Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

[pjclarke]

If you wish to switch the argument to one about fires why don't you prove that these fires are on account of man made global warming?

I don't, that was Blaster's latest Straw Man. Besides, wouldn't that involve 'giving money to scientists'? ;-)

[DodgyAgent]

What you have is a patent-applied-for research product developed for the domestic aquarium market which the manufacturer is desperately trying to reposition as a means of removing carbon from the oceans, a solution that has been shown to be ineffective.



Back of the envelope:

Global emissions CO2 31,350,455,000,000 kg.
Equivalent Carbon (12/44) = 8,550,124,090,000 kg

at a first approximation about half the emitted C ends up in the ocean so, taking the manufacturers best case, just to keep up with the additional C, never mind the Gigatonnes already emitted, we would need to distribute between 3 and 30 billion tons of this stuff per yr.

Any other bright ideas?

The product was never developed for the aquarium market it was developed to de pollute lakes and ponds and return them to their pre pollution equilibrium. As someone who is so worried about climate change I am surprised that you are so keen to smear any such solution. Furthermore you do not know that the product does not work and nor are you able to contradict the logic of the science.

As I have said before if it were a cancer solution the instant reaction would be to "lean into" the technology even if it proves to be a waste of time. As cancer is life threatening and you people say the same thing of climate change I wonder what your true agenda really is (well actually I know what it is)

[DodgyAgent]

What you have is a patent-applied-for research product developed for the domestic aquarium market which the manufacturer is desperately trying to reposition as a means of removing carbon from the oceans, a solution that has been shown to be ineffective.



Back of the envelope:

Global emissions CO2 31,350,455,000,000 kg.
Equivalent Carbon (12/44) = 8,550,124,090,000 kg

at a first approximation about half the emitted C ends up in the ocean so, taking the manufacturers best case, just to keep up with the additional C, never mind the Gigatonnes already emitted, we would need to distribute between 3 and 30 billion tons of this stuff per yr.

Any other bright ideas?

Global Fossil fuel CO2 emission 8,230,000,000 tons per annum.

Input
Nualgi required to absorb this - 5,878,571 tons per annum
@ 1400 kgs of CO2 for 1 kg of Nualgi
Nualgi required to absorb this 113,049 ton / week

Area
Ocean area in which Nualgi is to be used 4,576,901 sq kms
@ 25 kg of Nualgi in 1 Sq Km of Ocean.

Gross Ocean area 361,000,000 sq kms
% of Ocean to be fertilized with Nualgi 1.27%


About the cost of running the IPCC

[BlasterBates]

....and have all those renewable taxes changed anything ?

Carbon Emissions

[DodgyAgent]

....and have all those renewable taxes changed anything ?

Carbon Emissions

I think you will find he is busy with his fag packet

[pjclarke]

Oh, I made a typo, we only need 30 billion kilos of the stuff a year . Sorry.

Anyhow, here's a bigger fag-packet ...some fool gave some money to some scientists ....

Iron fertilization of macronutrient-rich but biologically
unproductive ocean waters has been proposed for
sequestering anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2). The
first carbon export measurements in the Southern Ocean
(SO) during the recent SO-Iron Experiment (SOFeX)
yielded 900 t C exported per 1.26 t Fe added. This
allows the first realistic, data-based feasibility assessment of
large-scale iron fertilization and corresponding future
atmospheric CO2 prognosis. Using various carbon cycle
models, we find that if 20% of the world’s surface ocean
were fertilized 15 times per year until year 2100, it would
reduce atmospheric CO2 by ]15 ppmv at an expected level
of 700 ppmv for business-as-usual scenarios. Thus, based
on the SOFeX results and currently available technology,
large–scale oceanic iron fertilization appears not a feasible
strategy to sequester anthropogenic CO2

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...rcherGRL05.pdf

[DodgyAgent]

Oh, I made a typo, we only need 30 billion kilos of the stuff a year . Sorry.

Anyhow, here's a bigger fag-packet ...some fool gave some money to some scientists ....



http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...rcherGRL05.pdf

You are absolutely desperate to rubbish any sort of solution other than controlling human behaviour. You have not investigated the science, instead you have spent hours trying to find something to rubbish the concept of Ocean Fertilisation. in so doing you have missed most of the science behind nualgi and just assumed it simply pumps iron into the ocean.

Twelve ocean Fertilisation experiments have been conducted none for longer than 3 months. The ones that have partially succeeded have created a bloom of diatoms. So instead of taking the success and building on the positives (which is what would be done if there was a genuine need to solve the climate change problem) and exploring how to make it work you are driven by the political aim to protect climate change from any sort of cure.

If you bothered to read the science on Nualgi you would see how much more it offers than previous experiments.

[DodgyAgent]

And to illustrate my point this is the report on ocean fertilisation (not nualgi) from the secretariat of the convention of biodiversity who simply studied and reported on experiments without it seems any sort of political agenda:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf

If you read the conclusion page you will see that experiments so far are inconclusive.

Despite this you and your (PJClarke) ilk (I love that word) are desperate to smear it

[pjclarke]

Well, thanks. That is a report on the impacts of fertilization on biodiversity rather than an estimate of the possible benefits, even so, they do point out that:-

These efficiency estimates, however, have not been reflected by the open-ocean fertilization experiments
to date, which have required more than twice the predicted amount of Fe to trigger a phytoplankton
bloom, leading to the estimation that to sequester approximately 30% of the annual anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, an area of 1,000,000,000 km2 ,corresponding to more than an order of magnitude larger than the
size of the entire Southern Ocean, would need to be fertilized each year. These conservative estimates
suggest that even with sustained fertilization of open oceans, only a minor impact on the increase in
atmospheric CO2 will be possible.

We'd have to alter the chemistry of perhaps most of the oceans (in reality there is not enough area of High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll (HNLC) seas), requiring an constant ocean-going fleet of around 2,000 tankers, with so far unknown consequences on the marine environment, just to make a small dent.

Its not that these attempts should not be made (check out the citations in that report, representing a significant research effort), it is more that with limited resources, we need to focus on those solutions with the best chance of success, of which there are many better than Ocean Fertilisation, - more efficient PV, fusion, carbon capture and storage, Thorium reactors to name but a few.

[DodgyAgent]

Well, thanks. That is a report on the impacts of fertilization on biodiversity rather than an estimate of the possible benefits, even so, they do point out that:-



We'd have to alter the chemistry of perhaps most of the oceans (in reality there is not enough area of High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll (HNLC) seas), requiring an constant ocean-going fleet of around 2,000 tankers, with so far unknown consequences on the marine environment, just to make a small dent.

Its not that these attempts should not be made (check out the citations in that report, representing a significant research effort), it is more that with limited resources, we need to focus on those solutions with the best chance of success, of which there are many better than Ocean Fertilisation, - more efficient PV, fusion, carbon capture and storage, Thorium reactors to name but a few.

You didn't read how the product works. Iron is just one of the elements that is delivered. these elements are delivered in nano size which means they are easy to consume and float around much longer. Much of the problem is that the oceans are short of Silica and Nualgi is delivered attached to nano sized silica molecules meaning that the nutrients are delivered to diatoms rather than cellular organisms (eutrophication/jelly fish)


If you saw the figures I gave only a small amount of the oceans would require treatment. as for 2000 vessels wandering around the oceans delivering it is concerned then how many boats do you think there are at any one time anyway.

My real point is nothing to do with whether the product works or not it is to do with attitudes to solutions that are not anti human. This enrages the vested interests of the AGW zealots who pretend they want to do something about climate change.

If they did then they would be pushing for investment into properly controlled long term experimentation of ocean fertilisation. If Ocean fertilisation were proven to work then this would buy valuable time to develop other technologies such as Thorium reactors, PV systems (which thanks to technology is moving rapidly) etc etc.

The planet will burn out one day and you and your friends seem to want to return us to the cave man era of happy clappy commune lifestyles when what we should be doing is developing technologies that will take us away from this planet.

If I had said that thorium reactor has been developed that replaces the need to use fossil fuel you would without doubt have rubbished it and said that Ocean Fertilisation is a better technology !