Germany OKs Atlantic global warming experiment

we are at the point in our species where we can, and should, be taking part in fixing the problems that we HELPED to cause (I do not believe for 1 second we have caused all of the mess, as histotically, this junk happens to the planet ALL THE TIME in geological timeframes)
if science shows it could do the trick, and its been proven this dissolved iron can help produce more of these creatures they speak of. then only an idiot would refute the facts and opppose it.
now i say that, but would love to hear any FACTS that object this and could result in some catasrophe.

"I do not believe for 1 second we have caused all of the mess", why not?, is it against your religion?

So much for the precautionary principle. Hypocrites.

Agreed, Doug_Huffman. I'm all about saving the earth, but we can't just do things that make us feel good, that make us feel like we tried. What happens to the giant growths of phytoplankton after seeding the ocean with iron? Don't they die and decompose? I'm going to go ahead and say I can't be sure, and I don't have any numbers to back up my comments, but I personally think this could be catastrophic in the event of a giant algal bloom and die-off. That would mean massive hypoxia..

"Sufficiently advanced ignorance is nearly indistinguishable from malice.."

Well, there's one opinion I haven't seen expressed here, and I hope not to...and that is: It's a natural process for all these things to die, even if mankind is causing it. So we should let it happen. I'll be kind and not tell you the well-educated person who maintained this position at a certain research center.

earth seems fine to me. why the rush to play mother nature? Hasn't the earth been cooling for the past few years? I've heard a rumor that climatologists can't make their computer models match history and that their predictions for the future should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you're worried about acidification, as the "opponents" in the article are, I would consider that an argument FOR lohafex, not against.

If you're worried about acidification, as the "opponents" in the article are, I would consider that an argument FOR lohafex, not against.

If they weren't dumping iron sulphate you'd have a point. Iron sulphate FeSO4 breaks down into SO3 and Fe2O3, rust and Sulphur Trioxide. When added to water Sulphur Trioxide turns into H2SO4, sulphuric acid. SO3 is a primary constituent of acid rain by itself as it's introduced to water in the upper atmosphere. Those worried about further acidification are well within reason to object to this experiment.

Personally I take a more straight forward objection to the experiment. It goes like this:

Fighting pollution by dumping industrial waste into the ocean is an idiotic idea. Especially when the pollution in question is an inert, biologically created gas required for photosynthesis. Removing CO2 from the ocean will have a great effect on the seas ability to sustain plant life required to sustain the rest of the food chain.

Look at that!! Just in time to claim they have succeeded in changing the earth's climate as the Global warming hoax is exposed and a Cooling era is coming into effect. How Convenient.

Is this a decision that only one nation should be making? Maybe we should be including geo-engineering into the UNFCC and a new climate change treaty that also covers this activity. For warming skeptics here is a nice update on global scientific opinion: http://politicale...ey-says/

Is this a decision that only one nation should be making? Maybe we should be including geo-engineering into the UNFCC and a new climate change treaty that also covers this activity. For warming skeptics here is a nice update on global scientific opinion: http://politicale...ey-says/

Link doesn't work, but it's probably junk either way. First word in the url is "political". Seeing as your link is probably about "consensus" that tells that it's purely political and not scientific in nature.

If they cause an oxygen-depleted dead zone, I call for an investigation and retribution for gross environmental negligence. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like doing this en-masse will make Exxon-Valdez look minor. At least Exxon didn't deliberately destroy the environment.

As for acidification, I agree that is should be a major concern as both halves of the moleecules will absorb -OHs by forming FeOH2 and HSO4(-). This will locally change the pH, maybe causing damaging shocks to the local ecosystem before the stuff disapates and buffers return the pH to normal.

What a way to replace a minor environmental concern with a potentially massive environmental disaster.