Plan to Slow Global Warming By Dumping Iron Sulphate into Oceans

ananyo writes "In the search for methods of geoengineering to limit global warming, it seems that stimulating the growth of algae in the oceans might be an efficient way of removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after all. Despite attracting controversy and a UN moratorium, as well as previous studies suggesting that this approach was ineffective, a recent analysis of an ocean-fertilization experiment eight years ago in the Southern Ocean indicates that encouraging algal blooms to grow can soak up carbon that is then deposited in the deep ocean as the algae die. 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. The team reports that much of the captured carbon was transported to the deep ocean, where it will remain sequestered for centuries — a 'carbon sink' (abstract)."

Comments

Ending badly?

[eisonlyme]

I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..i.e. when the algae has covered all the oceans we have no pollution...but also no fish....
anywho...maybe we can just set fire to the algae if it gets out of control...

Re:Ending badly?

[ShanghaiBill]

.. maybe we can just set fire to the algae if it gets out of control...

Or we can try this on a trial basis, and scale it up if it seems to be working. When the algae sinks, carrying the carbon to the bottom of the ocean, it takes the iron with it. So when we stop putting the iron in, the amount of algae returns to normal, so it is unlikely to "get out of control." Sure, there might be some side effects, but there will probably be even bigger side effects if we do nothing. And the side effects are not all bad: it should increase the amount of fish that can be sustainably harvested.

Re:Ending badly?

[aXis100]

It's not a new thing - iron dust has been blowing into the oceans for millenia.

Recent urban development around our coastlines have significantly reduced this natural nutrient source, so projects like this are really just restoring balance.

Re:Ending badly?

[Black Parrot]

I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..i.e. when the algae has covered all the oceans we have no pollution...but also no fish....

anywho...maybe we can just set fire to the algae if it gets out of control...

The underlying problem is, people are willing to consider anything - except addressing the cause of the problem.

Re:Ending badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic problem I can see is that the ocean is a complex set of currents that moves nutrients around. Dumping a compound into the ocean at one point to encourage algae blooms may sequester carbon in that location but it also locks up other nutrients as well that would have normally travelled to another part of the ocean. Now maybe such an action will disturb the proliferation of jellyfish somewhere but it's more likely that the missing nutrients will simply impede the growth of algae in another location where, instead of simply dying and sequestering carbon at the bottom of the ocean (from which it will eventually bubble up as methane at some future time) the algae would have provided the base of some local food chain. SO, in short, we lock up both carbon and nutrients in some normally unused part of the ocean while starving another part of the ocean for nutrients.

Yeah, terraforming is an interesting science but it's a risky one when you only have one test case and every bit of life you know of in the universe lives in that single test case.

But, I did see reports of the earlier test case and the motivation behind it. It wasn't really all about saving the planet as much as it was about creating a measurable amount of carbon credits that had a solid monetary value. That was the real motive, creating a way to manufacture carbon credits for sale. The test was done to see if they could find the ratio of carbon sequestered per ton of iron compound dumped into the ocean. That way they could dump a known amount of iron in the ocean and then sell a calculated amount of carbon credits on the carbon credit exchange.

Re:Ending badly?

[saxoholic]

These ideas always sicken me, we will be paying corporations out of our tax dollars for the air we breathe, hmm, that's going to work out well, 'NOT'.

Quick! Someone trademark the brand name Perri-Air

Re:Ending badly?

[phantomfive]

The underlying problem is, people are willing to consider anything - except addressing the cause of the problem.

The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current technology. According to Hansen et al, we need to get the CO2 levels down to 350ppm if we want to be safe. This means, not only must we immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we also need to remove some of it.

So think of all the things you do that add CO2 to the atmosphere (of course breathing doesn't count because it is net neutral). That is pretty near everything. Imagine if we stopped all that immediately. Not only would we have to switch over to nuclear, we'd also have to stop driving. And flying. Good luck at that, it would be economic suicide.

No one is willing to do that, so the only proposals are things like Kyoto, which did little, or Copenhagen, which would have done nothing.

Re:Ending badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the side effects are not all bad: it should increase the amount of fish that can be sustainably harvested.

The 2 side effects mentioned in the article both kill fish. Toxic algal blooms poison fish, either causing them to grow abnormally or death. Depleted oxygen levels does the same thing to the fish as it does to you, suffocation.

Re:Ending badly?

[Jane Q. Public]

"I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..."

Mod parent up.

Without any doubt. FAR more study would have to be done, over a LONG period of time, before any direct messing with the ecology should be attempted.

I live near a lake that was once called, by National Geographic, one of the 12 most beautiful lakes in the world (and it is a rather large lake, as such things go). And there were wonderful fish in the lake; salmonids, plentiful and tasty.

Local businesses, recognizing that fishing was a major tourist attraction, pressured the state Fish & Wildlife Commission to "improve" the fishery.

I could go on for a long time. But suffice it to say that they did one thing that was well-intended, and supposed to help the fish population. But it had unintended consequences. Then they fooled with the ecology again, to try to fix their first fuckup, but THAT had unintended consequences. Then they did it AGAIN, to fix that one, and THAT had unintended consequences.

The long and short of it is: they averted total disaster from their first mistakes, but the fishery is nowhere near as healthy and strong and plentiful as when they first tried to intervene. And yes, it is all directly attributable to their actions.

BE VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU FUCK WITH THE ECOLOGY. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS LIKELY TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.

We have seen this in so many different ways. These people should have their heads examined if they propose to do it anytime soon. Long-term study is needed, even if things get bad. Anyone who tries it before thorough long-term studies are done is probably deserving of being taken out and shot.

Re:Ending badly?

[khipu]

The underlying problem is too hard to solve with current technology. According to Hansen et al, we need to get the CO2 levels down to 350ppm if we want to be safe. This means, not only must we immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we also need to remove some of it.

Hansen is someone who spreads FUD to gain notoriety. Read the IPCC instead. It contains a lot of scary imagery too, but ultimately, you can find a simple cost/benefit analysis, which sums it up:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-7.html

For increases in global average temperature of less than 1 to 3ÂC above 1980-1999 levels, some impacts are projected to produce market benefits in some places and sectors while, at the same time, imposing costs in other places and sectors. Global mean losses could be 1 to 5% of GDP for 4ÂC of warming, but regional losses could be substantially higher.

Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the global costs and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.

The idea that we should dump vast quantities of iron into the ocean in order to mitigate a potential problem that amounts to little more a slight reduction in global GDP is ludicrous. Algal blooms and tinkering with iron content of the ocean is far more dangerous than rising CO2 levels, Hansen's cataclysmic fantasies notwithstanding.

Far-fetched

[LordLucless]

Seems no more far-fetched than the current plan, which is assuming world leaders of developed and developing nations can all agree to limit the economic function and development of their respective countries, and not fall into a prisoner's dilemma.

Re:WTF

[rebelwarlock]

How about the fact that we don't want to all die? Global extinction is a natural phenomenon, but I'd rather not witness it.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

It is a risk management issue. We know there is a risk of global warming. We know it can potentially bring massive (earth altering amounts) losses if unmitigated. The question is do we wait uninsured, or do we consider an insurance policy of some sort.

To give you a car analogy, the situation is a bit like driving in a thick fog with high speed. You know that there may be obstacles ahead of you. You know it will be deadly if you hit one. You know you'll have a very short time to react when you clearly see one. What is smarter to do, slow down until the fog clears, or keep pressing the accelerator just because you enjoy high speed?

Algae Blooms

[Albinoman]

Yes, let's try to create massive worldwide algae blooms, cause the one's were getting already have been fantastic.

Re:Just as sure

[siddesu]

It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.

What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?

You have arbitrarily set the cost of global warming to infinity, and the cost of "fixing it" near zero, thus leading to a useless cost-benefit analysis.

No, it is you who arbitrarily sets the cost of the consequences of global warming to zero and the costs of mitigation policies to infinity. I am ready to admit the outcomes are uncertain, but I also think the risk estimates we have do necessitate a mitigation strategy of some sort.

Unlike mine, your attitude is not constructive.

The Risks of Iron Fertilization

[catchblue22]

I took a course on oceanography a few years ago, and we actually studied this. I'll summarize my professor's powerpoint notes as best I can.

Iron is a limiting nutrient in phytoplankton growth. This is not in dispute. However if we are to add iron to the ocean in order to increase phytoplankton counts, and thus to increase CO2 uptake then we must consider several things. Firstly, how much CO2 will be semi-permanently transported to the ocean floor. In terms of percentages, if increased phytoplankton counts caused a CO2 flux in the surface layer of 50 Gt Carbon / year, the corresponding CO2 flux to the ocean floor would be about 0.7 Gt Carbon / year. This is due to the fact that the mechanisms of carbon transport from the surface to the sea floor (the "biological pump") is quite inefficient. Thus the increase in phytoplankton at the surface would have to be HUGE to transport meaningful amounts of CO2 to the sea floor.

Secondly, there may be dire unintended or undesired consequences of increasing the surface phytoplankton counts. Imagine we put significant amounts of iron in the ocean and imagine that surface phytoplankton counts increased significantly. At the surface we could get increased CO2 uptake and O2 production. But what happens when those phytoplankton die? They sink. And when they sink to deeper layers, other organisms would decompose them. Those decomposers would be oxygen breathers and would consume oxygen at the deeper layer. If their numbers increased due to increased dead phytoplankton, the decomposers could deplete the O2 levels in that level, creating anoxic zones at deeper levels in the ocean. In addition, some of these decomposers might be methane producing bacteria, especially in the absence of oxygen. That methane might make its way into the ocean. The worry is that the imbalanced increase in phytoplankton might result in an anoxic jellyfish ocean that would be rather unfriendly to fish like salmon, tuna, and the other common species that currently exist.

Unless the above arguments have been refuted, I don't know why iron fertilization is still being pushed as a realistic option. It seems to me that many decision makers are nearly completely illiterate in science.

We're all in denial

[hessian]

Climate change is but one of the problems we face. Pollution, loss of species, erosion and depletion of natural resources are all big problems as well.

The sad fact is that all of these have a single cause: humans, or rather, too many humans.

As of right now, the average Chinese person emits as much carbon as the average European -- and there are many more Chinese people.

The rest of the developing world is going to follow this pattern. Soon we'll all be emitting high amounts of carbon, but even more, each of us will require a lot of land for our lifestyles. Not just our homes, but roads, hospitals, shopping, parking, schools, storage, government buildings, etc.

For every person we put on this earth, there's less space for the natural world and its forests and oceans which renew our air and water. Earth is finite; humans are acting like its capacity to have new humans is infinite.

We're all in denial of how simple this is. There are too many people. We're making even more. At some point, we will have used up enough land so that pollution, species loss and loss of renewable resources makes us get a Darwin award as a species.

Re:Just as sure

[Kell Bengal]

This always confuses me. Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it. And yet, many arguments against global warming measures seem to claim that that is what is being proposed. Wherefore this misconception?

Re:Hey!

[Joce640k]

Better to do small-scale experiments now than to try large ones when the emergency is here.

Because let's face it, CO2 reduction ain't gonna happen. Talk to the people: Every single one of them has an excuse for not reducing their CO2 output.

Politicians don't care much because it doesn't gain votes and by the time the shit hits the fan they'll be retired in a cozy mansion on a mountain.

Like it or not, all that's left is geoengineering.

Re:Just as sure

[evilviper]

Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it.

It's generally the environmentalists yelling about global warming the loudest, and shortly thereafter telling everyone that the solution is to go back to living in caves (quite literally).

But it's not a complete misconception... Scientists don't quite say it, but it's clearly implied, because seriously reduced consumption and activity is currently the only way to make as big of a dent in CO2 production as they advocate.

There are major things like cement production, which alone emits about 6% of total man-made greenhouse gases, for which there seems to be absolutely no possible option to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions, other than simply stopping cement production. With cement being one of the most important construction materials, this directly translates into stopping most large building construction, and a severe economic crash.

Re:Just as sure

[TapeCutter]

Since when is it economic alarmism when someone wants to shutdown the economy?

So who is this someone? - Other than the "tear it all down and start again" types who turn up at tea party rallies and OWS sit-ins, I don't know of anyone who wants to "shutdown the economy"? If you are so certain about your basic assumption, surely you can give us a name and point to their published economic analysis? In fact if you are certain your claim is not alarmisim I would expect you would would also be able to point to an overwhelming consensus among working economists. AFAIK published economic modelling generally predicts a worst case senario of a 0-10% drop in global GDP over a 50yr period. To put that into perspective global GDP has more than doubled since 1995.

A real skeptic questions their own assumptions which is how (over a 30yr period) I became convinced that burning all known FF deposits would be a catastrophic course of action, as a grandfather of three toddlers I am seriously fucked off that burning every last bit of coal, gas, and oil we can find is exactly what we are planning to do for no other reason than preserving the bussiness model of some very rich and powerfull luddites

OTOH: I'm probably talking to a young "free market" ideologue who didn't hear the FF industry "cry wolf" when Nixon introduced the clean air act, or Reagan introduced cap and trade on sulphur emissions, or whoever it was that took the lead out of petrol. So I don't really expect my little rant will persuade you to question yourself. Besides being wrong would imply you have been recruited as a "useful idiot" by someone you already trust, and nobody likes to admit they have been fooled by what others see as obvious propoganda.