If only ecosystems were as simple as say electrical engineering so we could successfully predict the outcome of such ventures. Introducing iron into the system is akin to introducing one species to deal with another invader; unforeseen consequences. Very good points in your blog!

I think the correct solution is to not allow any financial credits for this process. That would remove the profit motive and presumably allow a "scientific" decision to be made on the cost/benefit.

As you point out too many unknowns at this time to pursue on a large scale. But perhaps very low densities of iron to gently nudge the phytoplankton or limited geographic areas would certainly be a better place to start.

Perhaps a better way to limit the "for-profits" is to ask them to post a very large bond to compensate for any unforseen consequences of their actions on the eco-system. I suspect that requirement might alter their business plans.

e.

I can't believe that some small-scale experiments couldn't be done to help understand this process. For instance, if a sterile area a few kilometers across in the deep ocean, far from land, were test fertilized, it's hard to believe it could have a worse effect than a random dust-storm (which would provide natural fertilization).

By properly measuring the progress of the resulting bloom, couldn't a lot more information be gathered regarding the feasibility of this notion? If everybody's so worried about CO2, there ought to be money for such a project. Am I right in guessing that the cost of closely studying the result would be orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the test fertilization itself?

AK,

While I agree that more research needs to be done if we hope to understand the dynamics of Fe induced blooms, the problem with small-scale experiments in isolated areas is that observed outcomes will likely be significantly impacted by additional abiotic and biotic factors that differ greatly both spatially and temporally. Results that seem promising in one place may not translate (or multiply) as expected elsewhere. Thus, even the most meticulously planned, large-scale experiment may reveal little about what to expect in other latitudes and longitudes.

you have the most beautiful face I've ever seen

If it's CO2 we want to reduce in the atmosphere, perhaps we should support initiatives by an Israeli-U.S. venture that lets algae devour CO2 at factories and industrial plants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from them, and in turn use the algae to produce biofuels, which are cleaner. Such facilities are in fact in full operation now in an Israel kibbutz (run by Algatech), in partnership with GreenFuel of the USA.

Iron fertilization sounds to me like a very scary potential 'experiment' - at least until we learn more about it. Planktos is likely the worst corporation out there, but some of the other groups like Climos seem to at least be asking the right questions early on. My hope is that staffers on Capitol Hill recognize this is a very complex issue and are not quick to jump on board because it may be craftily framed as an easy solution to offsetting CO2.

I also agree with Gene's first comment ;) But more importantly, and seriously, I'm glad Sheril joined this group Wired blog. She's one of SEED's best.

For AK, hope he checks back:

Two articles about iron fertilization experiments:

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/soiree.shtml

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/iron_limits.shtml

The second article includes a link to the CROZEX site, another iron fertilization experiment.

Thanks, Jimbo. While looking for something else, I also discovered a doc at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0058-99/ that says (among other things):

"Globally, continental margins only amount to 12 percent of the area of the world oceans, but they are estimated to account for 44 percent of the present burial of OC [organic carbon] in the oceans (Emerson and Hedges, 1988). Very little OC accumulates in the deep ocean basins, mainly because any organic matter produced in surface waters decomposes before it gets to the bottom."

I suspect any blooms long lasting and large enough to bury significant carbon would also affect the oxygen level of the bottom water, which seems a pretty risky.

OTOH, blooms created in shallow areas will usually be near land, with risks if a poisonous species gets caught up in it.

A couple of other thoughts, though...

I wonder if continuous heavy fishing has reduced the level of iron or some other nutrient from ocean waters generally, reducing the ability to take up CO2.

I also wonder whether increasing erosion control during the last century may have reduced the rate of CaCO3 input, leading to acidification. (I was going to bring this up at RC, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/gee-whiz-geoengineering/ but given we have an expert available...)

At the risk of jumping in way over my level of expertise, what about the prospect of "low dose" fertilization. A dispersed and highly dilute iron contribution to nudge the phytoplankton activity but not create an overly dramatic (and possibly negative) impact.

e.

Nice explanation on Fe fertilization. I came across this blog following The Intersection and this is one of the better synopsis on the topic I've seen. I will be passing this on and showing my students. I've been considering assigning them the task of discussing research in this format to a general audience and you've done science a service with your style.

Great bullet points. Look forward to more.

apparently Planktos is moving forward...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/project-to-harness-plankton-puts-to-sea/index.html?ex=1352091600&en=e47c2c4ccbc45d81&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

With what you and Chris wrote up today - I am concerned. We need to be careful about what we think we understand before we regret our actions. I hope at least as you wrote that we will be responsible.

I agree that in the ocean we should be cautious about iron fertilization, although I would advocate a cautious research effort. However, if someone were to build a several hundred square kilometer enclosure on land and fertilize the seawater they pump in they would be welcome to try to sequester as much CO2 as they can. It would need to be an otherwise unforested and infertile piece of land....