2007-06-27 10:48:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Possibly, but early experiments have not had promising results. And the risks of doing this are not negligible.
There probably are better approaches. And it probably shouldn't be totally abandoned just yet.
2007-06-27 10:52:01 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it can. Phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis, much of this absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere when phytoplankton is subsequently eaten by marine life.
Phytoplankton in equatorial regions are tiny and when they die they tend to float near the surface, the trapped carbon is released as they decompose. Away from equatorial regions phytoplankton are large enough to sink when they die, in doing so they take the crabon with them to the ocean bed where it is added to the sediment, this process is known as the biological pump.
As Bob has mentioned, the early experiments using iron filings met with limited success. More is now known about phytoplankton and the favoured approach is through nitrogen enrichment of those parts of the ocean that have low levels of nitorgenous compounds; the enrichment being achieved by the release of urea into the ocean.
A similar scheme uses algae, the principle is the same, the difference being that algae can grow in a wider diversity of environments.
2007-06-27 18:01:56 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Look at it this way. Algae and phytoplankton are tiny seaborne plants and creatures that contain chlorophyll. If you have ever grown a plant at home, you know that if you try to force plants to grow faster with artificial fertilizer you may end up killing it.
In this case the plant is larger than the continental US and is the one major absorber of CO2 we have. Why would you risk killing it?
2007-06-27 18:55:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
First - global warming has not even been defined. If moderate temperatures continue, they'll settle for "climate change".
Second - no one has shown conclusively that reducing CO2 will decrease warming.
Third - no one has shown that seeding will actually decrease atmospheric CO2. It may even increase it if the bloom becomes a dead zone.
These guys think it's a bad idea:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070627/pl_usnw/world_wildlife_fund_warns_against_iron_dumping_experiment_near_the_galapagos_islands
2007-06-27 23:56:11 · answer #4 · answered by 3DM 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No that's one of the craziest ideal I've ever heard of. Those that beleive the GW myths why don't they start walking or ride a bike instead of driving. Also where was all the SUV's during the dust bowl in the1930's? That will just be something else the wacky enviromentalists will decry.
2007-06-27 18:04:01 · answer #5 · answered by **Anti-PeTA** 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
If that were the only cause of GW I'd say yes. It isn't the only cause, so my answer is no.
2007-06-27 19:00:36 · answer #6 · answered by angels_angelsarehere 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i have no idea what that even means
2007-06-27 17:53:40 · answer #7 · answered by arthur a 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋