Revolutionary Way to Combat Global Warming

If the production ratio you referenced is true, I am pondering the unreferenced absence of energy required for that consumption ratio of 100,000:1 and if this ratio is a given figure over time or an instantaneous occurrence and also what relevance the haematitie plays in the absorption of Carbon, if any.

Assuming the chemistry is possible in the real world, there would be a drought of Calcium Carbonates and Aragonites, meaning there will be a lot of naked shell fish

If only it were that simple.

Where exactly is the bottom of the food chain collapsed because of lack of iron?

Lack of iron is a limiting factor to biological productivity inthe waters off antarctica.

So you add iron, then we discover that now phosphorus or magnesium or managnese or ? is the next limiting factor?

The biota have grown to use all the resources available in their local ecosystem. now you want to turn them into human piloted boat dispensed heroin (iron ) addicts?

Do you see algae blooms in ponds? You get a bloom, when the pond turns over twice a year. the algae chokes out all oxygen, kills all plankton in surface subsurface layers, which dies, and settles to bottom taking nutrients with it.

Did the author suggest how this would decrease productive zone by over consumption of oxygen?

In antarctic waters, if and when your new iron bloom biota exceeds natural carrying capacity , they will take out other essential nutrients and energy resources with them to bottom of ocean when they die.. removing more essential nutrients from top layers' carbon cycle.

Sounds like a great way to destabilize yet another ecosystem based on ill informed inferences based on a single science factoid.

It sounds cheaper then adding a million gallons of water to the sahara and create a lake? we have pumps and can build pipelines? Then we could teach desert dwellers to fish.

milo

Yes, a thought. Geoengineering has been proposed by a number of folks for a number of problems. It has three easily identified dangers:

Nobody knows the interactions, i.e., once you've added that amount of iron, what other thing got screwed up by the iron?

Most such ideas are large scale and irreversible.

If you do this, and it works, you've now used the "last ditch" remedy. Many industries will now feel free to go on producing CO₂ without limit. What do you do next crisis?

Although not specifically related to this project, it's worth taking a look at some of the concerns of Alan Robok regarding geoengineering.

An Article on Planktos from 2007.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12111-company-plans-eco-iron-dump-off-galapagos.html

They are also not the only groups experimenting with iron.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16498-dumping-iron-in-the-ocean-may-not-fix-the-climate.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127013.400-carbonsink-experiment-sunk-by-hungry-crustaceans.html

The end result doesn't look good at all (unexpected variables greatly reducing or neutralising any positive effect).

As with all unproven developments never believe the hype (especially on a companies own website), and ESPECIALLY never when a new, unproven and massively wide scale (large number of unknown variables) technology is being trialed in a very sensitive and balanced ecosystem critical to life on this world.

Keep an eye on the actual tests and results that are being conducted. It is still far too early in this developing field to give a definitive Yea or Ney.