Boston is a beautiful city but watch out for drivers. They are all truly crazy
All the more reason to put them underground. Out of sight and out of mind. (Meaning they need glasses and they are out of their minds.) It will be a better world when all cars drive themselves.
Try to stay on topic.
Feel free to move the messages to some other thread.
Nice article.. I quote.
There’s a ruckus going on over an experiment in ocean fertilization conducted off the coast of British Columbia in July and disclosed this week. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, an enterprise of the Haida village of Old Massett, used a large fishing vessel to spread 100 tons of iron sulfate-rich dust on the ocean surface west of Haida Gwaii (or the Queen Charlotte Islands). The aim of the release was to increase plankton growth and there promote growth of fisheries and maybe also remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Guess who?
Iron sulphate from metal pickling liquors is difficult industrial waste because of content chromium, arsenic, cadmium, zinc, vanadium. Why not to dump into seas silently under pretence of ocean fertilization? It happens again and again...
A square kilometer is 1M square Meters, so every square meter gets 1 millionth of a tonne of iron. 1 gram.
That seems like a lot for a surface treatment. How far down is it supposed to go? It is not much by volume.
People put copper sulfate in ponds to kill algae. I don't recall how much they use, but if it was 1 g/m, it might kill the fish. I recall seeing dead fish from this years ago.
That seems like a lot for a surface treatment. How far down is it supposed to go? It is not much by volume.
It's mostly Micron-sized particles, and as you know the toxicity of Iron is low, much lower than that of copper. For many years I have been putting copper foil into the joints of outdoor wooden structures to prevent rot, which often begins at points where steel fixings are nearby. And you may have noticed how much weed and barnacles love steel-hulled boats -they are not there just for the ride.
As for 'how far down' it seems that is stays in the top 2.5 meters of water for a long time in which it is mostly incorporated into the metabolism of phytoplankton which in turn become fish-food. Much of the rest remains in what is called the Eckman spiral in the top 100 meters. Since it is food for phytoplankton there is no point in using bigger stuff that would just sink
Part of the technique is that the iron is only put into locations where deep-water gyres (and the Eckman spiral patterns) mix and distribute the iron over vast volumes of water - really it is being dropped into a blender, not a pond - big difference It is never part of the plan to drop iron into inshore water.. For more on gyres see the excellent and short National Geographic map and descriptions.
I think members should give thought to the dosage involved in OPR. 100 tonnes per 100 sq kilometers.
I just got the correction from the master! The area was 100km x 100km! So its 0.01g/m2!
The press release is a little confusing in another way. Is this a second release into the same area, or a confused reference to the earlier one?
He obviously messed the " ' " between the "0" . I knew from discussions that it must be far less than 1g/m2.
The problem is that nature is a bit random. If the bloom is to early then no fish profit or the wrong fish profit. But this was always the case. Key is : It works!
Phytoplankton iron fertilization studies show little or no net carbon burial (i.e. little or no export to deep ocean):
Iron Fertilization To Capture Carbon Dioxide Dealt A Blow: Plankton Stores Much Less Carbon Dioxide Than Estimated
From the article...
'He agrees that adding iron in large quantities could potentially damage the whole biological food chain but argues that the German-Indian experiment is literally a drop in the ocean. Experiments like this will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area but will massively further our understanding of the science.”'
We knew that of course. But an earlier study shows that the effect is largely a function of particle size.
I never thought that increasing algae growth would have impact in CO2 levels that would be lasting. Algae decays quickly but it can have a large impact in the net production of biomass up the sea food chain.
If phytoplankton would sink carbon, yet the marine water remains clear, then all this carbon should pile up on the bottom of ocean. Where this carbon is, then? There were times when oceans really did sink carbon in form of coccolithophora - but today something like this doesn't really happen. Instead of this methane clathrates at the bottom of sea decompose, methane get oxidized and resulting carbon dioxide dissolves shells of remaining corals.
The thread is named "Plan to dump iron into the oceans to capture carbon" and I'm just asking, where this captured carbon can be seen..
It's as simple as it gets... But I'm aware that I'm talking about it with guy, who recycles aluminium by dissolving it..
But I'm aware that I'm talking about it with guy, who recycles aluminium by dissolving it..
And you can explain explain the relevance of that fact?
If you didn't understand previous connection, this one will be safely over your head. Keep up your good work, Alan... 
