Hi Ken and Greg,
Reflecting on your point, Greg, it is extraordinary the widespread
antagonism to geoengineering, when it is so obviously needed to reduce CO2
in the atmosphere and to prevent Arctic meltdown. We all ought to be
campaigning for a grasping of the nettle of reality. We cannot rely
Natural Diatom biomass production is estimated at 23 Billion tons of Carbon
per year.
If C : Fe ratio is 106 : 0.001 then the total natural Iron consumption by
Diatoms alone is about 1 million tons.
So if the Iron availability off Greenland alone is upto 2.5 million tons,
it means that most
Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice
Stephen is right on three counts: water flows a great distance before
freezing even at very cold ambient temperatures, northerners have long
experience of both keeping water flowing and dealing with frozen pipes, and
frozen pipes are readily thawed in the presence of
Only the southern ocean is iron limited, so any feedback effects would only
be manifested there.
The albedo and carbon effects are on entirely different timescales. Albedo
lasts weeks, carbon lasts millenia. The sign of the albedo effect is in
most cases likely opposite to that of the carbon
Thanks John. I share your sense of urgency. Given what is clearly at stake, it
is amazing that we are forced to have discussions like this, in the absence of
any effective global call to arms. It doesn't help that there isn't clarity in
the science community on the seriousness of the problem
In the article Ken attached, the text offers the view on CDR (which
included BECCS) that None of these currently can be deployed quickly on a
large scale.. Funding is the only limiting factor for many of the CDR
methods. And, this view of CDR being a non-starter on the scale side of the
