Click to get your own widget

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Big Engineering 53 Restoring Fish Stocks

    Assume the "Greens" believe there is some truth to their CO2 global warming scare (I think it quite likely that some warming, a fraction of a degree, may be happening but that is hardly catastrophic). Wouldn't they want to reduce CO2? Wouldn't they enthusiastically support any serious effort to do so? Well here is one that we could do.

British Columbia–based Haida native-American tribe ... voted to form the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, financed it with $2.5 million of their own savings, and used it to support the efforts of American scientist-entrepreneur Russ George to demonstrate the feasibility of open-sea mariculture through the distribution of 120 tons of iron sulfate into the northeast Pacific to stimulate a phytoplankton bloom.

While massive amounts of data collected from this extraordinary experiment have yet to be analyzed and published, the first indications are that it may have been successful. NASA satellite images taken from orbit show a powerful growth of phytoplankton in the waters that received the Haida’s iron. It is hoped that these will serve as a food source for zooplankton, which in turn will provide nourishment for multitudes of young salmon, thereby restoring the depleted fishery and providing abundant food for larger fish and sea mammals as well. Furthermore, those diatoms not eaten will sink to the bottom, sequestering large amounts of carbon dioxide in their calcium-carbonate shells.   Looks like a result to me.  

  At $2.5 million (£1.5m) this wouldn't put a dent in Scotland's budget. 

    Growing plants/plankton naturally absorb CO2 from air and water making this not merely "carbon neutral" but carbon negative.

    Lets try another step.

    Putting iron in the water stimulates growth. Putting nitrates (aka fertilizer) does too.

     Deep sea water, 3000ft, contains nitrates and general formally living material. At that depth the water is its maximum compressibility (ie 4 C) and material that falls from higher elevations tends to lie there. This is why the deep oceans tend to be a desert for life - all the materials needed to sustain it have reached the ocean floor. I have described this before in relation to using Ocean Thermal Energy Collectors at the equator which draw deep ocean water to the surface.

      In non equatorial areas, like Scotland, the temperature differential with the surface would probably not be sufficient to generate power and it would require an energy input to draw up water. On the other hand as soon as we allow the free market to produce electricity, from nuclear power, we will have off peak power to spare. This shows water depths around the UK & there are clearly significant depths close to the western shore.     Actually the depth may not be so important if you are looking for nutrients rather than temperature differential since nutrients can't fall any lower than the sea bottom.

       Most of the world's greatest fishing grounds are areas of natural upwelling where currents bring these nutrients to the surface.

        Put the 2 together and the amount of plankton able to support shoals of fish would be greatly increased. So far more fish to be caught.

       Even just doing the iron seeding would obviously have a significant effect and that could be done right now.

       Well it could be done as soon as we leave the EU. I suspect the EU would ban it, at the very least they would take ages to allow it - despite the fact that with the Common Fisheries Policy they would be the prime beneficiaries as long as we were still in the EU.

      The circled area in the first picture looks about 450 miles long by 200 wide so the entire Scottish coastal waters would be about 3 times that. This means it the normal cost would be not more than £4.5 million though it would have to be repeated regularly. This looks like a reasonable cost benefit ratio - equivalent to 340 yards of Aberdeen bypass or 4 metres of Forth bridge.

       So do the "Greens" believe in their own carbon scare and want to cut the amount of it in the ecosphere? It is to laugh.  

    Of course they don't - the pseudo-environmental movement care nothing for the environment, they are just people who are scared of human progress waving a false flag because they know "Stop Human Progress" is a less attractive banner than "Save the World", though an infinitely more truthful one. Thus the article continues:

    Far from receiving applause for their initiative, the Haida and Mr. George have become the target of rage drawn from every corner of the community of those seeking to use global warming as a pretext for curtailing human freedom.

“It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions,” Kristina Gjerde, a senior high-seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature told the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper. “Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research.”

Silvia Ribeiro, of the international anti-technology watchdog ETC group, also voiced her horror at any development that might allow humanity to escape from the need for carbon rationing. “It is now more urgent than ever that governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments. They are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil-fuel emissions.”

  Nothing must be allowed to cause a "distraction" from the War on Fire, allegedly being fought to cut CO", most especially not something that cuts CO2.

  But the eco-fascists get under 1% of the vote, despite enormous support from the BBC state broadcaster and other state instruments. All that is required for them to fail is that good men (and women) oppose such fascism.

Labels: , , ,

"Nothing must be allowed to cause a "distraction" from the War on Fire, allegedly being fought to cut CO", most especially not something that cuts CO2."

The effect iron fertilisation on CO2 levels appears to be quite limited- see Hamme et al, 2010:

There's further peer-reviewed literature on the efficacy of this technique on carbon sequestration, which I can provide if you wish. The consensus appears to be that the full effects are largely detrimental on marine ecosystems. For instance:

"Putting iron in the water stimulates growth. Putting nitrates (aka fertilizer) does too."

Adding nitrates and iron to sea water has already happened for quite some time now in many coastal regions, due to fertilisers being leached from the soil into rivers, and then flowing to the oceans. The resultant plankton and algae blooms on sea life has been, in a word, catastrophic: Again, there's extensive peer-reviewed literature on the subject that I can provide if you wish.


I don't understand what you mean by this term. As far as I understand from my reading of Umberto Eco and Gentile, amongst the key tenets of fascism are a focus on militarisation, nationalism and furthering the profits of large businesses in exchange for services in the national interest- many environmentalists would be at odds with these ideas (the UK's Green Party, for instance, follows a more socially democratic manifesto). Also, aren't these tenets also prime components of the UKIP manifesto? And what of the case of Geoffrey Clarke, who overtly supported a form of eugenics against the disabled andd elderly, and was removed from UKIP only after details from his personal manifesto were reported by the press?
You argue that the effect on world CO2 from fertilisation is "quite limited". I suppose this depends on how much of it you do but in any case is not an argument against using it for commercial reasons.

You then argue that the effect is so great as to be "datastrophic" which, despite being the exact opposite of what you argued, does support the belief that it will be an effective way opf helping the industry.

If you read up on fascism you will see that it is about using centralised state power and the suppression of dissent because allegedly a group of people, without dissent are stronger than than the individual in the same way that a group of sticks bound together *the fasces) is stronger than an individual stick.

The theory is clearly disproven. Nonetheless the eco-fascists are unanimous in using state power rather than the market to decide on things like how we get our power & on suppressing dissent (in some cases by wishing to imprison dissentes or burn down their houses). That is clearly fascism, being justified by the "eco" claim, though, as you know the "environmental movement care nothing for the environment - it is merely a flag to wave since, if they acknowledged their fascism, it would not be popular.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.