To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38631 ) 2/28/2013 12:44:32 PM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86356 CO2 changes ocean pH and temperature. What was iron concentration 50 years ago, and how much has it decreased? Very good points (finally).. We can presume, BASED UPON THE OBSERVED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that adding trace amounts of IRON to areas that are devoid of phytoplankton, but possess all other elements necessary (HNLC zones), results in massive phytoplankton growth. en.wikipedia.org If lack of Iron results in 40% depletion of phytoplankton populations, it stands to SCIENTIFIC REASON that dissolved CO2 levels will rise accordingly. And if dissolved oceanic levels rise, it prevents atmospheric CO2 from dissolving into the water (CO2 saturation), thereby resulting in higher atmospheric CO2 levels. 40% depletion of an entire population of botanical life within the oceans is NOT just a minor variable to the CO2 equation. The oceans are vast.. and temperature and PH vary from region to region... But apparently NEITHER of those factors prevent areas that have been "Iron fortified" from creating massive phytoplankton blooms. If acidity or temperatures were "the problem", no amount of augmented Iron would have an impact. The surrounding environmental conditions (acidity/temps) would PREVENT any growth in Diatoms or other desirable phytoplankton (the kind that sink to the bottom because of their skeletal structures). Again.. your argument is that acidic oceans and PH have caused the 40% decline in phytoplankton (despite lacking ANY evidence to this assertion).. I'm TELLING YOU that if this were true, Iron Augmentation/Fertilization would be ineffective. Diatoms would not be able to form their skeletal structures because of the acidity. But they do form them.. It's been tested up to 1000 PPM CO2.. The following year, Sobrino et al . (2008) grew cultures of Thalassiosira pseudonana -- which they describe as "a widely distributed diatom" -- while exposing them to either photosynthetically-active radiation (PAR: 400-700 nm) or PAR plusultraviolet radiation (UVR: 280-400 nm) in 500-mL Teflon bottles maintained at 20°C, using a semi-continuous approach that employed daily dilutions with fresh growth medium (filtered seawater from the Gulf Stream that was enriched with f/2 nutrients) through which air streams of different atmospheric CO 2 concentrations (380 or 1000 ppm) were continuously bubbled. In doing so, the three researchers determined that exposure of the seawater medium to air with an extra 620 ppm of CO2 increased the photosynthetic rate of the marine diatoms by approximately 45% in the presence of PAR and about 60% in the presence of both PAR and UVR, while it increased their growth rate by approximately 20% in both of the radiation environments. And in highlighting the significance of their findings, they note that "among the phytoplankton species inhabiting the [ocean's] surface layer, diatoms are responsible for almost 40% of the ocean primary productivity (Nelson et al ., 1995)." co2science.org It's the same reason that greenhouses augment the supply of CO2 in order to accelerate the growth of their crops. Bottom line.. Plants LOVE CO2!! Gaia loves Plants!! Gaia provides CO2 to plants so they can flourish.. But TRACE IRON seems to be a limiting factor (just like you claim that "trace CO2" is creating global warming.. I suggest, and SO DOES THE SCIENCE, that supplying one form of trace element will result in a lower amount of the one you seem obsessed about. And the marine food chain will love anyone who promotes Phytoplanktonic growths.. Hawk