“Give me half a tanker of iron and I will give you an ice age.”- Russ George

Originally posted by TheOracle
We need to fix our habits, not fix the environment. BEcause eventually the same problems will come back ...
so what are we going to do , turn oceans into iron?

How about saying, we know very little about what is actually going on and are guessing at best that we are the cause of this climate change.

Can you please pull up records on our suns behavior 10,000, 100,000, 150,000 348,000 .... years ago to see any patterns or trends so we can determine if this is a cyclical change?

Sure we can speculate through soil samples, ice cores, fossil records & dare I say carbon dating. But we can not be 100% sure can we.?

I do not doubt our ways have done harm to this beautiful planet but to ignorantly claim we are the sole cause!!!

We love filling in the gaps.

That being said, I would love to see more about this. It may have merits, but undoubtedly take 1000 years to implement or test on a grand scale.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by one_small_step]

[edit on 22-7-2009 by one_small_step]

You environmentalists/global alarmist/global warming fearmongers seem to ignore the fact that a single volcanic eruption like Mt.St. Helens put more carbon in the atmosphere in a few days than all the internal combustion engines combined. We have had several large volcanoes erupt since that time, such as Mt. Pinatubo.

Nature itself burns vasts forests and grasslands every year without the help of man. So blame nature, not man.

These events, and what man does to prevent and extinguish fires, is far more than you are taking into account when you push your trillion dollar politicized agenda onto the backs of working families.



[edit on 22/7/09 by John Matrix]

I'm afraid that if this were to be implemented and to work it would be seen as a counter to our current behavior of polluting our environment. People would see it as a check they could write to handle the balance of bad behavior we've been doing... There IS a breaking point. I'd hate to know that we'd gone past it though...

reply to post by John Matrix


A little attackish, methinks John. But, I fully agree. It's not that we don't add to the problems of pollution, but we certainly aren't a large percentage of what is causing "climate change". It's all politics, as has been repeated here before.

It has become en vogue to condemn ourselves - to say we do not have the ability to colonize planets, to fix what we have done to nature, that all we do is make things worse for our species and the planet. Yet, we are credited with destroying an entire global ecosystem in a matter of a hundred years? [facetious]Why is it we can't do anything huge and meaningful unless it's something bad?[/facetious]

I wish humanity would stop being so damn cynical and start having a bit of faith in its ability to care for itself without the fear of losing money or other valuables. We can step up and take care of ourselves and the earth. This planet can support us, if we do it right - whether that means total climatological dominance or maintaining a balance with nature.

We have an ice age coming already courtesy of the Spotless Sun. We sure don't need anyone monkeying around with CO2, we are gonna need all of it we can get, and its not gonna be very long from now.

Originally posted by pieman
fixing an imbalance we caused by creating an imbalance elsewhere seems like a stupid idea to me, it's that kind of idea that caused all the issues in the first place.

Pieman, I sure wish we could get the folks in California to understand what you said! They seem to think it's cool to deplete our water reserves in the Pacific Northwest when they are having energy issues down there (generating power for them). Of course, they are also the ones that think it's cool to drain their reservoirs when a wildfire is sweeping through and burning all of their houses to the ground. Creating a water imbalance to fix a fire imbalance makes no sense to me. Perhaps they'd learn not to build there and adapt rather than resorting to something like this.

Then there are all of those folks down in the Mississippi River valley that have the opposite issue with water. They routinely have too much of it, and can be found sitting on top of their houses. They build dykes and try to control their imbalance of water with an imbalance of dirt, when we all know they probably ought to build everything on stilts and call it a day - yet they don't.

If Mr. Russ George's idea actually worked, there'd be some guy somewhere that wouldn't ask permission. They'd load up a ship full of the stuff and make it happen. There are a lot of rich people out there who aren't exactly playing with a full-deck, if you catch my meaning. It only takes one, if Mr. George is correct, to affect significant and long lasting change.

As the age old saying goes, "It's far easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".

Do you see the irony behind this though? In order to prevent a theoretical, and as of yet increasingly disproven Anthropogenic effect on our Climate, some people are proposing actually forcing an Anthropogenic effect upon such? I call it madness, and it should only remain an option if we somehow happened to know for a fact that we were all facing extinction.

Originally posted by bpg131313



If Mr. Russ George's idea actually worked, there'd be some guy somewhere that wouldn't ask permission. They'd load up a ship full of the stuff and make it happen. There are a lot of rich people out there who aren't exactly playing with a full-deck, if you catch my meaning. It only takes one, if Mr. George is correct, to affect significant and long lasting change.

As the age old saying goes, "It's far easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".

This sounds an awful lot like a James Bond plot, and a quite horrid one at that. It seems rather ripe for cataclysmic disaster and global domination.

Originally posted by Skada
reply to post by Skelkie3

 

Not just CO2 and Nitrogen, Phosphorus as well. There are many elements that go into "plant making" not just the two stated. And it really isn't "n2", but nitrates that help plants grow (as mentioned in your fertilizer statement). But even fertilizer is not good for the environment.
The natural process of making Nitrates is with lightening storms. The strike breaks the triple bond on the nitrogen molecule and is easily absorbed into water, then it falls in the rain and gets absorbed by the plants. It is a little more complicated then just dumping elements to encourage plant growth.

Thank you , I'm all for clarification.

Massive amounts of fertilizer containing various forms of nitrogen contribute ( in the marine environment ) to algae blooms - often of incredible proportions. Many millions of seafood eating people worldwide are adversely affected by this ( because the decomposing algae is very toxic in large quantities, and because these processes deplete oxygen in the surrounding waters ... in other words, the fish are killed thereabouts ).
In the Gulf Coast of the United States, fisheries officials call the condition adjacent to the mouth of the Mississippi a ' dead zone ' .
They ( dead zones ) get larger and larger around estuaries in all ' developed ' countries (and increasingly, elsewhere ) as more nitrogen based fertilizers are washed into the systems , and into the surrounding oceans.
As far as purposely encouraging algae bloom on an industrial scale goes, be careful what you ask for. Ambient environmental conditions matter far less if you're starving... and the seas seem about done for as a food source soon enough, anyway.

Iron in soluble form has got to be a common element in river water, as it is among the very common materials in soil and rock...
how's it working so far to cool things down ?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

I agree that the iron would work. I have read alot about that, including recently the dust storm that circled the earth several times dumping iron into our oceans. It was stated that the iron was good for the ocean. I also read that our CO2 level is around 386 and studies showed at around 1200 plants and foliage actually thrived and did better than at the 3oo levels.
Of course they wont do the iron thing, that would be too easy and no money to be made on it by TPTB. If you truly even believe the global warming stuff. There are researchers upon researchers who say this is not the case, but MSM will not let their voices be heard. Google it and you will see this is the case.

Originally posted by Skelkie3

Originally posted by Skada
reply to post by Skelkie3

 

Not just CO2 and Nitrogen, Phosphorus as well. There are many elements that go into "plant making" not just the two stated. And it really isn't "n2", but nitrates that help plants grow (as mentioned in your fertilizer statement). But even fertilizer is not good for the environment.
The natural process of making Nitrates is with lightening storms. The strike breaks the triple bond on the nitrogen molecule and is easily absorbed into water, then it falls in the rain and gets absorbed by the plants. It is a little more complicated then just dumping elements to encourage plant growth.

Thank you , I'm all for clarification.

Massive amounts of fertilizer containing various forms of nitrogen contribute ( in the marine environment ) to algae blooms - often of incredible proportions. Many millions of seafood eating people worldwide are adversely affected by this ( because the decomposing algae is very toxic in large quantities, and because these processes deplete oxygen in the surrounding waters ... in other words, the fish are killed thereabouts ).
In the Gulf Coast of the United States, fisheries officials call the condition adjacent to the mouth of the Mississippi a ' dead zone ' .
They ( dead zones ) get larger and larger around estuaries in all ' developed ' countries (and increasingly, elsewhere ) as more nitrogen based fertilizers are washed into the systems , and into the surrounding oceans.
As far as purposely encouraging algae bloom on an industrial scale goes, be careful what you ask for. Ambient environmental conditions matter far less if you're starving... and the seas seem about done for as a food source soon enough, anyway.

Iron in soluble form has got to be a common element in river water, as it is among the very common materials in soil and rock...
how's it working so far to cool things down ?

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

I believe that algae / seaweed is extremeley healthful. The plan would be to harvest it before it started decomposing, thus saving the ocean from the bad effects and providing extra benefit to mankind through additional nutrition. The air, the oceans and mankind would all benefit from this plan. Perhaps in the absence of huge earth changing events, the iron content of the oceans gets depleted and this solution could be as logical as giving vitamin c to a scurvy sufferer. We have to fertilize our lawns, and gardens or they stop producing why wouldn't the same thing apply to the oceans.

reply to post by obilesk


Thank you my friend. I guess it was a little attackish, but it's a narrow attack on the those who blame man for global warming.

I'm all for saving forests, plants, rivers, lakes, wet lands, delta's, oceans etc. I'm all for recycling and better methods of waste disposal.

SCIENTIFIC SYNTHESIS ON THE IMPACTS OF OCEAN FERTILIZATION ON MARINE BIODIVERSITY


In March 2009, a larger scale Fe fertilization experiment, LOHAFEX was conducted in the Southern Ocean, releasing six tonnes of dissolved Fe into a fertilized patch of 300km2. The bloom was followed by observers for a period of 39 days .
*The purity of the iron compound being used for fertilization should also be known to ensure that it does not introduce concentrations of other elements of organic compounds that would endanger marine ecosystems


Table 3. Summary of observed and predicted impacts of iron addition to the marine environment (Source 45)
Observed or Predicted impacts to Fertilized Area Observed or Predicted Downstream Impacts
Organism responses Diatoms have responded to Fe additions with the greatest increase in biomass in 5 out of 12 experiments (Boyd et al, 2008). Diatoms have a siliceous shell and a strong tendency to sink out of the surface waters driving sequestration. Depletion of silicic acid from surface waters limits further diatom production despite the availability of other macronutrients and Fe (Boyd et al, 2007).
Diatoms did not proliferate during the LOHAFEX experiment leading to reduced bloom production and limited CO2 draw down (www.awi.de).
Biogeochemical changes Fe induced phytoplankton bloom in surface waters confirmed by high chlorophyll levels. The absorption of solar radiation by plankton can have a substantial warming effect on the ocean surface in the fertilized area – comparative to the radiative forcing from CO2. (Rayfuse et al 2008).
Depletion of macro nutrients in the surface layer by phytoplankton bloom. Reduced availability of nitrates in downstream waters extending for thousands of kilometers (Jin et al, 2008).
Surface nitrate depleted. Reduction of surface dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) by >30mmol-1 leading to a drop in pCO2 of >40µatm and the drawdown of CO2. (Jin et al, 2008) – model. ROMS-BEC Downstream reduction in productivity due to lateral resupply of surface macronutrients to fertilized location.
Below the mixed layer nitrate and DIC increase relative to surrounding water due to remineralization of sinking organic matter. (Jin et al, 2008) ROMS-BEC Potential for increased remineralization and bacterial processes to reduce oxygen concentrations within sub surface waters.
Biogeochemical Fluxes The increase of dimethylsulphonopropionate (DMSP) and dimethylsulphide (DMS) production which can affect cloud formation and the reflective properties of clouds was seen in IronEx II, SOIREE, and EisenEx (Levasseur et al, 2006).
During SERIES a minor increase in DMS concentration was observed with subsequent decline to 1 order of magnitude below surrounding unfertilized waters creating a sink for atmospheric DMS (Law, 2008).
An increase in N2O production of 7% was observed in upper pycnocline in the SOIREE experiment, while an increase in N2O of 8% was observed between 30-50 meters in the SERIES experiment (Law, 2008). N2O, a greenhouse gas with greater warming potential than that of CO2 can offset any benefits obtained from atmospheric CO2 drawdown. (Rayfuse et al 2008).

Observed release of Isoprene, an ozone precursor, which may have a substantial effect on clouds through the formation of secondary aerosols. (Rayfuse et al 2008).

Large areas of hypoxic conditions may prevail across the oceans . This impact could potentially lead to a further increase in ‘dead zones’, especially in the deeper waters and the sea floor around the fertilization site(s), as the demersal and benthic communities in HNLC areas are adapted to low inputs of organic matter, and therefore ill equipped to utilize any large amount of sinking phytoplankton material. A further increase in hypoxic conditions in large parts of the oceans could have significant impacts for marine biodiversity and food security.




[edit on 22-7-2009 by meaguire]

Originally posted by Just-thinking
Of course they wont do the iron thing, that would be too easy and no money to be made on it by TPTB.

If there were in fact such a thing as a holy grail solution to the global warming issue, how can you suggest that such a solution would not make unimaginable quantities of money? Western industry is constantly struggling against environmental regulations. There are companies that would pay an arm, a leg, and a soul to ease their federal restrictions, especially if there were a legal and affordable way to do it! Regardless of whether this "iron seeding" idea would be an expensive scientific undertaking or some joe-shmoe dumping iron powder while sailing across the Atlantic, such a solution would be in HUGE demand, and where there is demand there is money. Frankly I don't know what "powers that be" you're talking about.

And as for this iron notion itself...
I've heard that on a very basic level, if it were even possible to begin with, such a process would change the acidity of the world's oceans. Do you have any idea what that would mean? Most ocean life is extremely sensitive to the content and quality of the water it lives in. We're talking about mass extinctions. Now, I know a lot of people have an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude toward what goes on under the waves, but rest assured, that would be a BAD thing for humanity. I'm going to have to agree with the "take responsibility for our own actions" camp.

To those who dismiss global warming as being too drastic, too unrealistic, or too much responsibility to take seriously:
How many drained lakes and shrinking polar maps does it take for you to type "melting ice caps" into Google? Believe it or not, it's actually not that difficult to type three words into a search engine.

Now that we've established that the world is, in fact, getting warmer, that just leaves the people who believe global warming is natural vs. the people who believe it is man-made. This, I think, is a more level playing field, at least by comparison. I'm inclined to side with those who say it's man-made. Sure, a volcano eruption emits a LOT of greenhouse materials. But that's a single burst which the environment diminishes over time. What we're dealing with is a constant effect which is actually GROWING over time. And if you took all the greenhouse gases in existence right now that are the result of mankind, I suspect we could put just about any volcanic eruption in Earth's recent history to shame. But even if global warming is 99% a natural process (100% is simply impossible), the effects are still the same, and the potential consequences just as dire.

"Consideration of iron's importance to phytoplankton growth and photosynthesis dates back to the 1930s when English biologist Joseph Hart speculated that the ocean's great "desolate zones" (areas apparently rich in nutrients, but lacking in plankton activity or other sea life) might simply be iron deficient."
-Wiki

Problem is, where do we get enough iron to feed all the oceans? I'm pretty sure you need at least a Kg of iron for a whale to survive.

Martin's famous 1991 quip at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "Give me a half a tanker of iron and I will give you another ice age",[6][7] drove a decade of research whose findings suggested that iron deficiency was not merely impacting ocean ecosystems, it also offered a key to mitigating climate change as well.

Perhaps the most dramatic support for Martin's hypothesis was seen in the aftermath of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.[citation needed] Environmental scientist Andrew Watson analyzed global data from that eruption and calculated that it deposited approximately 40,000 tons of iron dust into the oceans worldwide. This single fertilization event generated an easily observed global decline in atmospheric CO2 and a parallel pulsed increase in oxygen levels.

- Wiki


It's not Russ George or whoever this dude is.

[edit on 7/22/2009 by die_another_day]

And now for a related but completely different subject

"The Taklamakan desert is a major source of dust transported and deposited around the globe," the scientists noted, adding that dust from the desert has turned up in ice cores in Greenland and in the French Alps. They also suggested that micro-nutrients from the dust could have a beneficial effect on the oceans, helping to feed plankton.

Giant Chinese dustball circles the Earth

Looks like mother nature is way ahead of us.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by sligtlyskeptical]

were really headed for an ice age, not global warming

Hey guys,
I’d like to thank everybody for the input and participation thus far.
I expected a few posts but not the level of response that has been shown here. I did a search on this subject and came up with a few names and facts but it is more in depth than I expected. I put it in skunkworks because I wasn't presenting it as a complete essay but as food for thought.

A retraction needs to be added here. Apparently Russ George did not make the quote stated in the title but another gentleman who started the research that Russ George is carrying on. My apologies for that mistake but it is an actual quote.

I am actually working on a job abroad right now and the location I’m in has patchy internet so I can’t review every post yet but I did notice a few questions and comments that can be given answers.

The main one is that “Global Warming hasn’t been proven.” Actually global warming has been going on since the last Ice age and that’s a fact. The glaciers went all the way down to Texas. Some scientists believe that we are in an interglacine lull that is part of an even bigger cycle of freezing and warming.

As far as “why reduce carbon?” “What will happen?” : the levels of carbon in the oceans are too high. They are increasing and somewhere around 2030 will become so low in ph that they will be turning acidic. This is the biggest problem I see with carbon emissions. It will play hell with sea life. The use of phytoplankton to sequester carbon in the oceans would be the simplest and most effective way to remove overly high amounts of carbon from the oceans and would give the ecosystems a much needed boost in the most basic food source.

I know that there are a lot of different points of view and opinion on this subject but it seems to be a pretty new concept and worth researching and thinking about. I don’t see it as a panacea or a cure all but maybe a possible step that won’t cause massive amounts of money to implement but may be beneficial and useful if done right.

Looking forward to more interesting input on this subject.


[edit on 23-7-2009 by badgerprints]

It is wise not to fool with mother nature. I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by badgerprints


The main one is that “Global Warming hasn’t been proven.” Actually global warming has been going on since the last Ice age and that’s a fact. The glaciers went all the way down to Texas. Some scientists believe that we are in an interglacine lull that is part of an even bigger cycle of freezing and warming.

As far as “why reduce carbon?” “What will happen?” : the levels of carbon in the oceans are too high. They are increasing and somewhere around 2030 will become so low in ph that they will be turning acidic. This is the biggest problem I see with carbon emissions. It will play hell with sea life. The use of phytoplankton to sequester carbon in the oceans would be the simplest and most effective way to remove overly high amounts of carbon from the oceans and would give the ecosystems a much needed boost in the most basic food source.

Although you are fully correct on technical terms, be cautious in regards to how misconstrued your comment on "Global Warming" might be taken. I cannot stress enough that there needs to be made a definite difference between any and all Natural Cycles vs Anthropogenic effects. We have faced much natural warming since the last Major Ice Age, but we also faced a very significant cooling only 200-300 Years Ago (When Greenland became Ice Covered). We are still cooler now than we were pre-1600.

As for the Carbon in our Oceans, that is not a major acidification concern. What is an acidification concern has mostly to do with chemical runoffs from rivers, coastal factories, and ships. If anything, we can delve into and correct the latter human sourced factors, but intentionally attempting to manipulate the climate is downright dangerous, and utterly ludicrous.

People have attempted to "boost" the ecosystem before, through various methods, and they still often refuse to admit that they have done nothing but create a complete disaster.