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

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Wouldn’t it be neat if something like this led to a manageable climate?

By detonating a 20 megaton nuclear weapon over a sizable iron ore deposit in the ocean, the required amount of particulate might be generated.

Although, a series of twenty 1 megaton blasts over multiple ore locations would guarantee results. I mean, why take take any chances? not to mention doing it in multiple locations would save energy - energy that would have been used to disperse the iron by other means.

Edit: this would be an excellent show of force for the rest of the world to see. It is important that they be made to see that the USA still has 'the right stuff'. This would do just that.

The best part is we could do it completely unilaterally, which is a perfect demonstration of our global supremacy and the he United States will have assumed some of the properties of a Type 1 Civilization. After this display of American Beneficence the whole world will look at us with wide-eyed wonderment.

*This is too important a matter to be left to the rest of the world - who for the most part - are much less knowledgeable than we are about this sort of thing. Plus, we are the only ones with the Power, resources, technology and Brains to pull this off.


[edit on 24-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Oh my god friend! You have hit on the answer. If only we could use nuclear fallout to mutate and spawn hyper efficient plankton.

We must start detonating right away, its gona take allot more than a few blasts though.

I did the math. A half of a normal ore/bulk oil (OBO) tanker is about 90,000 DWT (dry weight tonnage. Ergo, half a tanker of iron could capture, at 100% effiiciency, roughly 33 billion tons of carbon. Just one coal fired power plant like FPL's near Lake Okachobee, emits16 million tons/year of carbon. The total US emission of Carbon in CO2 is on the order of 6 Billion tons/year. And that ignores the current load of carbon in the atmophere. The Earth's atmosphere weighs 41 Million Billion tons, of which .03% is CO2, meaning we have .132 million billion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere, which gives .035 million billion tons of elemental carbon. That's 35 trillion tons already there. So much for a half tanker causing an ice age.Oh yeah, most of the carbon will return to the atmosphere when the plankton dies.
One other not so minor problem. Phytoplankton isn't the only thing that gobbles up iron. A bacterium called Trichodesmium loves it and creates an organic nitrogen compound eaten by dinoflagellates like the one (Karenia brevis ) that causes red tide algae blooms .
And to the earlier poster, it's "anhropogenic", and not anthropological, global warming.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


That's some good math.

I don't think anyone has actually espoused the notion that we actually want or could create a new ice age with a tanker of iron. The original quote is obviously not accurate but was said that way by the originator of the plan to stress an idea. (if he was being literal, then your numbers would indicate he was wrong)

The full numbers are impressive and that's a lot of carbon sequestration. You are right that the carbon would eventually return to the enviroment after the phytoplankton died but it would be bound as another form of matter in the other members of the food chain that consumed it and in waste matter that would not disperse it to the water as quickly as it was consumed.

As you you pointed out there are algal blooms that would occur if the idea was used to such an extreme so it would have to be done judiciously up to the point of best effect with least adverse impact.

Nobody says it will be a cure all but it is worth looking into in my opinion.

Thanks for the numbers.

reply to post by badgerprints


It has been looked into, ad nauseum. Questions arise about unintended consequences and running an experiment on the entire ocean.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by badgerprints

 

It has been looked into, ad nauseum. Questions arise about unintended consequences and running an experiment on the entire ocean.

Yes, they do arise. Meanwhile petroleum products, toxins, pesticides, fertilizers, garbage and many other types of waste are constantly dumped into the rivers and oceans by the day but it is defended and justified ad nauseum. Even when it isn't an experiment but a blatant attack on the health of the oceans.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Yes, they do arise. Meanwhile petroleum products, toxins, pesticides, fertilizers, garbage and many other types of waste are constantly dumped into the rivers and oceans by the day but it is defended and justified ad nauseum. Even when it isn't an experiment but a blatant attack on the health of the oceans.

It isn't necesarily a "blatant attack" on the oceans. A large civilization will leave a footprint. We have responded with layer upon layer of environmental laws that are often ill thought out, difficult to enforce, and confusing for those that they apply to. When we reduce the earth's population, we should start with lawyers. Over fishing and illegal dumping by some entities has compounded the problems that we bring to the ocean. Petroleum spills are mitigated as best we can but eliminating petroleum and fossil fuels cannot be done instantaneously; we must first find substitutes and then put them in place as we phase out less desirable options.
Any large acale experiment with the oceans is dangerous. It could make things worse and exacerbate the problems we have already. Whatever might be done should start as a much smaller experiment and be scaled carefully. Dumping a tanker load of metallic iron may well result in a tanker load of metallic iron resting on the bottom.

The best thing we can do for the planet at the moment is to stop plundering the tropical rainforests. At the current rate of de-forestation we'll have lost 100,000,000 hectares of rainforest in the next ten years and they'll all be gone within 50-100 years.

Global warming is going to seem like a minor inconvenience compared to the damage this will cause to the environment.

Check out The Prince's Rainforest Project to see how you can help to reverse this trend.

reply to post by mattpryor


Plundering is not what is happening. Burning off for cropland is what is happening. If the world would buy the wood from sustainable growth rainforests, then there woud be value to the wood and it wouldn't be burnt.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by mattpryor

 

Plundering is not what is happening. Burning off for cropland is what is happening. If the world would buy the wood from sustainable growth rainforests, then there woud be value to the wood and it wouldn't be burnt.

Agreed, but there's also the clearing of land for monoculture plantations like soy and palm oil.

Not to mention one of the biggest threats to the Amazon rainforests, which is the horrific pollution caused by coc aine refinement...

We in the West have a lot to answer for.

Originally posted by mattpryor

Agreed, but there's also the clearing of land for monoculture plantations like soy and palm oil.

Not to mention one of the biggest threats to the Amazon rainforests, which is the horrific pollution caused by coc aine refinement...

We in the West have a lot to answer for.

The entrepreneurs growing the crops for the free market have a lot to answer for. I don't grow or process coca or use coc aine.
The elimination of Maylaysian rainforests for oilseed production is being driven by demand for food oils and fuel oils. Food crops are important but biofuels made from edible oils or corn are a crime. There are better choices. Corn-based ethanol is an energy loser that is merely a feel-good for the technically ignorant.
As to coc aine, it is a root of many evils and the cause of a significant fraction of crime in the US. I was not aware that there was large amounts of pollution as a result of coc aine extraction in the field.

reply to post by skeptic_al


I don't think you read the article... It says finely ground iron... not steel (which has the element iron in it).

reply to post by Solar.Absolution


Steel is iron with a little carbon in it along with small amounts of other elements. Iron filings are slow release iron provided they are not in deep water that would be anaerobic. A solution of iron would be a better choice if soluble iron was needed for growth.

reply to post by Dr. N

Whoever said "Global warming is not man made" needs to exercise some common sense and spend less time on conspiracy forums. I assume they were referring to climate change anyway since I don't think anyone with a degree of understanding has used the term "global warming" in years?

Al is that you? For the last 5 years global temperatures have been sinking, so of course TPTB had to change for it from GLOBAL WARMING TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

I thought CO2 caused Global Warming, now it causes any effect you want it to cause, to further taxing every man women and child IN THE US, to further the Empire. F*** YOU GORE AND THE NWO.

Can you see your own idiocy in your statement? Or are you one of them?

Listen to this s*** QUOTE "I don't think anyone with a degree of understanding has used the term "global warming" in years?"

Only because your fracking science is not SCIENCE, it is the governments way of taxing us. $3000/year per family. MINIMUM

As for the use of iron in the Oceans, do not mess around with crap that you have no idea what other possible outcomes may occur. You just may destroy the Ocean and than we really would be s*** out of luck.

But of course everyone is missing the obvious solution to problem.

If we were to reduce human population to an agreeable number.

Say 500,000,000 people the GAIA and all of the Animals would be so happy.

Now we have to come up with a plan to be able to pay for this.

I've got it, we will tax them making something up about CO2 killing the planet.

Oh, that is the plan, quiet down Gore you almost spilled the beans.