Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (36254)	12/7/2012 9:39:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86356

If we want to save life in the oceans “” and save ourselves, since we depend on that life “” the time to start slashing carbon dioxide emissions is now. Well, it's nice that so much attention is being given to the 40% decline in phytoplankton over the past 60 years. But ONCE AGAIN, it's a "chicken or egg" situation. CO2 emissons could be completely stable year after year, and all naturally occurring.. HOWEVER, if the population of phytoplankton decline due to anemic conditions in the oceans due to lack of Iron (Chlorosis), the result would be the same.. increasing acidity of the oceans. BECAUSE, once again, Botanical life is the primary mechanism (so far as my reading has uncovered) for converting CO2 into organic carbon, and physically depositing it to the ocean depths. The best analogy to this, as I've stated before, is a sponge in a bucket that is saturated with water to the point that no standing water remains in the container. If we remove some of that water through a drain hole in the bottom, where it it can drip out of that sponge, more water can be added. This is the actual "carbon" sink analogy.. But if that sponge, and consequently the size of the "drain hole" is suddenly cut in size by 40%, the result will be more standing water in the container (ie: increased atmospheric CO2). Now.. the ULTIMATE phyto-planktonic "Sponges" are Diatoms, as they form rudimentary shells that assist in their sinking the organic carbon they contain to the ocean depths, rather than decomposing on the surface (which would return that Carbon to the surrounding waters as CO2 and Methane).. They compose up to 45% of all phyto-plankton in the oceans: en.wikipedia.org Again, I care not WHY the oceans are anemic, and lacking sufficient Iron. It actually be due to CO2 emissions exceeding the supply of naturally occurring Iron being deposited in the oceans (because those phytoplankton are feasting on the CO2 to the point that they exceed the supply of Iron). Or it could be because of soil conservation efforts by mankind that inhibits the iron laden soil from being blown into the oceans. It may also be due to declining, or stable, drought conditions on land, that restrict the amount of erosion which would release more Iron to be carried off by the wind to be deposited into the oceans. It could be any of those causes. But without Iron, phytoplankton cannot grow, no matter how plentiful the other nutrients they require may be. So I don't think we have any other choice but to explore and heavily research Iron fertilization for the purpose of restoring previous phytoplankton levels. It is critical to restoring the Marine Food chain, as well as removing organic carbon from the waters to decrease Ocean Acidity. One other point to make. Much has been written about our declining coral reefs. As a scuba diver, this is a matter of great concern to me as well. But one has to remember that coral EAT PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON. Since there has been a 40% reduction in available phytoplankton, this means there has been at least a 40% decline in available food required to sustain and promote coral growth. So when you worry about the coral reefs, think more about feeding them, than you do about acidification inhibiting their ability to grow. A well fed animal will be strong enough to produce more protective shell than the acidity of the oceans may destroy. And one final point. In this research, I would like to see diatom growth promoted, and then combined with seeding of oceanic salps. These creatures heavily graze on phytoplankton, and their bodies and fecal matter are strong contributors to sinking that organic carbon to the bottom of the seas. In sum, phytoplankton are the primary means of sending organic carbon to the ocean depths. Without a healthy and flourishing population of diatomic algae, there will be very little removal of organic carbon from the ocean waters. Marine life, to include coral, will continue to starve for lack of food. Whale populations will continue to be stressed for lack of Zooplankton, which feed on the Phytoplankton. Dissolved CO2 will continue to increase in the ocean waters, thereby increasing atmospheric CO2 as the phytoplankton "CO2 sponge" continues to decrease in size. Thus, irregardless of the cause, we must restore ocean phytoplankton populations to at least the size they were in the 1950's when we saw atmospheric CO2 levels begin to increase. This can take the form of Iron fertilization, or use of technology to create "upwellings" from the ocean bottoms to the surface, in order to make bottom Iron available. I think the first method is the easiest to perform, the most controllable, and certainly the most reversible, should negative results occur. Hawk