Biology

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

True, that's the downside with oceanic invertebrates like cephalopods. The soft tissue simply dissolves away in the water..

That, and it's very susceptible to microbial decomposition. Not a very preservable tissue.

Maybe it's possible to find that sort of fossil embedded in ice, where the soft tissue has been preserved, but then again that's not very likely considering the low temperatures (and cephalopods don't usually live in arctic/antarctic waters do they?).

Yes, actually. There is an abundance of ceph species in cold water. That's why octopus blood is blue, as a matter of face. It doesnt have hemoglobin but instead hemocyanin, a copper-rich substance. In colder, more oxygen deprived water, hemocyanin is far more effective in transporting oxygen than hemoglobin.

But the thing is, they'd have to become trapped in the ice (unlikely), and ice is very destructive as a preservative, especially on soft-bodied animals.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

That, and it's very susceptible to microbial decomposition. Not a very preservable tissue.

Definitely. That's one of the things I actually learned from watching the Blue Planet, "the Deep".. Approx. 1 %, and probably less, of the organic waste in the oceans reach the lowest levels, down in the Abyssalpelagic zone (4,000 meters and deeper).

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Yes, actually. There is an abundance of ceph species in cold water. That's why octopus blood is blue, as a matter of face. It doesnt have hemoglobin but instead hemocyanin, a copper-rich substance. In colder, more oxygen deprived water, hemocyanin is far more effective in transporting oxygen than hemoglobin.

But the thing is, they'd have to become trapped in the ice (unlikely), and ice is very destructive as a preservative, especially on soft-bodied animals.

Interesting about the hemocyanin, I did not know that.

The ice would of course not be very preservative to that kind of tissue!

I came across this article in Science Centric, about phytoplankton and its role in consuming and tying down CO2 in the oceans. F.ex., when the plankton dies it "sinks to the bottom of the ocean locking away some of the carbon it has absorbed from the atmosphere."

In the article though, http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/a...-global-impact, there's a real twist of irony. Since scientists have discovered this ability by phytoplankton they also want to test the possibility of increasing the number of phytoplankton in the sea as a measure of tying more CO2 into the bottom of the ocean. Okay, but here's what happened:

The report is timely as it coincides with the recent halt of a controversial Indo-German expedition also in the Southern Ocean. Just days ago, a ship carrying scientists from India and Germany were prevented from dumping iron into the sea as part of an experiment to artificially fertilise the ocean and stimulate phytoplankton growth.

Reports suggest that the German government suspended the operation following claims by green campaigners that it breaches a UN moratorium on ocean fertilisation. But the scientists involved believe that legitimate scientific experiments were specifically approved by the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and they assert that the research is crucial to understanding more.

Dr Fones agrees. He argues that the experiment is not so-called geo-engineering for profit but is part of an important piece of research. He said: 'Efforts to find a solution to global warming are under threat by those people who are most concerned about climate change. But legitimate experiments like this one are crucial to learning more about the effects of iron fertilisation and will help scientists evaluate the merits of such a scheme.'

You have to wonder sometime about the productive measures that many so-called 'green activists' adhere to. If they're not really grasping the difference between unhealthy fertilizing of the oceans, and research-based, small-scale fertilizing, they can rightly be accused of doing as much damage to their cause as they are doing good.

[Count Comfect]

inked - hex and hept (ie heptathlon) are Greek, and sex- and sept- Latin. It's not being censored for the word sex.

When I said vestigial limbs I meant structures analogous to the limb but not visible on pictures like the ones we were shown - for example, they could be contained entirely within the body of the pseudoctopus.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

You have to wonder sometime about the productive measures that many so-called 'green activists' adhere to. If they're not really grasping the difference between unhealthy fertilizing of the oceans, and research-based, small-scale fertilizing, they can rightly be accused of doing as much damage to their cause as they are doing good.

Well, I'm cautious about iron-fertilising myself. While I think it's good to find natural ways of dealing with problems, such as climate change, I am wary of moving too quickly. I am always reminded of the cane toad, imported originally in Australia to eradicate the cane beetle infestation, a natural cure to a natural problem. But they ended up being a veritable plague themselves, causing tremendous damage to Australia's unique ecosystems, by either eating all the wild-life or poisoning all the wild-life that tries to prey on them.

Making changes in natural cycles before their current state is entirely understood is terribly risky. There are always consequences. Plankton is the very base of the ocean's food cycle, much depends on it. If you dump the iron in the wrong place, or too much of it, and disrupt the cycle, you may end up causing tremendous damage. Especially so close to Antarctica. The oceans are already under a lot of stress as it is.

So I don't think it is unwise to halt such experiments until it is certain the scale and method of the project is properly understood and agreed on. Science shouldn't be rushed, it gets sloppy otherwise. There are rules to follow and this research should be subject to them, just as any other research.

According to the BBC, the project has gone ahead nevertheless.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Well, I'm cautious about iron-fertilising myself. While I think it's good to find natural ways of dealing with problems, such as climate change, I am wary of moving too quickly. I am always reminded of the cane toad, imported originally in Australia to eradicate the cane beetle infestation, a natural cure to a natural problem. But they ended up being a veritable plague themselves, causing tremendous damage to Australia's unique ecosystems, by either eating all the wild-life or poisoning all the wild-life that tries to prey on them.

Making changes in natural cycles before their current state is entirely understood is terribly risky. There are always consequences. Plankton is the very base of the ocean's food cycle, much depends on it. If you dump the iron in the wrong place, or too much of it, and disrupt the cycle, you may end up causing tremendous damage. Especially so close to Antarctica. The oceans are already under a lot of stress as it is.

So I don't think it is unwise to halt such experiments until it is certain the scale and method of the project is properly understood and agreed on. Science shouldn't be rushed, it gets sloppy otherwise. There are rules to follow and this research should be subject to them, just as any other research.

According to the BBC, the project has gone ahead nevertheless.

Definitely one should be very wary of proceeding with large-scale projects that don't adhere to, should we call it, common sense and high scientific standards.

But this is not that sort of project, and that's the point I'm alluding to.

I think these activists should think twice if they believe they are are alone in having environmental concerns about any large-scale fertilization. In fact, the research group that is undertaking the project seems to have engaged in a good deal of debate prior and during the on-going research, which you would of course expect professional scientists to do.

I just think some of these activist organization are rather quick to jump on the red-alert button, just like they are prone to chasing the red herring stories wherein they focus on the eye-catching, headline-making problems instead of more complex, but equally important issues. One that immediately springs to mind is the completely lopsided attention that whale hunting of the minke whales get. But I'm digressing

The research experiment is commented on in an article in the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where they write: "Proponents of iron addition do acknowledge the possibility of environmental ill-effects. Still, no such effects have been detected during the past 12 experiments, probably because the experiments were small—around a ton of iron added over a few hundred square kilometers of ocean. By incrementally scaling up, they believe they can detect and avoid environmental problems." **Edit** Here's the link as well: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34167

They way forward they seem to be choosing looks to be both constructive and full of the right safe-guards.

[Earniel]

Hm, six whole tonnes of iron-sulphate and an area of 300 km² is not exactly what I call small-scale. While six tonnes spread over 300 km² may be acceptable in concentration, it still remains a very large affected area.

The fact there is a international convention that forbids such fertilisation is also not something that I think can be cast aside, simply because the research could be beneficial to the climate change problem. As I said, there are rules to follow.

It's IMO better to be too quick to 'jump on the red-alert button' than wait until it's too late to stop what looks like a too risky experiment. You can always start the experiment later when people's concerns are put to rest, but you can't undo it later if it does prove harmful.

[Coffeehouse]

Pardon the long post this is all just too fascinating

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hm, six whole tonnes of iron-sulphate and an area of 300 km² is not exactly what I call small-scale. While six tonnes spread over 300 km² may be acceptable in concentration, it still remains a very large affected area.

But that does not neccessarily warrant to call it a large-scale research project. It depends on the variables. There is one large-scale variable: the area involved, 300 km², yet a spread of six tonnes of iron fertilizer on such a large area produces a very low concentration, scientifically useful but certainly of quite limited effect on the whole. I would be cautious in calling that large-scale project seeing that this is oceanic area we are speaking of and not the fertilizing of 300 km² of land. While larger-scale fertilization would pose numerous questions that have not been answered by far, this very limited amount of fertilizer is far easier to control. Indeed the researchers are doing this to test several hypothesis and to see to what degree the phytoplankton blossoms, if at all, not on any commercial or large-scale grounds.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The fact there is a international convention that forbids such fertilisation is also not something that I think can be cast aside, simply because the research could be beneficial to the climate change problem. As I said, there are rules to follow.

It's important to get the facts straight though. As is commented upon by the WHOI, "While international treaties such as the London Convention, which governs ocean dumping and pollution, might address iron addition, treaty nations have not yet decided whether it might constitute pollution because its possible side effects remain unknown." there is not a ban (i.e. it is not forbidden as you write Eärniel).

Were I you I would at least come to grasps with what the scientists involved in this research themselves have voiced. I think it's unfair to accuse them of somehow flouting the law in the name of climate change.

In a 16th of December, 2008 media release issued by the Australian scientific research organization Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre they addressed this, writing:
"Earlier this year, the report formed the basis of discussions at the meeting of signatories to the London Convention - international legislation controlling the input of material into the sea. A key outcome of the deliberations was a statement by the International Maritime Organisation to restrict ocean fertilisation to reseearch purposes only."

In the above-mentioned BBC article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7856144.stm it is written:
"However, the environmental impact of Lohafex was questioned by Kristina Gjerde, high seas policy advisor, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
She said: "The fundamental question remains, should this activity be allowed to proceed unregulated?
"I am not against research in this area; however, it should follow internationally agreed rules and procedures.

The policy advisor, a Norwegian actually, is completely right in addressing the issue of regulation. These types of research projects need to be carefully controlled and not exercised on some large-scale, irresponsible manner (I will show an ongoing example of this later in the thread).

And I completely agree. Restricting fertilizing to research, where it is small-scale, controlled and last but not least, peer-reviewed, should be the only viable option considering the circumstances. What you don't want however is an absence of research followed by a commercialization of this fertilization on open waters (not subject to international law) with poor control and a string of unknown variables. That the scientific community have the knowledge about iron fertilization is not only then useful for possible widespread use later, but also as a future argument for not employing fertilization at all.

If we look at the debate what the last 20 years of history show is that there has been a slow, incremental experimenting on this, which has shown itself so far to be very inconclusive. Some marine biologists have the view that although iron is a prime fertilizer of phytoplankton, it does so best 'naturally', in areas such as the Galapagos, rich on iron, where it comes from 'below', not from artificial fertilizer.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It's IMO better to be too quick to 'jump on the red-alert button' than wait until it's too late to stop what looks like a too risky experiment. You can always start the experiment later when people's concerns are put to rest, but you can't undo it later if it does prove harmful.

Well obviously better to be cautious if the risks seem too high or unknown variables too many. That's a given right?
Yet there will always be a concerned party in scientific discourse. Dissent is absolutely neccessary, but that does not mean it is always correct. It's a fine line which scientists thread all the time: risk, funding, peer dissent, lack of research options.

The commentary in the WHOI article actually addresses this concern quite well:
"Between these viewpoints a middle ground emerged: “There are plenty of ways to do it wrong, but done right, [iron fertilization] does actually sequester carbon for hundreds of years in the place that it would ultimately end up anyway,” Watson said. That may be a tremendous advantage compared with more familiar but less secure approaches like planting trees, he said. Skeptics should not dismiss the idea out of hand before scientists have had the chance to work out the details."

The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, or ACECRC, also issued a very detailed report to the Australian government. I definitely recommend reading it: http://www.acecrc.org.au/uploaded/11...tilisation.pdf

Here's a few excerpts that we can look at!:

Originally Posted by ACECRC report

Scientific research on ocean fertilisation
currently centres on four questions:
• efficacy: does it work?
• capacity: how much CO2
sequestration can be achieved?
• risk: what are the potential
impacts?
• verification: is it possible to
demonstrate and quantify the
amount of carbon sequestered?

Originally Posted by ACECRC report

The scientific community has issued a
strong call for research to accompany
any commercial fertilisation activities
(Buesseler et al., 2008), as well as
cautionary notes about the risk and
value of iron fertilisation (Chisholm et al.,
2001; Buesseler et al., 2008), and nitrogen
fertilisation (Glibert, 2008).

Originally Posted by ACECRC report

The overall sequestration efficiencies
from artificial iron fertilisations have
been relatively low. Experiments have
yielded about 1,000 tonnes of carbon
uptake per tonne of added iron. This
compares with 30,000 to 110,000 tonnes
of carbon per tonne of iron suggested
by laboratory or natural experiments.
The poor results may in part reflect the
limited scope and short duration of the
fertilisation experiments. There is some
evidence that naturally iron-rich regions
of the Southern Ocean do show high
carbon sequestration efficiency (Blain
et al., 2007), but it remains unknown
and undemonstrated whether similar
efficiency could be achieved by artificial
fertilisation. No experiments have shown
any link to increases in fisheries yields.

Originally Posted by ACECRC report

Fertilisation might also trigger several
other negative effects, such as depletion
of oxygen in deep waters, creating
‘dead zones’ where fish cannot survive.
As well, since added CO2 forms a weak
acid in seawater, increasing the uptake
of atmospheric CO2 would also affect
the distribution of ocean acidification
by moving CO2 deeper into the ocean,
making the deep oceans more acidic
(ACE CRC, 2008). This reduces the ability
of certain corals and marine organisms
to form hard carbonate shells (The Royal
Society, 2005).

There has however been much warranted criticism of a truly large-scale fertilization programme on the scale of 1,600 square kilometers. (Which is not the small-scale Indo-German project that I originally quoted). It is actually the University of Sydney in cooperation with the Australian government, completely in disregard to the scientific advice by the ACECRC report I just quoted from. An article by WWF comments, on the 21st of January, 2009:
"A reported plan to sprinkle nitrate fertiliser over a 1,600 square kilometre area in the Tasman Sea as part of a global warming experiment may breach global conventions and be dangerous to the environment, WWF-Australia said today.
The Sydney University proposal aims to stimulate an explosive bloom of plankton researchers hope will sequester carbon at the bottom of the ocean for up to 100 years.
The International Panel for Climate Change has described such a method of carbon sequestration as "speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side effects".
"If this experiment proceeds, the Australian Government's credibility as a protector of the oceans is on the line," said Mr Rob Nicoll, WWF-Australia's Antarctic and Southern Oceans Initiative Manager."

This is definitely an example of irresponsible conduct which seems more like an attempted commercialization (or industrial scale) project than viable research.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I would be cautious in calling that large-scale project seeing that this is oceanic area we are speaking of and not the fertilizing of 300 km² of land.

Well, I still won’t be calling it small-scale. But there are definitely arguments for and against and I'm not going to quibble over this. I know this, though, this is not going to stop at 6 tonnes and 300km². If the results are promising, a larger project will no doubt be proposed. And a larger one after that. At one point even you will call it large-scale.

It's important to get the facts straight though. As is commented upon by the WHOI: "While international treaties such as the London Convention, which governs ocean dumping and pollution, might address iron addition, treaty nations have not yet decided whether it might constitute pollution because its possible side effects remain unknown."there is not a ban (i.e. it is not forbidden as you write Eärniel).

Actually, the Convention does forbid ocean fertilisation (or rather requests of nations that it doesn't happen) unless certain conditions are met. I only should not have omitted that last part. The following quote is from a report of the Convention, dating from May 2008 (emphasis mine):

Bearing in mind the ongoing scientific and legal analysis occurring under the auspices of the London Convention (1972) and the 1996 London Protocol, requests Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities, including assessing associated risks, and a global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanism is in place for these activities; […].

So I don’t think it is unreasonable of environmental organisations to ask for this project to be (temporarily) suspended until this is all settled. Note that Kristina Gjerde, also stated (emphasis mine):

"The Convention on Biological Diversity's call for a defacto moratorium on ocean fertilisation reflects the will of the international community that this activity should not proceed until certain basic requirements have been satisfied.

"The government ministries that authorised the Lohafex experiment did not comply with the rules for [environmental] impact assessments as they currently exist under the London Convention [on the Prevention of Marine Pollution]."

But I’ll admit I was also partially thinking of a previous situation last year, when Planktos, a commercial company intended to seed the ocean with 50 tonnes of iron near the Galapagos, in a much smaller area than this new project. They apparently also tried to evade US rules prohibiting this action, by intending to sail under foreign flags. But the project was shelved last year, officially because of lack of investers. (At first glance, I had assumed the Convention was the same regulation that prohibited Planktos’ iron project, but it seems I was mistaken.)

Were I you I would at least come to grasps with what the scientists involved in this research themselves have voiced. I think it's unfair to accuse them of somehow flouting the law in the name of climate change.

I think it is also unfair to accuse me of a) being ignorant of the claims of the scientists involved and b) making accusations that I never made. Just because I want to things to be considered before I go along with it, doesn’t mean I’m accusing anyone of anything. All I said was that rules had to be followed.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Well, I still won’t be calling it small-scale. But there are definitely arguments for and against and I'm not going to quibble over this. I know this, though, this is not going to stop at 6 tonnes and 300km². If the results are promising, a larger project will no doubt be proposed. And a larger one after that. At one point even you will call it large-scale.

That's a fair point, but let's differentiate between scientists here. As the latest development in Australia show, some seem to want to take unwarranted risk. I would be careful with putting the Indo-German team in that category however as it seems they have conducted a comprehensive debate beforehand, then halted their research at request, and then proceeded with spreading six tonnes over 300 square kilometers after deciding that they had the safe-guards in place. It seems very professional to me, but we can disagree on that if you want

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Actually, Coffeehouse, the Convention does forbid ocean fertilisation (or rather requests of nations that it doesn't happen) unless certain conditions are met. I only should not have omitted that last part. The following quote is from a report of the Convention, dating from May 2008 (emphasis mine):

Eärniel, I completely agree with that statement you posted. It advocates just the stance I've been argueing. It says, as you know, quote: "do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities"

It exactly the sort of small scale research experiments, as conducted by the Indo-German team and previous scientific teams, that constitute 'adequate scientific' research to form a comprehensive basis. That is why I think it is much more important that professional marine biologists be able to conduct these tests before any other nations or less scientifically-inclined groups decide to do this on a large scale, a commercial scale.
That these kinds of small-scale experiments are conducted can be very important if it turns out that sequestration of CO2 does not work well with iron fertilization and/or damages phytoplankton or other marine life.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I think it is also unfair to accuse me of a) being ignorant of the claims of the scientists involved and b) making accusations that I never made. Just because I want to things to be considered before I go along with it, doesn’t mean I’m accusing anyone of anything. All I said was that rules had to be followed.

Oh Eärniel come on, I didn't call you ignorant. I simply asked you to 'come to grasps' with what the Indo-German team has stated themselves. I.e. reading about it yourself.
Anyways I'm not accusing you of anything you know, it just seems to me that sweeping generalizations about scientists not following rules etc. hits off the point.

[Earniel]

New developments concerning the iron-fertilising project: Setback for climate technical fix.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Takes brass balls to say, "This was ineffective. We need to do more of it."

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

New developments concerning the iron-fertilising project: Setback for climate technical fix.

Thanx for the update Eärniel.

The conclusion seemed to show negative results in that:

The idea is that putting iron filings in the ocean will stimulate growth of algae, which will absorb CO2 from air.

But scientists on the Lohafex project, which put six tonnes of iron into the Southern Ocean, said little extra carbon dioxide was taken up.

and that

Leaders of the German-Indian expedition said they had gained valuable scientific information, but that their results suggested iron fertilisation could not have a major impact, at least in that region of the oceans.

One of the scientists involved is quoted as saying that

"There's been hope that one could remove some of the excess carbon dioxide - put it back where it came from, in a sense, because the petroleum we're burning was originally made by the algae," said Victor Smetacek from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven. "But our results show this is going to be a small amount, almost negligible."

More worrying though is the news that

A commercial company, Climos, is planning a much larger experiment that could cover up to 40,000 sq km of ocean.

It hopes eventually to receive funding through the global carbon market if it can demonstrate that the technique can sequester large quantities of the greenhouse gas.

Though I haven't read much about this latter project so really I can't comment on it but it seems wreckless.