eliterower’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Check the Science

  There have been a proliferation of blog enteries and posted comments recently about this technology and this company following their exposure in the NY Times this week. What most articles, and most bloogers, fail to mention is the wealth of scientific articles that back up the science behind this experiment.
  "A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean" published in Nature illustrates the effectiveness of carbon export following addition of low concentrations of iron which triggered a massive phytoplankton bloom thus consuming large quantities of carbon dioxide and providing.
  "Phytoplankton bloom on iron rations", also published in Nature, recounts the IronExII experiment in which a 60% increase in CO2 flux was mesured in the center of the bloom.
  "Iron seeding creates fleeting carbon sink in Southern Ocean", also Nature, demonstrates that addiiton of each atom of iron to the sea could pull between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton groth.
  "Open ocean iron fertilization for Scientific Study and Carbon Sequestration" published by one of the leading scientists in this field Kenneth Coale of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California references more than two dozen articles in his synthesis of iron fertilization experiments and concludes that there is overwhelming evidence of dramatically increased carbon export when iron is added to induce blooms.
  To date, there have been at least 10 experiments conducted by trained and accredited scientists from across the world that have studied the nature of iron-induced plankton blooms, their chemistry, carbon-export efficiency, and potential negative ecosystem effects. All of these experiments have shown conclusive evidence of dramatic, measurable incresae in carbon export to the deep. What all these experiments also have in common, however, is that the duration of their study was too short.
  The Planktos experiment is about to undertake the most extensive research mission ever conducted on an artificially induced phytoplankton bloom. Previous studies have lasted at most a month. The Planktos experiment duration is six months, during which time exaustive measurements will be taken and interpreted by leading oceanographers and biologists from around the world who have been invited on the expedition. The full life of a pelagic plankton bloom has yet to be studied. Articles detracting from fertilization experiments speak of eutrophication and anoxia of surrounding bloom areas, and increase in greenhouse gasses like methane which may do more damage than any carbon sequestration. The problem with these claims is that they are based on short term, some times in vitro experiments. There is further scientific evidence that these claims are exaggerated (see Science 296,467 (2002) & Science 300,68 (2003).
  The bottom line is that articles who cast the first stone at experiments like this without doing any back research other than reading news articles published by non-academics  have a deleterious and condemning effect on often promising and beneficial projects. The precautionary principle should rule experiments like these, but the fact of the matter is that if commercialization of iron fertilization has potential to be successful then it should be thoroughly explored on a large scale experiment before pessimists simply write it off as another dangerous geo-engineering project.
  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a student at the University of California, Berkeley.On Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good posted 2 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses