Web edition: July 18, 2012
Iron deliberately dumped into a patch of ocean has triggered a chain of events that pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and keeps it out. An explosion of microscopic life fertilized by the metal sank to the depths of the ocean after soaking up the greenhouse gas.
Geoengineering advocates who think iron could be useful for combating climate change will probably be heartened by the new finding, reported in the July 19 Nature. Carbon stuck on the seafloor tends to stay there a long time.
“Every one atom of iron removed 13,000 atoms of carbon” from the air, says Victor Smetacek, a biological oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. That carbon probably settled on the seafloor, he says, “like dust collecting in the corner of the room.”
But critics of iron fertilization remain unconvinced.
“This new work will be the poster child for geoengineering,” says Philip Boyd, an ocean biogeochemist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “But from a scientific standpoint, I don’t think the results are fundamentally a game changer.” In 1990, oceanographer John Martin of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California proposed that iron levels limit metabolic activity in today’s oceans. Photosynthetic algae need the metal to make chlorophyll. Iron dust blown from land during the dry conditions of the last Ice Age could account for the lower temperatures, Martin suspected, by spawning algae that sucked heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
A dozen experiments conducted from research vessels have since used iron to stimulate algal growth in high-latitude waters. But demonstrating that the carbon absorbed by new growth makes it to long-term storage on the seafloor — instead of circulating back into the sky — has been difficult.
In February 2004, Smetacek and his colleagues traveled to a giant whirlpool in the Southern Ocean. Descending currents there tend to keep material trapped, providing a natural container for monitoring the consequences of iron fertilization.
Seeding the water with iron powder stimulated a huge growth of diatoms, algae encased in silica shells. After about 24 days, the bloom began to fade as the creatures died off. Water samples collected at different depths tracked the fate of the remains. Most of the carcasses sank rapidly to at least 1,000 meters below the surface. They carried more than half of the carbon they plucked from the atmosphere with them, the researchers estimate, and presumably deposited it on the ocean bottom.
“This is really the first experiment to see significant carbon removal from the atmosphere,” says Claudia Benitez-Nelson, a marine biogeochemist at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. The new findings contradict those from a 2009 fertilization of waters that lacked the silicon diatoms need to build their skeletons. There, other species of algae that flourished were devoured by tiny grazers before their remains could carry the carbon to the seafloor.
But Benitez-Nelson cautions that the “elegant” result doesn’t necessarily make iron fertilization a viable strategy for fending off climate change. The total carbon removed by the 14 metric tons of iron used in the experiment was minuscule compared with the amount pumped into the atmosphere every year. A surge in diatoms could also have unintended ecological side effects, she says, such as ramping up toxins in the water that poison other creatures.
Citations
V. Smetacek et al. Deep carbon export from a Southern Ocean iron-fertilized diatom bloom. Nature. Vol. 487, July 19, 2012, p. 313. doi:10.1038/nature11229.
Suggested Reading
E. Engelhaupt. Engineering a cooler Earth. Science News. Vol. 177, June 5, 2010, p. 16. [Go to]
S. Perkins. Iron fertilization in ocean nourishes toxic algae. Science News Online, March 15, 2010. [Go to]
R. Monastersky. Pumping iron: too weak to slow warming. Science News. Vol. 145, March 5, 1994, p. 148 [Go to]
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
What is the cost of extracting that iron? Iron is usually mined as iron oxide - right? It takes energy to purify the iron oxide into iron and oxygen - right?
How much more carbon dioxide would need to be produced to generate the energy required to convert Iron Oxide to iron?
Then how much energy would be required to pulverize the iron into little digestable bits of Iron for the diatoms?
And then how much energy would need to be expended to ship and properly dispense the digestable bits of iron to where the diatoms will do the most good?
I don't think anything is wrong with your math.
I think what is wrong is that we need to learn to conserve energy in our daily activities so we can all live better lives consuming less without the gymnastics of trying to hide the effects of our consumption.
Gahr Gardner
As you point out, that is a good payback. Based on a worldwide iron production of 2.4billion metric tons of iron, only 0.23% would be required to remove the 30billion tons of CO2.
I question the need for pure iron. Likely, just dispersing iron ore dust would be adequate since the ore is able to stimulate algae growth. Ore extraction is a fraction of the cost of iron production.
Pessimistic Optimist: Obviously production of the worldwide iron causes only a fraction of the production of the CO2. So using just 0.2% of that to eliminate the CO2 is a great solution. Conservation just stretches out how long it is before the impact is too great.
Gahr: Conservation will not save the world. Our time is limited by our lifespans and the eventual fate of the solar system, but pushing down on the accelerator as we drive the bus toward the cliff will not make it easier to turn.
Stretching out how long it takes before the impact is too great - using conservation (becoming far more efficient at our activities), using a little iron, manufacturing clouds, or even floating white sheets of plastic where ice caps used to be all just treat the symptoms until we either find a cure or learn to live with the disease.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.