Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Hatice Cullingford | February 2nd 2009 09:59 PM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Fine Scientist articles

All

About Hatice Cullingford

Welcome to my universe.. where there is Peace University.

As Fine Scientist, PhD, I write about my interest in various fields, from energy to space, chemistry, mathematics, plants, paleontology... Full Bio

Charles Darwin wrote in 1835 about the Galapagos Islands:


"September 15th — This archipelago consists of ten principal islands, of which five exceed the others in size. They are situated under the Equator, and between five and six hundred miles westward of the coast of America. They are all formed of volcanic rocks; a few fragments of granite curiously glazed and altered by the heat can hardly be considered as an exception.

Some of the craters surmounting the larger islands are of immense size, and they rise to a height of between three and four thousand feet. Their flanks are studded by innumerable smaller orifices. I scarcely hesitate to affirm that there must be in the whole archipelago at least two thousand craters. These consist either of lava and scoriæ, or of finely-stratified, sandstone-like tuff. Most of the latter are beautifully symmetrical; they owe their origin to eruptions of volcanic mud without any lava: it is a remarkable circumstance that every one of the twenty-eight tuff-craters which were examined had their southern sides either much lower than the other sides, or quite broken down and removed. As all these craters apparently have been formed when standing in the sea, and as the waves from the trade wind and the swell from the open Pacific here unite their forces on the southern coasts of all the islands, this singular uniformity in the broken state of the craters, composed of the soft and yielding tuff, is easily explained.





 

Considering that these islands are placed directly under the equator, the climate is far from being excessively hot; this seems chiefly caused by the singularly low temperature of the surrounding water, brought here by the great southern Polar current. Excepting during one short season very little rain falls, and even then it is irregular; but the clouds generally hang low. Hence, whilst the lower parts of the islands are very sterile, the upper parts, at a height of a thousand feet and upwards, possess a damp climate and a tolerably luxuriant vegetation. This is especially the case on the windward sides of the islands, which first receive and condense the moisture from the atmosphere."

While the HMS Beagle was in the Pacific Ocean surrounding the Galapagos Islands, there had to be almost certainly a "luxuriant vegetation" in the form of phytoplankton, floating microscopic plants or algae. Here is a satellite image of these islands, in the black patches, on October 31, 1983, a time for strong spring time bloom.



This satellite image, courtesy of the US public, shows the westward transport of the  phytoplankton plume for hundreds of miles by the South Equatorial Current (SEQ). Note the high levels of chlorophyll in areas marked in red. The SEQ, or in Darwin's language "the great southern Polar current," carries nutrients as it flows past the volcanic Galapagos Islands and spreads them westward along with the bloom.  During photosynthesis, chlorophyll absorbs light energy thus phytoplankton synthesizes carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water.

Darwin did notice the "very sterile" lower land in the Galapagos Archipelago. Sea water analyses have confirmed since the 1980s that elemental iron (Fe) is the limiting nutrient in phytoplankton bloom process around the Galapagos Islands. In fact, today, some say that one kilogram of fine Fe particles, of about half micron size, can trigger as much as 100 tonnes of phytoplankton biomass production. The iron in the sediments around the islands and the volcanic rocks beneath the surface is considered to be the main source of the iron to bloom phytoplankton in the Galapagos plume.

This is the origin of the ocean fertilization with iron dust.







Reference

[1] Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S., Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the voyage round the world of H.M.S. Beagle under the command of Captain Fitz Roy, London, England (1913)


Comments

The Real Problem Is Yesterday's CO2 Not Tomorrow's CO2

EU President says environmentalists want to command human behavior. Hearing the president of the EU frame the context of "global warming" in this context is most welcome. It inspires comment. He is both right and wrong. He is quite correct in his observation that the dark green movement has been and is exploiting global warming and climate change to seize power and run modern society back to some stone age fantasyland. He is utterly wrong to equate this with the notion that there is no problem with fossil CO2. There is a big problem only its not bearing down on us at the slow pace of changing glaciers, it is much near than that.

While many international leaders debate or work toward emission reduction strategies and carbon capture and storage the real problem is not tomorrows CO2 but yesterdays CO2. Nor is the central problem the role CO2 has in Global Warming.

We must turn our attention to the 1000+ gigatonne carbon bomb, two centuries of accumulating CO2, still mostly in the air as it takes centuries for airborne CO2 to equilibrate with the rest of the planet. Reports call the alarm of ocean acidification, adding acid flames to the raging fires of fossil CO2. What's missing is mention of the best, only, means to fight ocean acidification and CO2 in the air.

Just 500 gigatonnes of yesterdays CO2 has reached the oceans where Revelle's Rule tells us 80% of CO2 ends up. The first carbon bomb will be exploding in the ocean for more than a century even if we stop the emission of new CO2 today. No amount alternative energies, recycling, bicycling, or "clean coal" will tend to the first carbon bomb. Sure lets reduce the size of the second bomb but first things first. Here's how.

ONLY ocean replenishment and restoration can enlist, as allies, the most powerful force of nature - the ocean plants, the bloomin' plankton. But high and rising CO2 in the air is not only responsible for ocean acidification worse it has fed green plants on land making them greener, bushier, and living longer making them "good ground cover."

Ground cover improvements have reduced the amount of dust blowing in the winds by 1/3 in just a few decades. For the oceans dust in the wind brings vital mineral micro-nutrients that terrestrial Yin (dust) is just as important as rain, the Yang, blowing from sea to land nurturing plant life. Since earth and ocean satellites went aloft 30 years ago we've measured decimation of ocean plants, 10% are gone from the Southern Ocean, 17% from the N. Atlantic, 26% from the N. Pacific, and 50% from the tropical seas. Just yesterday, a few decades past, ocean pastures grew more verdant consuming 4-5 billion tonnes more CO2 each year than today.

Today, as stewards of our blue planet, we must replenish ocean micro-nutrients to restore the verdant ocean pastures. If we bring the ocean plankton blooms back to levels seen only 30 years ago those plants will annually convert billions of tonnes of CO2 into ocean life instead of acid ocean death. Those verdant restored ocean pastures will deliver 7 times the CO2 reductions called for by the Kyoto Protocol.

To begin, and we must without delay, the work requires only tens of millions of dollars, to succeed in a matter of a decade requires only a few billion dollars. In the bargain the restored oceans will feed everything from tiny krill to the great whales and everything and everybody in between - fish, seabirds, penguins, seals and us.

Replenish and restore the oceans without delay. Read more at www.planktos-science.com

The "Dark Greens" are trying to exploit global warming to railroad us to fantasyland? What are you talking about, anon? That first paragraph makes you sound like a neoGOP loony.

The rest of the comment seems like it was written by a different person, and actually makes a lot of sense. Using phytoplankton to absorb carbon sounds like it has potential to be pretty cost effective. Planktos claims a very high leverage ratio for carbon sequestration from iron seeding, and there may be even better yields availible with the right mix of nutrients. I have heard that some parts of the ocean are phosphorous (or was that potassium?) limited in plankton production; if we can get the right elements in the water, we can let the plankton do the heavy lifting.

In the article, Cullingford writes "...some say that one kilogram of fine Fe particles, of about half micron size, can trigger as much as 100 tonnes of phytoplankton biomass production" - which sounds pretty amazing. It would have been better if there had been a reference for that number however.

One wonders if the comment by geroldf is due to blind faith in the green movement or some other form of blindness. That the green movement has wildly and widely spread lies suggesting perils in ocean iron fertilization then later admitting their so called enviro concerns were secondary and in support of thier political agendas is as easy to prove as a dedicated Google review of the collections of statements by said rk greens. Let's face it the envronmental movement has been taken over by extreme anti-science anti-technolgy organic remedy shysters and political activists. Long gone are the traditional naturalist conservationist ethics and concepts of Darwin, Muir, or Audubon whose grounding in science led to intelligent reasoned stewarding of the natural world.

Chillax anon. Looks like your iron suppliment enthusiasm has gotten the better of your judgment.
The environmental movement is a full-spectrum group, and it's true that many of us are not only ignorant of science, but are very distrustful of technological fixes. They fear what they don't understand, but there is more to it than that. Monsanto has made "better living through chemistry" into a dirty joke, and balancing the benefits of technology against the costs of pollution and environmental damage has left science wearing a soiled lab coat.
I am an environmentalist, and I certainly do have a political agenda. I also think that phytoplankton fertilizers could be a very cost-effective and environmentally safe way to sequester carbon.
You sound like a bitter man, anon. Take a break and smell the roses.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.