International Team Of Scientists To Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink In 2009
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada on 09.14.07
In an attempt to test the possibility of mitigating the effects of global warming, scientists from India, Germany, Italy and Chile plan on “sinking” carbon emissions into the Scotia Sea, off the Antarctic Peninsula in the South Atlantic, during January to March 2009.
By depositing 20 tonnes of non-toxic iron sulfate into a 1,000 square kilometre area of the sea, it is hoped that the iron particles will create fertile conditions for the explosive growth of phytoplankton or algae and microorganisms that will soak up carbon dioxide.
Carbon sinking (also called ocean seeding, iron fertilization, carbon capture and sequestration) was first tested 15 years ago as alternative method of “managing” global warming, though there are questions to the long-term environmental ramifications of experiments on this kind of scale.
Earlier this year, companies such as Planktos have conducted trials in seeding an area near the Galapogos to observe the effects. According to Planktos, the process involves dilute infusions of iron over large areas and if ocean seeding is successful in the long term, it will apparently not only restore plankton populations but also improve water quality, buffer the surface water acidity and assist in sinking large amounts of carbon into the ocean to slow climate change.
However, the amount of carbon absorbed or “sunk” will hinge on how much plankton sinks to the sea bed. There are concerns that the increase in plankton will result in more methane and nitrous oxide being released into the atmosphere – possibly worsening the situation.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that the sea’s capacity to absorb carbon has decreased: recent data published in Science shows that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere has been reduced approximately 15% every decade since 1981, due to changing levels of substances such as iron sulfate. The result is a possible feedback loop from the intensification of increasing carbon emissions, coupled with the ocean’s declining ability to absorb carbon. It is a worrying scenario and only time will tell if large-scale, international experiments such as these will have a positive impact on slowing climate change.
::Hindustan Times
Image: Green Geek
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
I'm not very familiar with marine ecosystems but in rivers, an explosive growth of algae usually results in a drastic spike in pH.
In addition to that there's the problem of the algae absorbing vast quantities of oxygen when they can't photosynthesize.
Come to think of it... it sounds like they're suggesting large-scale, controlled eutrophication. Interesting...
Here we go...
My biggest fear with climate change is what will happen if we try to "fix" it. And now people are suggesting dumping an industrial waste off the coast of Antartica to cause an algae bloom. Way to save the planet!
I'm with dokein. These "fixes" remind me of fixing food shortages with GMOs. Seems like a good idea, but our capacity to visualize the BIG PICTURE, and long term 'chain-of-events' consequences has historically fallen short. That's why we have this problem in the first place.
As an Environmental Scientist, I must say that the idea of geoengineering (the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability") is at best a temporary 'quick fix', and at worst, a potential disaster.
Scientists mostly agree that the possible negative effects overwhelm any potential positive carbon sequestration. It isn't worth the risk.
Furthermore, the idea we can mitigate climate change with seemingly simple solutions gives people a 'green light' to continue polluting.
Not to mention the unsightly algae covering 1,000 square kilometers.
Techno-fixes and magic silver bullets scare me... (society's way of maintaining status quo).
And remember, crisis creates consensus. This'll only happen all the more, as things get worse. Doh.
Techno or other environmental fixes can have good or bad consequences. Hopefully this one will work out. Before 1492, Indians in North and South America were actually playing a very active role in shaping the environment around them. Not all were successful, but many of them were. For more information on the ecological engineering of the Indians see Charles Mann's book 1491. It is the most profound book that I read this year.
I think we've got to be really careful with this kind of thing.
On the other hand, we are in very serious trouble right now, and even aggressive cuts in CO2 emissions will have no effect over the short term (next couple of decades).
One scheme I read about which seems risk-free is to raise the albedo of the earth by about 1% by making our rooftops light colored. I think we could also paint entire parking lots as well, in countries such as the US where a huge amount of land are is dedicated to them. It's not a genuine fix, but if it buys time, we can't afford to say no.
Another stupid idea. This biosphere engineerng stuff is going too far.
Iron is a great fertilizer for the algea and subsequent chain of sea life. The ocean water is deficient in this nutrient. So what happens if you add some? The annual tonnes of iron-rich dust from Austrailia's infamous red storms rains into the sea off of the east coast and supports one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth, the Great Barrier Reef. The coral reef is formed by living coral polyps which strain plankton from the sea water. The reef is composed of calcium carbonate.