Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  24
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    Default is iron fertilization at sea the saviour of salmon stocks

    For almost 50 years river boards,trusts,associations and other organisations have been trying to find reasons for the decline in salmon stocks. we have blamed netsmen,seals,gooseanders,dolphins and loss of habitat and other reasons. while all of these may contribute there could be a far more serious problem for salmon migrating to and from the feeding grounds west of Greenland.Could it be that there are what is called dead zones in the atlantic with not enough food to support the fish on their migrations and they are starving to death.Could iron fertilization be the answer.there are various websites that explain the pros and cons of iron fertilization,one to look at is called the HAIDA SALMON RESTORATION CORPORATION take a look and see what you think.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Yorks
    Posts
    3,977

    Default

    Controversial might be an understatement.

    I note that one of the reports refers to Haida as 'now defunct'.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    4,108

    Default

    No.

    Its not a solution.

    Experiments off Canada aimed at testing increasing co2 uptake on a small scale (for Greenhouse Gas Removal geoengineering, I work on Solar Radiation Management geoeingeering BTW) led to fish kills. Large fish kills.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    4,108

    Default

    Its also banned under a revision of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the revised London protocol on the law of the seas.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cambridgeshire Fenland
    Posts
    1,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dryfly View Post
    Its also banned under a revision of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the revised London protocol on the law of the seas.
    So why would someone's first post propose it as a potential way ahead ???

  6. #6

    Default

    I did not say this was the salmons saviour I simply asked the question! Although it may be controversial there is some coincidences: i.e. the best salmon run for many years came in 2010/2011 after the Icelandic volcano ash cloud, the most female salmon caught in the Girnock Burn fish traps came on the heel of the 1973 volcanic ash cloud, the decline in salmon stock started in earnest after our steel industry collapsed in the 1970's when 100's of steel furnaces shut down. Now China has a plankton problem, remember Beijing Olympics 2008? I am NOT saying this is the solution but after 50 years of decline can someone tell us what IS?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    4,108

    Default

    volcano ash .... is not iron....

    Critically the ash is ejected into the lower stratosphere and lower troposphere depending on the magama pressure and the nature of particles. If in the stratosphere, which is a stable layer the ash would is stay in situ for a reasonably lengthy time and reduce solar forcing by reflecting sun light (sulfur is reflective and has no/very limited green house effect), if in the troposphere which is turbulent it would have the same solar forcing affect but not stay up as long. OK, the Icelandic eruption was a comparatively very small eruption but it would have had a local very small cooling affect, not enough to cool the oceans and affect feeding for salmon though. Mount Pinatubo, a huge eruption on the other hand produced measurable global cooling. The idea of Solar radiation Management (SRM) geoengineering is in basic terms to sort of replicate an erruption. But it is a safer way (safer in terms of health effects over the long term as well as not having an erruption of course). Currently no researchers are suggesting it should be done and there are considerable technical challenges. It is an area of considerable debate

    Placing iron in the oceans is supposed to cause an increase in alge growth and hence uptake of Co2. The uptake of CO2 is known as Green house gas removal (GGR) and sometimes CO2 removal - (CDR). There are many different ideas about how to do this. GGR is thought to be more socially acceptable and safer however, the global affects are uncertain. There is a new research programme on GGR currently in the competition phase at the moment funded by UK research councils and the Met Offie NERC - Greenhouse Gas Removal

    Why are people thinking about it if it's against the law? Well, the convention on biological diversity and the London convention were amended after an early test (small scale of something around 10,000 tons) coupled with the uncertainty about what affects might be with larger scale activities and the recognition that if located in the global commons a global debate was required. But, mainly it was the precautionary principal in affect. Laws change all the time and the Paris Agreement means that there will most likely have to be some form of GGR if we are to meet CO2 targets to deliver 1.5 degrees.

    Loads of info about the ideas around geoengineering in what is now a quite old Royal Society report from 2009, but which still covers the basics reasonably well (there has been no outdoor experimentation so the science moves slowly, as it should for such a technology) That is here https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Roy.../2009/8693.pdf

    If its your thing, in a post reality alternative truth world there are a lot of Americans in particular who think the Government has been geoengineering for years, purposefully killing the population secretly. Called chem trailers. They are probably more likely to have voted for Trump.

    What to know any more PM me - beware, there is perhaps an element of the bonkers researcher a la the Doc in back to the future in all of this...

  8. #8
    TonyPrior Guest

    Default

    @Dryfly: do you have an opinion as to what might be the more feasible of the ideas you mentioned?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country) & Afrique
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    IMHO the UN should introduce a global moratorium on "Geoengineering" (a vulgar word combining the best and the worst of scientific endeavour) on the precautionary principle or the principle of unintended consequences of playing God with a system no one understands...

    Nah, let's go and salt some clouds...
    Last edited by seeking; 07-02-2017 at 12:34 PM.
    "...hooking mortality is higher than you'd expect: further evidence that as a numbers game, catch-and-release fishing isn't always as straightforward as it seems"
    John Gierach


    Fed up of debating C&R - see Hidden Content

    Unless otherwise stated, data used in any graph/figure/table are Crown copyright, used with the permission of MSS and/or EA and/or ICES. MSS / EA / ICES are not responsible for interpretation of these data by third parties

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Yorks
    Posts
    3,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SOS View Post
    I did not say this was the salmons saviour I simply asked the question! Although it may be controversial there is some coincidences: i.e. the best salmon run for many years came in 2010/2011 after the Icelandic volcano ash cloud, the most female salmon caught in the Girnock Burn fish traps came on the heel of the 1973 volcanic ash cloud, the decline in salmon stock started in earnest after our steel industry collapsed in the 1970's when 100's of steel furnaces shut down. Now China has a plankton problem, remember Beijing Olympics 2008? I am NOT saying this is the solution but after 50 years of decline can someone tell us what IS?
    Entirely coincidental, with no provable connection whatsoever. For example, there was a very good run in 2004 independent of the incidents you reference. In any event the density of the recent Icelandic ash cloud was too low to have significant impacts on temperatures or sea surface activity.

    We will not find solutions to complex problems by chasing will o'the wisps through the realms of hokum pseudo science. You identify problems and solutions by being methodical, thorough, consistent and downright boring over sustained periods. Building a comprehensive understanding of our rivers is the first place to start, because that's where 98% of salmon die.
    Last edited by MCXFisher; 07-02-2017 at 01:15 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •