Peter S LissSchool of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East Anglia Norwich UKp.liss@uea.ac.uk

Iron Fertilisation – Some Secondary Effects

NO μM3

Jickells et al., Science, 2005Jickells et al. 2005

Sue Turner

Fe addition to the ocean

Boyd et al. 2007Boyd et al. 2007

SEEDS 1

Plankton net samples (100mm, 0-20m) in the patch on day 2 and day 11

Day 11 Day 2

Watson et al. 2000

Ironex II - like SOIREE - like

datamodel

(Aumont and Bopp, 2006)

(Aumont and Bopp, 2006)

(unrealistic) global-scale iron fertilization experiment

Method :• no more iron limitation• for 10 or 100 years

Results :• - 33 pmm after 100 years• - 7 ppm after 10 years, but if stopped, sequestered carbon is lost rapidly• non-local effects (on productivity, …)

Jin & Gruber 2003

Nitrous Oxide

Charlson et al. 1987

0 10

-100-80-60-40-20

0

-0 .1 0 .8 1 .6 2 .4 3 .2

0 10

-100-80-60-40-20

0

0 15 30 45 60

SOIREE ‘99: EVOLUTION OF DMSP AND DMS IN THE UPPER WATER COLUMN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE IRON-ENRICHED PATCH

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

days after start of iron enrichment days after start of iron enrichment

SUZANNE TURNERDMSP nmol l-1 DMS nmol l-1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

DMSP inside

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

DMS inside

DMSP outside DMS outside

Turner et al. 2004

New Directions: Enhancing the natural sulfur cycle to slow global

warming

Wingenter et al. 2007

Methyl iodide concentrations during a Southern Ocean iron enrichment experiment (EISENEX, Nov-Dec 2000)

CH3I ng/l

Adele Chuck

-100

-50

0 5 10 15 20Day since fertilisation

-100

-50

0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.34

OUT PATCH

IN PATCH

Depth

(m

)D

epth

(m

)

0

4

8

12

16

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20

ng l-

1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20

ug l-

1

340

345

350

355

360

365

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20

uatm

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20

ng l-

1

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20ng

l-1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

-4 0 4 8 12 16 20

nmol

l-1

chlorophyll a

dimethyl sulphide

methyl nitratecarbon dioxide

methyl iodide bromoform

dayday day

IN OUT

Southern Ocean Iron Fertilisation (EISENEX): Liss et al. 2005

Air Quality

05101520253035

Syn

,S

yne

choc

occu

PR

YM

N,

Pry

mne

sio

PE

N,

penn

ate

diat

o

Pha

eo,

Pha

eoc

ysti

H +

Aci

l,he

ter

otop

hiug

C l-

1

Syn, Synechococcus

RFP, Red Fluorescing Picoplankton

PRYMN, Prymnesiophytes

DINO, autotrophic dinoflagellates

PEN, pennate diatoms

CEN, centric diatoms

Phaeo, Phaeocystis

HD + HF, heterotrophic (dinoflagellates + flagellates)

H + A cil, heterotophic + autotrophic ciliates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Syn

RF

P

PR

YM

N

DIN

O

PE

N

CE

N

Pha

eo

HD

+H

F

H +

A c

il

ug C

l-1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Syn

RF

P

PR

YM

N

DIN

O

PE

N

CE

N

Pha

eo

HD

+H

F

H +

A c

il

ug C

l-1

IronEx II: Plankton community composition within patch 1 for day 0 and day 5 of the experiment

(from Coale et al., 1996)

day 0 day 5

Biodiversity

Other Secondary Effects

A) Nutrient robbing

B) Cyclones/hurricanes

C) Geo-engineering and ocean acidification

SOLAS Position statement on large-scale ocean fertilisation (2007)

Large-scale fertilisation of the ocean is being actively promoted by various commercial organisations as a strategy to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. However, the current scientific evidence indicates that this will not significantly increase carbon transfer into the deep ocean or lower atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, there may be negative impacts of iron fertilisation including dissolved oxygen depletion, altered trace gas emissions that affect climate and air quality, changes in biodiversity, and decreased productivity in other oceanic regions. It is then critical and essential that robust and independent scientific verification is undertaken before large-scale fertilisation is considered. Given our present lack of knowledge, the judgement of the SOLAS SSC is that ocean fertilisation will be ineffective and potentially deleterious, and should not be used as a strategy for offsetting CO2 emissions.

Royal Society, 2009

“Give me half a tanker of iron, and I’ll give you an ice age.”

Martin, 1988

“Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment (i.e. added CO2 to the atmosphere) of a kind that could not have happened in the past or be reproduced in the future (Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, 1957) .

Pilots in the Royal Flying Corps in WWI were not issued with parachutes (nor were they allowed to buy their own) since this “might impair their fighting spirit”.

“Only fools find joy in the prospect of climate engineering. It’s foolish to think that risk of significant climate damage can be denied or wished away. Perhaps we can depend on the transcendent human capacity for self-sacrifice when faced with unprecedented shared, long-term risk, and therefore can depend on future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But just in case, we’d better have a plan” (Ken Caldeira, 2008).

“A focus on tinkering with the entire planetary system is not a dynamic new technological and scientific frontier, but an expression of political despair” (Greenpeace, 2008).

The US Presidential Science Advisory Council in 1965 identified geo-engineering as the only response to the CO2 climate problem, reporting that “The possibilities of deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes therefore needs to be deliberately explored” – the possibility of reducing fossil fuel use was not discussed.

• Age of scientific innocence is over (Fe fertilisation, CRU)

• Geo-engineering may be needed if all else fails

• Research to eliminate unworkable ideas and thoroughly test those that might be useful (including secondary effects and unintended consequences)

• Favour – carbon capture/removal schemes – reversible– scaleable from small to large

• Against – large direct schemes (particularly SRM)

• Governance – legal, political, financial aspects

Any Questions?