blog.wired.com — A major Indian-German geoengineering expedition set sail this week for the Scotia Sea, flouting a U.N. ban on ocean iron fertilization experiments in hopes of garnering data about whether the process actually does take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequester it in the deep ocean, an intriguing technique that may help reverse global warmi
Jan 9, 2009 View in Crawl 4
sykotikJan 10, 2009
Agreed. The Earth has been around a long time, I'm sure it can handle whatever the "fleas on it's back" throw at it, even if that means wiping the slate clean, though that can mean any number of things, not tied to the anthropomorphic Earth I presented. My problem with this "plan" is this; sure they go out and do that, the algae grow, die, take the C02 down, BUT... it has to come back up sometime. It's a "work-around." A temporary fix. A band-aid. Until it's proven to me otherwise, that's all it will remain to me.Their intentions are noble, but the implementation is too premature.
nick111Jan 10, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
mbtriaJan 10, 2009
Dumping iron in large quantities into the ocean is not the same as the sinking of a similar amount in metallic form. Iron can be toxic. Even mammals, who require iron to survive, can be poisoned by it. Marine organisms tend to be much more sensitive to changes in their environment. One of the more serious concerns about iron seeding is a serious potential for damaging coral populations, which is one of the reasons the UN banned it.
Closed AccountJan 10, 2009
@Southsideirish:Bulls**t statistics from deniers. How about some real data for you:"Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase."<a class="user" href="http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html">http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world ...</a>But hey, if you can't find honest facts to support your view, why not just make s**t up, right?
tgc1Jan 11, 2009
urgeighJan 11, 2009
Where do people get this inherent idea that any "chemical" = "bad"? Ignorance.
reddfox321Jan 11, 2009
Heart! - effeminate Indian kid
gnk53Jan 13, 2009
Seems to describe this situation, correctly
jmaynardgJan 13, 2009
Terrible idea. gnk53 is right in his comment, but ignores another point: if this does work to sequester carbon in the oceans, it will increase the carbon content in the oceans considerably - which would lead to acidification of the oceans and the extinction of nearly every shell-fish and coral reef in existence. Considering that over 90% of all sea fish and shellfish consumed by human beings requires coral reef for habitat as part of their life cycle, that would solve our global warming problem only to induce mass starvation. The UN is RIGHT.