Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

I think most people would understand a properly constructed explanation, as long as it's not put forward by a government!

Or some extremist group with another agenda.

Actually, that's a valid point, I went out for a while with a young lady who worked for Greenpeace for a while, and the restrictions they tried to place on her went way beyond what is allowed in employment law in the UK. It's as though it wasn't 'just a job' (which it was to her), it was a way of life that she was expected to embrace at all times. Since then I've always been a bit wary of such organizations, even though I don't necessarily disagree with them!

or by an academic pedantic professor...

OK, so you guys don't trust information coming from academia, concerned organizations or governments. What would be a trusted source for such information?

A man I met down the pub of course.

Talk radio of course.

The ocean is blue because it reflects the color of the sky, not because it doesn't have life. Adding iron powder will do an even better job of stimulating algae.

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

The reason the ocean far from land is a beautiful clear blue colour is because?

The great State of Washington asks this Question on it's WASAL Test. This is the Student Assessment Learing test required to gradauate from High School.

Answer; The reason the ocean far from land is a beautiful clear blue colour is from the reflection of the Blue the Sky.

Muddy water will not appear blue.

Hi,

Would suggest to emphase the necessity of doing it by explaining the process of algae growth very simply, then show that you studied the sides effect which could occur and finish by the last ocean survey which conclude than we won't have any fishes in any ocean by 2048 if we carry on that way.

I'd be real careful about the premiss of the post.
From the site quoted:

*Iron is indeed a limiting nutrient in HNLC areas, with chlorophyll increasing by up
to 40-fold (SEEDS)

* Marine communities change, with micro-zooplankton altering. In the South, diatoms
are favoured over flagellates, and in the north, centric diatoms over pennate.

* What has *not* been found is any proof that any additional carbon sinks to
the ocean floor and gets buried, thus entering long-term storage.

From other sources we know that:
* Plankton 'blooms`, in both fresh and salt water are not always benign,
ex. - red tides.

*Changes in established ecosystems are to be made with great care to avoid
unintended consequences.

One would be loath to add a mix of nutrients, (which would change pH),
helter skelter when research cited only indicates that iron is the limiting factor.

It might be extremely unwise to change the population balance without regard to
the results in such a large portion of the biosphere.

If this post is about suspect sources, I'd include the poster. It might be
nice for some interests to creat a market for something that would
otherwise be regarded as a mild toxic waste.