Ninad
The simple point I am trying to make is if we run out of phosphorus ( and /
or nitrogen ), we need not worry about anything else.
GHG emissions due to anthropogenic sources are proportionate to N and P
usage.
All fuel is purchased and used, just as all food is purchased and consumed.
Fuel
Morton
Iron fertilization is planned to be used in HNLCs, i.e., areas that have
high nutrient levels year after year.
So it appears that there is a abundance of nutrients in the oceans.
In the past the CO2 levels of atmosphere and oceans were lower due to
natural factors and diatom growth
Bhaskar--
With respect to your message, I would very much like to see the evidence for
the oxygen content ever being as high as 35% when life was present as fire
would have run rampant (and since lightning would have been needed to
provide the nitrate source, there would not have been a lack of a
Mike
Historical oxygen levels are a question of fact.
No logic is involved.
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
A good graph of O2 levels
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309100615/gifmid/30.gif
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/20/10955.full
Oxygen and Paleofires.
The level
Bhaskar--
Pardon me, but I don't get the sense from the citations you provided me to
justify the finding that the O2 concentration roughly 300M years ago reached
35% raises this bit of information to ³a fact². I¹d note also that in the
plot you reference that the high O2 level is indicated as
I agree with Mike. Much of what we know about the geologic past is based on
the best possible interpretation of fragmentary evidence. While there are
contexts in which the past can serve to illuminate the present, I do not
think comparisons of Permian and Holocene oxygen concentrations are very
Mike
Your logic was that if O2 was high there would have been huge fires,
therefore O2 could not have been that high.
Perhaps many species became extinct when O2 was high.
If this is a fact, it is a fact.
This does not mean O2 could not have been high.
Many data / evidence is indirect and has
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
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
: [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
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
...@mickwest.commailto:m...@mickwest.com
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Nature eifex report
It says
12 matches
Mail list logo
