Fertilizing the algae will not only not effect the mount of CO2 absorbed by the seawater from the air, but will reduce the amount of CO2 in the water.
Actually, reducing the CO2 in seawater would change the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Removing CO2 from the ocean changes the equilibrium state between CO2 in the air and CO2 in the water. This causes more CO2 to be dissolved in the sea from the atmosphere through gas exchange, which is the whole point of Fe fertilization schemes.
Whether or not the algal blooms would successfully sequester the carbon on the ocean floor is another matter entirely.
In Word go to Word > Preferences
Click on "General"
uncheck "WYSIWYG font and style menus"
uncheck "Show Project Gallery At Startup"
Restart Word
Office 2008 starts in ~4 seconds on my MacBook. I could care less about VBA, although I suppose if someone ever sent me something with VBA in it I could get NeoOffice. I got a cheap academic license through my university.
The absolute maximum extent that radiocarbon dating can be used is actually somewhere between 50 to 60k years, but even so that's a far cry from 65 million years. The articles don't mention the dating method, but perhaps it was Potassium-Argon or some similar method, which have much longer half lives.
Seriously, he makes a good point. Why should we listen to some crazy analyst. It is an outlier prediction. I don't understand the moderation around here sometimes.
No, couldn't still be down there from the moon-forming impact (we're talking ~4.5 *billion* years ago). It would have made the entire surface of the earth molten and evaporated any water that was already there. If you read the article it explains that this was probably produced by compaction and heating of an H2O-rich oceanic plate after it was subducted under the continental plate. Seems like a plausible explanation, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Fertilizing the algae will not only not effect the mount of CO2 absorbed by the seawater from the air, but will reduce the amount of CO2 in the water.
Actually, reducing the CO2 in seawater would change the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Removing CO2 from the ocean changes the equilibrium state between CO2 in the air and CO2 in the water. This causes more CO2 to be dissolved in the sea from the atmosphere through gas exchange, which is the whole point of Fe fertilization schemes.
Whether or not the algal blooms would successfully sequester the carbon on the ocean floor is another matter entirely.
I'll bet the Canuck wi-fi is nice, but do they really need all those obnoxious noises on their website? I feel like I'm standing on a landing strip.
In Word go to Word > Preferences
Click on "General"
uncheck "WYSIWYG font and style menus"
uncheck "Show Project Gallery At Startup"
Restart Word
Office 2008 starts in ~4 seconds on my MacBook. I could care less about VBA, although I suppose if someone ever sent me something with VBA in it I could get NeoOffice. I got a cheap academic license through my university.
The absolute maximum extent that radiocarbon dating can be used is actually somewhere between 50 to 60k years, but even so that's a far cry from 65 million years. The articles don't mention the dating method, but perhaps it was Potassium-Argon or some similar method, which have much longer half lives.
Seriously, he makes a good point. Why should we listen to some crazy analyst. It is an outlier prediction. I don't understand the moderation around here sometimes.
No, couldn't still be down there from the moon-forming impact (we're talking ~4.5 *billion* years ago). It would have made the entire surface of the earth molten and evaporated any water that was already there. If you read the article it explains that this was probably produced by compaction and heating of an H2O-rich oceanic plate after it was subducted under the continental plate. Seems like a plausible explanation, no?