From rmg3@access5.digex.net Thu Jul 10 08:03:03 EDT 1997 Article: 142294 of sci.environment Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: rmg3@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine) Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.bio.ecology,sci.chem,sci.energy,sci.geo.geology,sci.math,sci.physics Subject: Re: Global warming - Ocean absorbtion of CO2 with iron? Followup-To: sci.environment Date: 10 Jul 1997 08:01:29 -0400 Organization: Under construction Lines: 28 Message-ID: <5q2iup$hsj@access5.digex.net> References: <33c4c2b3.7162650@news.syd.aone.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net Xref: news2.digex.net talk.environment:107210 sci.environment:142294 sci.bio.ecology:31143 sci.chem:99713 sci.energy:72048 sci.geo.geology:48083 sci.math:208850 sci.physics:270082 In article <33c4c2b3.7162650@news.syd.aone.net.au>, Greig Ebelingwrote: > >Such studies show that: should atmospheric CO2 be a significant >problem, the process can be reversed, and perhaps for a much lower >cost than radical changes to our energy infrastructure. Not quite. The studies show that it is possible to produce a short term, limited area, increase in ocean productivity. It is deemed likely in that field that the term and area could be extended considerably. What they do not show, yet, is that the increase in productivity is sufficient, and of the nature, to substantially change the air-sea transfers of CO2. They are further from showing that the changes are such as to permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They are even further from showing that the amount of CO2 which can be removed is comparable to the amount which is being added to the atmosphere. It is very interesting research. There is even some promise for geoengineering to be derived from it. The work, however, is far from the stage of being a technology to implement at whim. Followups to sci.environment -- Robert Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences