Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
World Wildlife Fund warns against plan by Planktos, Inc.

Contact: Kathleen Sullivan
kathleen.sullivan@wwfus.org
202-778-9576
World Wildlife Fund

Quote:
WASHINGTON—World Wildlife Fund today announced its opposition to a plan by Planktos, Inc. (OTCBB: PLKT) to dump iron dust in the open ocean west of the Galapagos Islands. The experiment seeks to induce phytoplankton blooms in the hopes that the microscopic marine plants will absorb carbon dioxide. The company is speculating on lucrative ways to combat climate change.

“There are much safer and proven ways of preventing or lowering carbon dioxide levels than dumping iron into the ocean,” said Dr. Lara Hansen, chief scientist, WWF International Climate Change Program. “This kind of experimentation with disregard for marine life and the lives of people who rely on the sea is unacceptable.”

~snip~

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/wwf-wwf062707.php


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
At least they get the point; reducing emissions will do squat for our problem. Is it true that even cutting emissions as proposed, will lead to CO2 levels of 700-800 ppm (double today's levels)? WT....

My thought is that it'd be better to have everyone involved with something like this scheme so as to monitor, measure, test, give oversight, suggestions, input, data, etc.; rather than "banning" the scheme and driving it "underground."

...and as they point out, we've degraded the planet's ability to absorb CO2 as it used to do. That's why levels are rising so quickly these days (not our emissions).


...about Planktos (their own propaganda)
Quote:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/planktos.php
"....coccolithophorid ....runs on chlorophyll & carotenoids, forms massive blooms, sequesters his CO2 inhalations in CaCO3 scales, and then sinks in great numbers to form deposits of chalk."

The really important point here is that we are only proposing "restoration" of phytoplankton to 1980 levels of health and activity as defined by NASA and NOAA scientists. Their studies show a 25% decline in Pacific plankton populations in the last 25 years and a 6~9% die off globally.

Considering that 1980 levels of marine photosynthesis metabolized about 50 gigatons of CO2 annually, the recent shortfall equals nearly 3 gigatons of lost photosynthetic capacity or approximately half of all industrial and automotive emissions each year.

Returning plankton populations to 1980 levels would neutralize about 50% of industrial society's greenhouse gas emissions, and we feel that is about all you can or should ask a single ecosystem to contribute to our self-inflicted climate wars. The rest of the problem must eventually be handled by our own species, changing our basic energy systems and insane consumption patterns.

One reason is that if our collective response to Climate Change is limited to lessening future CO2 emissions with better technologies today, these same technologies may [need to] be used more intensely in the future. Such a narrow focus also overlooks legacy emissions of CO2 that will remain in the stratosphere for decades....

First off, we are not talking about "large" infusions of bio-available iron. We are talking are about very dilute infusions over very large areas. Iron only has to be replenished in parts per trillion.

Our projects will add something on the order of 50 tons of iron to seed an ocean surface area of approximately 10,000 square kilometers in diameter. This would be only a few percent of the scale of naturally occurring blooms.



I don't know.... At this point I figure they can't screw things up worse than they already are.

Even if they fail, there are land-based opportunities to do the same type of thing.

~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
From the article:

"Planktos, Inc.— a for-profit company — will dump up to 100 tons of iron dust this month in a 36 square mile area located approximately 350 miles west of the Galapagos Islands. Planktos, Inc. plans to dump the iron in international waters using vessels neither flagged under the United States nor leaving from the United States so U.S. regulations such as the U.S. Ocean Dumping Act do not apply and details do not need to be disclosed to U.S. entities".

If they're a "for-profit company" where does the profit lie in this venture? Are they disposing of surplus iron dust? From China perhaps? Is the fact "details do not need to be disclosed to U.S. entities" important for the success of their venture?

It sounds a bit like eutrophication, a problem for water of limited volume but presumably not to such an extent in the ocean.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5