Diem Le
The Oceans Invisible Forest
http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/the_oceans_invisible_forest.pdf
What are the Author's major ideas, concepts or key points?
-Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton.
-They account for less than 1 percent of the 600 billion metric tons of carbon contained within its photosynthetic biomass.
-Few researchers appreciated the degree to which these diminutive ocean dwellers can draw the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere
and store it in the deep sea.
-Entrepreneurs and policymakers to manipulate phytoplankton populations—by adding nutrients to the oceans—in an effort to mitigate global warming.
-OVER TIME SPANS of decades to centuries, plants play a major role in pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
-Phytoplankton and all land-dwelling plants—which evolved from phytoplankton about 500 million years ago—use the energy in sunlight to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.
-The oxygen is liberated as a waste product and makes possible all animal life on earth, including our own.
-The planet’s cycle of carbon depends on photosynthetic organisms using the hydrogen to help convert the inorganic carbon in CO2 into organic matter—the sugars, amino acids and other biological molecules that make up their cells.
-Biological oceanographers made thousands of individual measurements of phytoplankton productivity.
-Satellite measurement of the ratio of blue-green light leaving the oceans is thus a way to quantify chlorophyll—and, by association, phytoplankton abundance.
-Every year phytoplankton incorporate approximately 45 billion to 50 billion metric tons of inorganic carbon into their cells—nearly double the amount cited in the most liberal of previous estimates.
-Investigations had suggested that land plants assimilate as much as 100 billion metric tons of inorganic carbon a year.
-Phytoplankton draw nearly as much CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans through photosynthesis as do trees, grasses and all other land plants combined.
-Phytoplankton were twice as productive as previously thought meant that biologists had to reconsider dead phytoplankton’s ultimate fate, which strongly modifies the planet’s cycle of carbon and CO2 gas.
-Land plants must invest copious energy to build wood, leaves and roots and take an average of 20 years to replace themselves.
-The organic matter in the dead phytoplankton cells and animals’ fecal material sinks and is consumed by microbes that convert it back into inorganic nutrients, including CO2.
-Most influential to climate is the organic matter that sinks into the deep ocean before it decays.
-CO2 stays put for much longer because the colder temperature-- and higher density—of this water prevents it from mixing with the warmer waters above.
-Phytoplankton remove CO2 from the surface waters and atmosphere and store it in the deep ocean.
-This cycle keeps the biological pump at a natural equilibrium in which the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 200 parts per million lower than it would be otherwise—a significant factor considering that today’s CO2 concentration is about 365 parts per million.
-Some of this carbon becomes incorporated into sedimentary rocks such as black shales, the largest reservoir of organic matter on earth.
-The carbon in shales and other rocks returns to the atmosphere as CO2 only after the host rocks plunge deep into the earth’s interior when tectonic plates collide
at subduction zones.
-Forests and phytoplankton cannot absorb CO2 fast enough to keep pace with these increases, and atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas have risen rapidly, thereby almost certainly contributing significantly to the global warming trend of the past 50 years.
-Many speculated, more phytoplankton would grow and more dead cells would be available to carry carbon into the deep ocean.
-Nitrogen (N2) is the most abundant gas in the earth’s atmosphere and dissolves freely in seawater.
-To catalyze the reaction, both bacteria and cyanobacteria use nitrogenase, an enzyme that relies on another element, iron, to transfer electrons.
-The primary energy source for nitrogen fixation is another process that requires a large investment of iron—the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
-Martin’s iron hypothesis was initially controversial, in part because previous ocean measurements, which turned out to be contaminated, had suggested that iron
was plentiful.
-Historical evidence buried in layers of ice from Antarctica also supported Martin’s hypothesis.
-The Vostok ice core, a record of the past 420,000 years of the earth’s history, implied that during ice ages the amount of iron was much higher and the average size of the dust particles was significantly larger than during warmer times.
-When dust was high, CO2 was low, and vice versa
-This correlation implied that increased delivery of iron to the oceans during peak glacial times stimulated both nitrogen fixation and phytoplankton’s use of nutrients.
-In 1993 Martin’s colleagues conducted the world’s first open-ocean manipulation experiment by adding iron directly to the equatorial Pacific.
-Carried tanks containing a few hundred kilograms of iron dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid and slowly released the solution as it traversed a 50-square-kilometer patch of ocean like a lawn mower.
-Preliminary results indicate that one ton of iron solutionreleased over about 300 square kilometers resulted in a 10-fold increase in primary productivity in eight weeks’ time.
-No one has yet proved whether this increased productivity enhanced the biological pump or increased CO2 storage in the deep sea.
-Uncertainties about purposefully fertilizing the oceans, some groups from both the private and public sectors have taken steps toward doing so on much larger scales.
-To be effective, fertilization would have to be conducted year in and year out for decades.
-Ocean circulation will eventually expose all deep waters to the atmosphere, all the extra CO2 stored by the enhanced biological pump would return to the atmosphere within a few hundreds years of the lastfertilizer treatment.
-Farmers cannot keep nutrients contained to a plot of land; fertilizing a patch of turbulent ocean water is even less manageable.
-Many ocean experts argue that that once initiated, large-scale fertilization could produce long-term damage that would be difficult, if not impossible, to fix.
-Computer simulations and studies of natural phytoplankton blooms indicate that enhancing primary productivity could lead to local problems of severe oxygen depletion.
-The microbes that consume dead phytoplankton cells as they sink toward the sea- floor sometimes consume oxygen faster than ocean circulation can replenish it.
-Conditions also encourage the growth of microbes that produce methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases with even greater heat-trapping capacity than CO2.
-Even if the possible unintended consequences of fertilization were deemed tolerable, any such efforts must also compensate for the way plants and oceans would respond to a warmer world.
-The ocean is getting a little bit greener, but several investigators have noted that higher productivity does not guarantee that more carbon will be stored in the deep ocean.
-Computer simulations of the oceans and the atmosphere have shown that additional warming will increase stratification of the ocean as freshwater from melting glaciers and sea ice floats above denser, salty seawater.
-The idea of designing large, commercial oceanfertilization projects to alter climate, however, is still under serious debate among the scientific community and policymakers alike.
-The potential temporary human benefit of commercial fertilization projects is not worth the inevitable but unpredictable consequences of altering natural marine
ecosystems.
-Ironic that society would call on modern phytoplankton to help solve a problem created in part by the burning of their fossilized ancestors
Summary:
Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton. Entrepreneurs and policymakers to manipulate phytoplankton populations—by adding nutrients to the oceans—in an effort to mitigate global warming. Phytoplankton and all land-dwelling plants—which evolved from phytoplankton about 500 million years ago—use the energy in sunlight to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The planet’s cycle of carbon depends on photosynthetic organisms using the hydrogen to help convert the inorganic carbon in CO2 into organic matter—the sugars, amino acids and other biological molecules that make up their cells.
Satellite measurement of the ratio of blue-green light leaving the oceans is thus a way to quantify chlorophyll—and, by association, phytoplankton abundance. Phytoplankton draw nearly as much CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans through photosynthesis as do trees, grasses and all other land plants combined. Phytoplankton were twice as productive as previously thought meant that biologists had to reconsider dead phytoplankton’s ultimate fate, which strongly modifies the planet’s cycle of carbon and CO2 gas. Preliminary results indicate that one ton of iron solutionreleased over about 300 square kilometers resulted in a 10-fold increase in primary productivity in eight weeks’ time.fertilization would have to be conducted year in and year out for decades.Ocean circulation will eventually expose all deep waters to the atmosphere, all the extra CO2 stored by the enhanced biological pump would return to the atmosphere within a few hundreds years of the lastfertilizer treatment.The microbes that consume dead phytoplankton cells as they sink toward the sea- floor sometimes consume oxygen faster than ocean circulation can replenish it.Computer simulations of the oceans and the atmosphere have shown that additional warming will increase stratification of the ocean as freshwater from melting glaciers and sea ice floats above denser, salty seawater.
My Own Thoughts on the Topic:
Conditions also encourage the growth of microbes that produce methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases with even greater heat-trapping capacity than CO2. Even if the possible unintended consequences of fertilization were deemed tolerable, any such efforts must also compensate for the way plants and oceans would respond to a warmer world.Carried tanks containing a few hundred kilograms of iron dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid and slowly released the solution as it traversed a 50-square-kilometer patch of ocean like a lawn mower. The primary energy source for nitrogen fixation is another process that requires a large investment of iron—the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Martin’s iron hypothesis was initially controversial, in part because previous ocean measurements, which turned out to be contaminated, had suggested that iron
was plentiful.
So What?
Farmers cannot keep nutrients contained to a plot of land; fertilizing a patch of turbulent ocean water is even less manageable.The oxygen is liberated as a waste product and makes possible all animal life on earth, including our own.Most influential to climate is the organic matter that sinks into the deep ocean before it decays. CO2 stays put for much longer because the colder temperature-- and higher density—of this water prevents it from mixing with the warmer waters above. Historical evidence buried in layers of ice from Antarctica also supported Martin’s hypothesis. What if the ocean is getting a little bit greener it because they have a lot carbon will be stored in the deep of the ocean.
Says Who?
No one has yet proved whether this increased productivity enhanced the biological pump or increased CO2 storage in the deep sea.Uncertainties about purposefully fertilizing the oceans, some groups from both the private and public sectors have taken steps toward doing so on much larger scales.The idea of designing large, commercial oceanfertilization projects to alter climate, however, is still under serious debate among the scientific community and policymakers alike.The potential temporary human benefit of commercial fertilization projects is not worth the inevitable but unpredictable consequences of altering natural marine ecosystems.Ironic that society would call on modern phytoplankton to help solve a problem created in part by the burning of their fossilized ancestors.
What if?
What if New satellite observations and extensive oceanographic research projects did they have to changes in global temperatures, ocean circulation, and nutrient availability? Yes, it because new satellite observations and extensive oceanographic research projects are finally revealing how sensitive these organism are to changes in global temperatures, ocean circulation, and nutrient availability. What if the color (blue) of the ocean is change this correlation implied that increased delivery of iron to the oceans during peak glacial times stimulated both nitrogen fixation and phytoplankton’s use of nutrients.
What does this remind me of?
This remind me of the time I still live and VN, Every time I go to the beach I wounder why the ocean is not blue like in the movie? And why it so brow, what make the ocean look clean and blue. Now I can the question that I don't even know what is the answer. The answer for my question is that The carbon in shales and other rocks returns to the atmosphere as CO2 only after the host rocks plunge deep into the earth’s interior when tectonic plates collide at subduction zones. Forests and phytoplankton cannot absorb CO2 fast enough to keep pace with these increases, and atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas have risen rapidly, thereby almost certainly contributing significantly to the global warming trend of the past 50 years. Many speculated, more phytoplankton would grow and more dead cells would be available to carry carbon into the deep ocean. Nitrogen (N2) is the most abundant gas in the earth’s atmosphere and dissolves freely in seawater.
The Oceans Invisible Forest
http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/the_oceans_invisible_forest.pdf
What are the Author's major ideas, concepts or key points?
-Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton.
-They account for less than 1 percent of the 600 billion metric tons of carbon contained within its photosynthetic biomass.
-Few researchers appreciated the degree to which these diminutive ocean dwellers can draw the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere
and store it in the deep sea.
-Entrepreneurs and policymakers to manipulate phytoplankton populations—by adding nutrients to the oceans—in an effort to mitigate global warming.
-OVER TIME SPANS of decades to centuries, plants play a major role in pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
-Phytoplankton and all land-dwelling plants—which evolved from phytoplankton about 500 million years ago—use the energy in sunlight to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.
-The oxygen is liberated as a waste product and makes possible all animal life on earth, including our own.
-The planet’s cycle of carbon depends on photosynthetic organisms using the hydrogen to help convert the inorganic carbon in CO2 into organic matter—the sugars, amino acids and other biological molecules that make up their cells.
-Biological oceanographers made thousands of individual measurements of phytoplankton productivity.
-Satellite measurement of the ratio of blue-green light leaving the oceans is thus a way to quantify chlorophyll—and, by association, phytoplankton abundance.
-Every year phytoplankton incorporate approximately 45 billion to 50 billion metric tons of inorganic carbon into their cells—nearly double the amount cited in the most liberal of previous estimates.
-Investigations had suggested that land plants assimilate as much as 100 billion metric tons of inorganic carbon a year.
-Phytoplankton draw nearly as much CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans through photosynthesis as do trees, grasses and all other land plants combined.
-Phytoplankton were twice as productive as previously thought meant that biologists had to reconsider dead phytoplankton’s ultimate fate, which strongly modifies the planet’s cycle of carbon and CO2 gas.
-Land plants must invest copious energy to build wood, leaves and roots and take an average of 20 years to replace themselves.
-The organic matter in the dead phytoplankton cells and animals’ fecal material sinks and is consumed by microbes that convert it back into inorganic nutrients, including CO2.
-Most influential to climate is the organic matter that sinks into the deep ocean before it decays.
-CO2 stays put for much longer because the colder temperature-- and higher density—of this water prevents it from mixing with the warmer waters above.
-Phytoplankton remove CO2 from the surface waters and atmosphere and store it in the deep ocean.
-This cycle keeps the biological pump at a natural equilibrium in which the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 200 parts per million lower than it would be otherwise—a significant factor considering that today’s CO2 concentration is about 365 parts per million.
-Some of this carbon becomes incorporated into sedimentary rocks such as black shales, the largest reservoir of organic matter on earth.
-The carbon in shales and other rocks returns to the atmosphere as CO2 only after the host rocks plunge deep into the earth’s interior when tectonic plates collide
at subduction zones.
-Forests and phytoplankton cannot absorb CO2 fast enough to keep pace with these increases, and atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas have risen rapidly, thereby almost certainly contributing significantly to the global warming trend of the past 50 years.
-Many speculated, more phytoplankton would grow and more dead cells would be available to carry carbon into the deep ocean.
-Nitrogen (N2) is the most abundant gas in the earth’s atmosphere and dissolves freely in seawater.
-To catalyze the reaction, both bacteria and cyanobacteria use nitrogenase, an enzyme that relies on another element, iron, to transfer electrons.
-The primary energy source for nitrogen fixation is another process that requires a large investment of iron—the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
-Martin’s iron hypothesis was initially controversial, in part because previous ocean measurements, which turned out to be contaminated, had suggested that iron
was plentiful.
-Historical evidence buried in layers of ice from Antarctica also supported Martin’s hypothesis.
-The Vostok ice core, a record of the past 420,000 years of the earth’s history, implied that during ice ages the amount of iron was much higher and the average size of the dust particles was significantly larger than during warmer times.
-When dust was high, CO2 was low, and vice versa
-This correlation implied that increased delivery of iron to the oceans during peak glacial times stimulated both nitrogen fixation and phytoplankton’s use of nutrients.
-In 1993 Martin’s colleagues conducted the world’s first open-ocean manipulation experiment by adding iron directly to the equatorial Pacific.
-Carried tanks containing a few hundred kilograms of iron dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid and slowly released the solution as it traversed a 50-square-kilometer patch of ocean like a lawn mower.
-Preliminary results indicate that one ton of iron solutionreleased over about 300 square kilometers resulted in a 10-fold increase in primary productivity in eight weeks’ time.
-No one has yet proved whether this increased productivity enhanced the biological pump or increased CO2 storage in the deep sea.
-Uncertainties about purposefully fertilizing the oceans, some groups from both the private and public sectors have taken steps toward doing so on much larger scales.
-To be effective, fertilization would have to be conducted year in and year out for decades.
-Ocean circulation will eventually expose all deep waters to the atmosphere, all the extra CO2 stored by the enhanced biological pump would return to the atmosphere within a few hundreds years of the lastfertilizer treatment.
-Farmers cannot keep nutrients contained to a plot of land; fertilizing a patch of turbulent ocean water is even less manageable.
-Many ocean experts argue that that once initiated, large-scale fertilization could produce long-term damage that would be difficult, if not impossible, to fix.
-Computer simulations and studies of natural phytoplankton blooms indicate that enhancing primary productivity could lead to local problems of severe oxygen depletion.
-The microbes that consume dead phytoplankton cells as they sink toward the sea- floor sometimes consume oxygen faster than ocean circulation can replenish it.
-Conditions also encourage the growth of microbes that produce methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases with even greater heat-trapping capacity than CO2.
-Even if the possible unintended consequences of fertilization were deemed tolerable, any such efforts must also compensate for the way plants and oceans would respond to a warmer world.
-The ocean is getting a little bit greener, but several investigators have noted that higher productivity does not guarantee that more carbon will be stored in the deep ocean.
-Computer simulations of the oceans and the atmosphere have shown that additional warming will increase stratification of the ocean as freshwater from melting glaciers and sea ice floats above denser, salty seawater.
-The idea of designing large, commercial oceanfertilization projects to alter climate, however, is still under serious debate among the scientific community and policymakers alike.
-The potential temporary human benefit of commercial fertilization projects is not worth the inevitable but unpredictable consequences of altering natural marine
ecosystems.
-Ironic that society would call on modern phytoplankton to help solve a problem created in part by the burning of their fossilized ancestors
Summary:
Every drop of water in the top 100 meters of the ocean contains thousands of free-floating, microscopic flora called phytoplankton. Entrepreneurs and policymakers to manipulate phytoplankton populations—by adding nutrients to the oceans—in an effort to mitigate global warming. Phytoplankton and all land-dwelling plants—which evolved from phytoplankton about 500 million years ago—use the energy in sunlight to split water molecules into atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The planet’s cycle of carbon depends on photosynthetic organisms using the hydrogen to help convert the inorganic carbon in CO2 into organic matter—the sugars, amino acids and other biological molecules that make up their cells.
Satellite measurement of the ratio of blue-green light leaving the oceans is thus a way to quantify chlorophyll—and, by association, phytoplankton abundance. Phytoplankton draw nearly as much CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans through photosynthesis as do trees, grasses and all other land plants combined. Phytoplankton were twice as productive as previously thought meant that biologists had to reconsider dead phytoplankton’s ultimate fate, which strongly modifies the planet’s cycle of carbon and CO2 gas. Preliminary results indicate that one ton of iron solutionreleased over about 300 square kilometers resulted in a 10-fold increase in primary productivity in eight weeks’ time.fertilization would have to be conducted year in and year out for decades.Ocean circulation will eventually expose all deep waters to the atmosphere, all the extra CO2 stored by the enhanced biological pump would return to the atmosphere within a few hundreds years of the lastfertilizer treatment.The microbes that consume dead phytoplankton cells as they sink toward the sea- floor sometimes consume oxygen faster than ocean circulation can replenish it.Computer simulations of the oceans and the atmosphere have shown that additional warming will increase stratification of the ocean as freshwater from melting glaciers and sea ice floats above denser, salty seawater.
My Own Thoughts on the Topic:
Conditions also encourage the growth of microbes that produce methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases with even greater heat-trapping capacity than CO2. Even if the possible unintended consequences of fertilization were deemed tolerable, any such efforts must also compensate for the way plants and oceans would respond to a warmer world.Carried tanks containing a few hundred kilograms of iron dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid and slowly released the solution as it traversed a 50-square-kilometer patch of ocean like a lawn mower. The primary energy source for nitrogen fixation is another process that requires a large investment of iron—the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Martin’s iron hypothesis was initially controversial, in part because previous ocean measurements, which turned out to be contaminated, had suggested that iron
was plentiful.
So What?
Farmers cannot keep nutrients contained to a plot of land; fertilizing a patch of turbulent ocean water is even less manageable.The oxygen is liberated as a waste product and makes possible all animal life on earth, including our own.Most influential to climate is the organic matter that sinks into the deep ocean before it decays. CO2 stays put for much longer because the colder temperature-- and higher density—of this water prevents it from mixing with the warmer waters above. Historical evidence buried in layers of ice from Antarctica also supported Martin’s hypothesis. What if the ocean is getting a little bit greener it because they have a lot carbon will be stored in the deep of the ocean.
Says Who?
No one has yet proved whether this increased productivity enhanced the biological pump or increased CO2 storage in the deep sea.Uncertainties about purposefully fertilizing the oceans, some groups from both the private and public sectors have taken steps toward doing so on much larger scales.The idea of designing large, commercial oceanfertilization projects to alter climate, however, is still under serious debate among the scientific community and policymakers alike.The potential temporary human benefit of commercial fertilization projects is not worth the inevitable but unpredictable consequences of altering natural marine ecosystems.Ironic that society would call on modern phytoplankton to help solve a problem created in part by the burning of their fossilized ancestors.
What if?
What if New satellite observations and extensive oceanographic research projects did they have to changes in global temperatures, ocean circulation, and nutrient availability? Yes, it because new satellite observations and extensive oceanographic research projects are finally revealing how sensitive these organism are to changes in global temperatures, ocean circulation, and nutrient availability. What if the color (blue) of the ocean is change this correlation implied that increased delivery of iron to the oceans during peak glacial times stimulated both nitrogen fixation and phytoplankton’s use of nutrients.
What does this remind me of?
This remind me of the time I still live and VN, Every time I go to the beach I wounder why the ocean is not blue like in the movie? And why it so brow, what make the ocean look clean and blue. Now I can the question that I don't even know what is the answer. The answer for my question is that The carbon in shales and other rocks returns to the atmosphere as CO2 only after the host rocks plunge deep into the earth’s interior when tectonic plates collide at subduction zones. Forests and phytoplankton cannot absorb CO2 fast enough to keep pace with these increases, and atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas have risen rapidly, thereby almost certainly contributing significantly to the global warming trend of the past 50 years. Many speculated, more phytoplankton would grow and more dead cells would be available to carry carbon into the deep ocean. Nitrogen (N2) is the most abundant gas in the earth’s atmosphere and dissolves freely in seawater.