The idea of fertilizing the oceans with iron in order to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere is actually growing in popularity because of the market demand for carbon offsets, but some scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts have their doubts about the process, according to an article from the Cape Cod Times.

I did a blog not too long ago on this same subject, and if you do not remember, adding iron in the ocean would increase the growth of phytoplankton and other CO2 reducing plants, which in turn could reduce CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

Scott Doney, a WHOI senior scientist of marine chemistry and Hauke Kite-Powell, a research specialist at WHOI's Marine Policy Center told a group that environmental concerns, the lack of long-term testing and the dangers of moving forward based solely on commercial interests were some of the cons. "Once the carbon is sequestered in the deep ocean, it is dispersed and impossible to audit, said Doney.

WHOI biologist goes further and believes this (iron fertilization) could just be another money-making scam without regard for the health of the planet since there is no way to hold companies accountable for the actual removal of carbon from the atmosphere.

As a kid growing up along the Rhode Island coast I was fortunate enough to be able to go to the beach and swim on a regular basis during the summer months. I hated sun bathing, so my place was in the water. Other than a thunderstorm and those dreaded crabs, the one thing that could ruin a nice swim in the bay was the seaweed. That stuff would just magically appear from out of the blue and just surround you, and by that time I was done for the day. I also remember throwing the stuff at my older sister and she would start screaming, which was funny at the time. Anyway, speaking of seaweed, a group of scientists at the Climate Conference in Bali believe that seaweed could be a potent weapon against global warming by sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere at rates similar to the largest rain forests, according to an AP article. The seaweed's rapid rate of photosynthesis is the main factor in its effectiveness in carbon absorption.

While most of the recent focus to carbon sinks have been on the forests, seaweed scientists (I still can not get over that title! Imagine your dad asking "What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I want to be a seaweed scientist daddy!") believe the world should look to the sea, where nearly 8 million tons of seaweed and algae are cultivated every year, especially in Asia. The scientists believe that more efficient cultivation methods could make this work. Seaweed can also produce clean-burning bio-fuels.

On the other hand, skeptics say seaweed is cultivated and harvested in cycles of only months compared to trees, which are more effective at carbon storage since they can last for years. Floating seaweed farms could also complicate fishing and shipping activities.

Update........

Oh, I almost forgot, If you were wondering what happened to part 2 of the Fred Singer video interview last week it will be posted either tomorrow or Friday. Katie was unable to finish editing the Singer video last week since she was in New York City doing a number of interviews for Headline Earth. One of those interviews was with the famous Dr. James Hansen, and you will be able to see part one of her three-part, one-on-one interview with Dr. Hansen starting next week.

Wired.com came out with an interesting article several days ago, listing in their opinion, the ten most radical geo-engineering ideas to fight global warming. Here is the link to The Year's 10 Craziest Ways to Hack the Earth. Some of the more extreme measures........

--Building an army of 300 foot tall scrubbers which absorb CO2. What happens to the CO2 after that is still unanswered according to the article.

--Dusting hurricanes.

--Building a giant space solar shield using 16 trillion mirrors!

Which one is your favorite? For those of you who are regulars in the comment section, do you think Patrick's tunnels should be on the list?

A field of soybeans

Scientists from the University of California at Irvine believe that they have come up with an idea to slow global warming. The research team says that growing shinier crops could reduce maximum daytime temperatures by as much as 1.9 celsius (3.4 F) in agricultural regions.

Growing more reflective plants will increase the amount of sunlight reflected back from land. which could offset the damaging effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice, according to the article from the Guardian Unlimited.

The California team, led by Chris Doughty in the department of earth system science, told the American Geophysical Union Conference: "Slowing or reversal of regional warming trends may be achieved by manipulation of land surface albedo. This approach is most feasible in agricultural and forestry areas, where the land surface is already under significant human influence."

One example of this idea is the creation of the extra-hairy variety of soy bean to fight pests. This particular variety reflects about 5% more sunlight than normal.

More details about this research will be published in an academic journal later this year.

The story also notes that other scientists have proposed similar ideas (higher reflectivity) to cool the planet, such as growing broadleaf varieties of trees instead of conifers and painting roads, roofs and car parks white. I don't know about that idea of replacing conifers, supposedly conifers absorb a high amount of CO2, and those white roads would get awfully dirty looking pretty quickly! I guess that would keep the road sweeping crews very busy throughout the year.

Anyone need a ride?

A pair of scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have come up with a concept for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline!

The scientists, Jeffrey Martin and William Kubic Jr. have titled their concept "Green Freedom", and here is how it would work. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel such as methanol, gasoline and jet fuel. The closed cycle - meaning equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed from the air would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer contribute to global warming, according to the New York Times article.

I know, you're saying that there must be a catch, well sort of........no prototype has yet to be built, but the scientists say it is all based on existing technology. One major caveat to building a (CO2 to gasoline) factory is that it would require a great deal of energy. A nuclear power plant and the development of a new electrochemical process might be able to overcome that obstacle.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A. Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

What would be the cost of the project? About 5 billion.

The concept would be able to produce gasoline at a cost of $1.40 per gallon and it would be made economically viable at a cost of $4.60 to the consumer. Technology advances might be able to get that cost down to $3.40.