Lucky to have found this new talent to help us move forward with the research agenda of ExOIS. More on those plans at oceaniron.org 🌊

Rather than repeating crazy headlines, everyone should read the paper, which suggests ocean iron fertilization could remove 200 Gt of atmospheric CO2, with only a 3% reduction in ocean oxygen. Let’s not be hasty in deciding which solutions are best until we have more research on all mCDR approaches🌊

If you are in Nice for UNOC3, don't miss this panel next Tuesday afternoon.

Wish I could be there! and hope others in Nice don't miss this great panel.

These posts about why ocean iron is so ineffective, ignore nature’s large scale response to changing iron inputs – wildfires in Australia were just one example (Tang et al., 2021, doi.org/10.1038/s415...) which led to 100’s million tons of additional C export 🌊

A great short term opportunity for someone looking to help move forward the mCDR science agenda. Spread the word

Yes, remember the alternative to no mCDR is the climate crisis we are in. With or without good science, some approaches will move forward for the wrong reasons. So we need to be "learning by doing" and studying multiple land and ocean based CDR approaches.🌊

reposting with 🌊 emoji so its picked up by the oceanography postings. Let's see if that works and if it is still linked to the response by @altagliabue.bsky.social I need to learn my Bluesky protocols!

Let's see- 0.5 PgC/yr for iron, if mCDR using Alkalinity, seaweed and electrochemical/DOC methods matched (and there are others), that would be 2 PgC/yr (= 2 GtC/yr) or almost 8 Gt CO2-eq/yr or 20% of annual emissions! I'd say that glass is more than half full. Lets work together to solve this.

Let's see- 0.5 PgC/yr for iron, if mCDR using Alkalinity, seaweed and electrochemical/DOC methods matched (and there are others), that would be 2 PgC/yr (= 2 GtC/yr) or almost 8 Gt CO2-eq/yr or 20% of annual emissions! I'd say that glass is more than half full. Lets work together to solve this.

Funny, I read Tagliabue et al 2023 which predicted 15.5% biomass loss by 2100 due to climate change and -20.5% with massive OIF. We can't even predict this year's cod catch off Cape Cod to 5% yet during those same years they predict 40 GtC removal (152 Gt CO2). I guess to some that's not enough.

Wish I could have joined you in Liege, but based on this title- ok, who decides and which mCDR approaches and why, are they deemed worth no further consideration? Easier said than done.

FYI it’s my grandma’s pie tin, rolling pin and even the rhubarb plants in the garden that all came from her home and make this so special today

This type of “data”

Thanks to those organizing this. It’s by collecting this type of days that we can show how wide and far the damage has already become. Imagine if the 55% cuts come through as well. We all need to stand up for science. 🧪🌊

Thanks to those organizing this. It’s by collecting this type of days that we can show how wide and far the damage has already become. Imagine if the 55% cuts come through as well. We all need to stand up for science. 🧪🌊

As Ben Franklin said "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately"