Fertilizing the Oceans

[CDarwin]

Basically, carbon-offset companies want to pump tons of fertilizer into the oceans in to encourage algael blooms. The idea should be pretty familiar to anyone who's taken high school biology: In certain ocean environments there are limiting resources that keep algae populations from growing any larger. What this plan does is increase the amount of those limiting resources so you get more algae. Why you ask?

 

So that the algae will sequester greenhouse gases. Great, you say. Well, besides the obviously treacherous ecological ground we're tramping about on here, much of the carbon that the algae sequester is just going to get eaten up by predators or release in shallow water as the algae decays. The only way to get it sequestered in the century range is to sink it to the bottom of the ocean, and only about 5% of the algae makes it there.

 

Is it worth it?

 

 

This is from the company that wants to do it: http://www.planktos.com/educational/news.htm

 

This is from a website that doesn't like it: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/93106/2004/May10/seeding.html

 

If you have access to the October Scientific American article I'd recommend reading that one. That's what I'm going off of.

[SkepticLance]

There was a recent New Scientist article also that discussed this. It seems to be a hysterical reaction, based on the view that climate change is immediate and disastrous. Exactly the sort of emotional reaction to be expected from the message produced by Al. Gore and Greenpeace, and their allies.

 

It is far better to respond to the need to reduce CO2 in a more considered, deliberate, managed way, without the hysterical and panicky proposals that ocean fertilisers represent.

 

There are many developments under way which can lead to this. Such things as new biofuels (not the silliness of ethanol from corn), hydrogen producing solar cells, new generation nuclear energy and so on. Let's get sensible, folks, and do this right.

[CDarwin]

There was a recent New Scientist article also that discussed this. It seems to be a hysterical reaction, based on the view that climate change is immediate and disastrous. Exactly the sort of emotional reaction to be expected from the message produced by Al. Gore and Greenpeace, and their allies.

 

I read that New Scientist article too.

 

Remember that this isn't some government or disinterested research institution doing this. I don't think you need to get so interpretative as 'Al Gore hysteria' to explain why a company that stands to make lots of money off of carbon offsets for minimal costs might want to try something along these lines.

[SkepticLance]

To CDarwin

 

You are correct about the company involved. They are likely to be setting it up in a cynical manner in order to score megabucks off naive governments etc. It is the general public who might support this nonsense that are showing the panic and hysteria.

[Mr Skeptic]

It may be a somewhat reasonable thing to do, so long as they are not talking nitrogen fertilizers. I think I read about iron being the limiting mineral in some areas, and you could get a huge algal bloom with a bit of iron. I think this is only for certain parts of the ocean. This may be a good idea, or it may make a worse mess.

[pioneer]

Shellfish turn CO2 into the CaCO3 when they form their shells. So if you can find a species of shell fish that likes to eat the CO2 absorbing algae, then a symbiosis might develop. As the shellfish out-grow their shells, these fall to the bottom and provide low cost housing for sea creatures. The fish then come in and break up some of the shells to get at the little critters. Coral also fixes CO2, to make all those various types of coral. The fish sort of help provide raw materials by chewing up the shell houses. So we end up with a huge coral reef littered with little animal shell houses.

[DrDNA]

1. With the dramatic increases in soil errosion because of human activities that have occured over the last century or so, haven't we actually been fertilizing the ocean for some time now?

2. If so, the obvious question is, have algael populations already increased, decreased, or remained stable?

3. Also, something that I used to hear about but don't seem to anymore: if CO2 levels are going up, what about the density of organisms that consume CO2? Aren't algae and other plant populations supposed to increase? Where is the rebound effect?

4. The arogance of the human species never ceases to amaze me. This (dumping massive quantities of anything into the ocean) wreaks of something with potentially numerous unintended consequences.

[CDarwin]

1. With the dramatic increases in soil errosion because of human activities that have occured over the last century or so, haven't we actually been fertilizing the ocean for some time now?

2. If so, the obvious question is, have algael populations already increased, decreased, or remained stable?[/Quote]

 

There are different answers to that question. Planktos says that because of changes in wind direction less iron is getting to the ocean than it used to. Different studies say that there's no difference.

 

3. Also, something that I used to hear about but don't seem to anymore: if CO2 levels are going up, what about the density of organisms that consume CO2? Aren't algae and other plant populations supposed to increase? Where is the rebound effect?

 

That can't happen if there are other limiting factors, like iron.

 

4. The arogance of the human species never ceases to amaze me. This (dumping massive quantities of anything into the ocean) wreaks of something with potentially numerous unintended consequences.

 

That was my first response.

[DrDNA]

That can't happen if there are other limiting factors, like iron.

 

But the level of iron (and other salts and minerals) is steadily going up all over the ocean as more and more salts/minerals are leached out of terra firma, the water evaporates, and the distilled water falls back on terra firma to leach out more salts and minerals (even without human activities). So the concentration of ALL solutes are going up ocean-wide over time. Am I missing something here?

[SkepticLance]

There was a time when iron from the land entered the ocean in much greater amounts than today. That time was during the glaciation periods of the current Ice Age. Ice core studies have shown that lots of dust was deposited over the glaciers, and hence, logically, also in the ocean.

 

This is probably partly due to glacial movement, and partly due to the fact that times of glaciation tend to be rather arid across much of the world. Hence more dust, and thus more iron into the ocean.

 

It has been speculated that the low CO2 levels in the atmosphere during glacial times were due to the stimulation of phytoplankton by this iron deposition.

[foodchain]

Sounds awfully spooky to me. The idea of creating giant algae blooms for the idea of sequestering CO2 sounds flawed for a couple of reasons. I don’t think anyone can really say with confidence at this point about the reality of how that would basically change aquatic environments to the simple idea that CO2 production in the first place by humanity really has no end in site as its stands right now.

[ecoli]

wouldn't eutrophication be the most obvious result of these algal blooms? That could potentially decimate aqueous populations.

[foodchain]

wouldn't eutrophication be the most obvious result of these algal blooms? That could potentially decimate aqueous populations.

 

That’s a big and mean word but yes along those lines. Such as the reaction of decomposition of such would have on oxygen in the environment.

[michael]

Basically, carbon-offset companies want to pump tons of fertilizer into the oceans in to encourage algael blooms. . ..

The only way to get it sequestered in the century range is to sink it to the bottom of the ocean, and only about 5% of the algae makes it there.

 

Is it worth it?

That's not quite right; what they want to do is just add iron. This causes rapid phytoplankton growth.

Still much experimenting needs to be done.

Unless the plankton sinks, it may not be worth while as a CO2 sink.

However I think it is worth some major trials.

It is certainly a better idea than putting an umbrella in space.

 

We are already interfering with phytoplankton. The same currents that accumulate all the plastic that Yanks dump into the sea also accumulates phtoplankton.

The plastic is breaking down into minute bits and entering the food chain via the plankton. Just as chlorinated hydrocarbons do- as was pointed out by Rachel Carson some time ago. No one seems to know what this will mean to the marine environment.

Some studies are also suggesting that chlorinated hydrocarbons, which float on the top micron of the sea are interfering with phytoplankton's ability to reproduce.(BTW, CHs are not universally banned as most seem to think).

This is dangerous territory indeed, if the plankton goes, so do we.

 

An interesting point about more iron going into the oceans in ancient times. I was not aware of that.

[DrDNA]

Some studies are also suggesting that chlorinated hydrocarbons, which float on the top micron of the sea are interfering with phytoplankton's ability to reproduce.(BTW, CHs are not universally banned as most seem to think).

 

 

Interesting, but which chlorinated hydrocarbons are you refering to? 2 most commonly used ones, methylene chloride (aka dichloromethane) and chloroform, are denser than water so they do not "float".....they sink.

[michael]

Interesting, but which chlorinated hydrocarbons are you refering to? 2 most commonly used ones, methylene chloride (aka dichloromethane) and chloroform, are denser than water so they do not "float".....they sink.

 

DDT, DDE, Chlordane, Dielldrin toxophene & other alpahabet soups names

[Mr Skeptic]

Having read further on this subject, I think it is a good idea and some large scale tests should be done. There were already several "natural" tests, eg windstorms and volcanic sources of iron. Since these blooms seem to occur naturally, and last a limited amount of time (~3 months), I think it would be a good idea.

 

As to the complaint that much of the algae will be eaten instead of sinking, well good for us. It's about time we start doing some positive things. Or, we could eat whatever eats the algae.

[CDarwin]

As to the complaint that much of the algae will be eaten instead of sinking, well good for us. It's about time we start doing some positive things. Or, we could eat whatever eats the algae.

 

I don't get how that's "positive." It would feed some fish, sure, but that's messing with the ocean ecosystem. It's like feeding squirrels. Do the squirrels like it? Sure. Is it good for the environment? Not so much. We would also be feeding jellyfish, which humans can't eat and which cause a lot of damage to fisheries every year.