Hi Robin, The question is, what is most efficient to take carbon down to the deep ocean as marine snow, dead plankton minus decomposition gases, or predator feces plus dead predators minus the CO2 they have breathed out? Intuitively, I would think the latter, but I may be wrong.
In any case some carbon will be sedimented, but I agree the measurement they are planning is incomplete, what matters is net removed CO2, not just the amount initially absorbed by the bloom. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russ George in New York Times In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 01 May 2007 11:46:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] >or 2,912 square nautical miles). When the trace >iron prompts growth and reproduction of the tiny >organism, scientists on the WeatherBird II plan >to measure how much carbon dioxide the plankton ingests. Wrong measurement. What they fail to take into account is that a surge in plankton growth will result in an equivalent surge in plankton predators, and these will return much of the captured CO2 to the atmosphere. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
