. These are consumed by zooplankton and small fish and these by bigger fish. The Phytoplankton to Fish ratio for the large fish that people prefer to eat is about 100 : 1. So the Iron required may be at least 100,000 tons. Actually it would be more since all the fish that grow in the oceans cannot be caught. This should be dosed in the area where the fish is caught, since the nutrients are being removed from that area and the phytoplankton would be consumed by the fish in that area. We are already fertilizing the oceans with N P K. All the sewage we are releasing contains N and P. Average per person is 5 g of N and 0.5 g of P per day. This is about 12 million tons per year of N and 1.2 million tons of P. About 100 million tons of Urea and 30 million tons of Phosphate fertilizer is used by farmers, a lot of this runs off into rivers and finally into the ocean. Sewage and Fertilizer is causing eutrophication and dead zones in coastal waters and is resulting in decline in fisheries. It is not just oceans that are iron deficient, even people suffer from it. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/anemia/en/ Scope of the problem Nine out of ten anaemia sufferers live in developing countries, about 2 billion people suffer from anaemia and an even larger number of people present iron deficiency (WHO, 2000). Anaemia may contribute to up to 20% of maternal deaths. About 2 Billion people are anemic, i.e., suffer from acute iron deficiency. Human feces and urine does not contain much Iron. That is why there is an imbalance in water - our urine contains N and P but not Iron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemia The body can absorb up to 6 mg iron daily from the gastrointestinal tract. For 7 Billion people that is about 42 tons per day, 15,330 tons per year. For the 2 Billion suffering from anemia it is about 4,380 tons per year. Total Iron Ore mined is about 2,800 million tons. Total Iron on Earth is about 20,000,000,000,000 billion tons ( 20 x 10 ^ 24 kg ) Of course, since we are not able to cure the 2 billion people of anemia, expecting to solve the iron deficiency problem in oceans is perhaps expecting too much. Keith Henson Fertilizing the oceans to restore fisheries is NOT prohibited, that is why the Haida Salmon Restoration Project is perfectly legal. They are on the right path, I hope more people do similar projects. Deep sea fishing fleets go out with empty holds and return with the holds full of fish. They can easily carry Iron for fertilization and empty these in the fishing areas, before they start to fish. Regards Bhaskar On Sunday, 22 June 2014 14:58:31 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote: Approx 100MT annual catch Approx 1 part in 10 is iron Therefore need to replace 1000t iron pa into ocean ecosystems. But iron isn't a limiting nutrient everywhere, so perhaps far less. Should boats be tipping NPK fertiliser over the side, too? Far larger volumes are required. Marine reserves are likely a better way to protect ecosystems. A On 22 Jun 2014 10:18, Keith Henson hkeith...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: It's a shame this business got mixed up with geoengineering because it is something that should be done on it's own merits. Humans fish the seas. As a result they remove vast amounts of elements from the materials circulating in the ocean biosphere. We are going to fish, and remove elements, particularly iron, from the sea. We damn well should put it back. When a ship comes in with a load of fish and an estimated amount of iron in the fish, the next trip out they should be required to take an equivalent amount of iron out with them. Or buy credits from someone who does this as a business. It's not like it would be a significant cost burden on fishermen. And if it has positive effects on the catch, they should be overjoyed to do it. Any minor effects it has on CO2 is just a fortunate happenstance. Keith Henson -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
