Toxic Algae Blooms Thought Specific To Coasts - UCSC Team Finds Them In Mid-Ocean

[hatrack]

SANTA CRUZ - Blooms of toxic algae can occur in the open ocean, a team led by UC Santa Cruz and Moss Landing Marine Lab scientists reported last week. Once thought to be a problem plaguing only the coast, causing fisheries closures and wildlife deaths, the research shows that open sea algae populations also occasionally bloom into toxic soup.

The scientists found toxin-producing algae almost everywhere they looked within open regions of the Pacific. The scientists also detected domoic acid, the toxin that the algae produces. The toxicity exploded whenever iron was added to the water, producing a population boom. "They grew like a fury," said UCSC ocean scientist Mary Silver, who designed the research. "They are really responsive to iron."

Algae blooms visible from the moon grew during previous studies fertilizing open ocean waters with iron. Kenneth Coale, director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, led these studies in 1995 and 2002. The toxicity of the blooms could not be confirmed until more sensitive measures were invented.

Even up to 12 years later, algae toxin remained in the iron-enriched seawater samples Coale had in storage. "It was always a nagging, gut feeling about domoic acid," said Coale. "After teaming up with Mary Silver's group, that nagging suspicion was confirmed."

Ed. - emphasis added.

EDIT

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_16603801

[XemaSab]

1. But, but...

seeding the ocean with iron sequesters teh CO2. :o

[hatrack]

2. If only it could sequester Teh GAY!!!!

:evilgrin:

[joshcryer]

3. Yeah, I hate this whole, geoengineering bullshit. We can't pull it off.

But I just know that the policy wonks are looking at geoengineering as the best way to solve the issues.

[kristopher]

4. No, policy wonks are considering ALL avenues to retard or mitigate AGW.

Even your precious nuclear power.

[XemaSab]

5. Only deniers call it AGW

n/t

[kristopher]

9. Really?

Were do you find a copy of the rulebook you pulled that from?

[pscot]

18. It's the acronym for

Al Gore's Warming. :P

[Systematic Chaos]

6. While cutting subsidies on your precious solar rooftops.

Oops.

[joshcryer]

7. Geoengineering is the primary focus these days.

They might greenwash by saying they're going to build wind farms and solar fields and possibly a couple of nuclear power plants with archiac technology in 10-15 years, but in the end, what is their primary focus, is geoengineering.

[kristopher]

8. Nothing but CTH.

Do you understand that your evidence is supposed to support your argument? All you've done is document an increase in the number of papers on geoengineering.

That is not the same as documenting that "geoengineering is the primary focus these days".

An increased interest in an area of study is not the same as a "primary focus" by some nebulous and undefined "they"

Nothing but CTH (Conspiracy Theory Horsehockey).

[joshcryer]

11. Uh, that was just a brief example.

That wasn't supposed to be some sort of "proof."

Here's a report recently released: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdfs/Geongineeringreport.pdf

It is the opinion of the Chair that broad consideration of comprehensive and multi-disciplinary climate engineering research at the federal level begin as soon as possible in order to ensure scientific preparedness for future climate events.

However, we are facing an unfortunate reality. The global climate is already changing and the onset of climate change impacts may outpace the world’s political, technical, and economic capacities to prevent and adapt to them. Therefore, policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks.

Ask anyone with "traditional values," geoengineering is their favorite crutch. And heck knows that once we lose the House for 2 years there won't be one itoa of clean energy policy passed.

[kristopher]

12. Again, that does not support your assertion that geoengineering is the primary focus.

"...Therefore, policymakers should begin consideration of climate engineering research now to better understand which technologies or methods,"

I know it is difficult for you to parse the parts that directly contradict what you are trying to prove but you should try. Perhaps if you read first THEN formed the opinions you share you would find that your habit of getting caught cherry picking would utterly disappear.

[Nihil]

10. Policy wonks know that gee-whiz "solutions" are more popular with the voters ...

... than anything that vaguely implies moderation in consumption
(much less a potential hit to their pockets).

With "super hi-tech solutions", they can still direct money to pet
projects without making any impact (sorry, any beneficial impact)
on the situation.

[kristopher]

13. Ok. So you are saying that people working in the energy policy realm trying to find

a solution to climate change REALLY just want to "direct money to pet projects without making any impact (sorry, any beneficial impact) on the situation."

Is that your point?

Because us "policy wonks" reject nuclear power you want to use the same slander that climate deniers use about anyone working on climate change?

Really, is that your point?

[Nihil]

14. No. My point was in my first paragraph.

>> Policy wonks know that gee-whiz "solutions" are more popular with the voters ...
>> ... than anything that vaguely implies moderation in consumption
>> (much less a potential hit to their pockets).

> Is that your point?

The above is my point.


> Because us "policy wonks" reject nuclear power you want to use the same slander
> that climate deniers use about anyone working on climate change?

Strangely enough, it isn't all about YOU.


My comments were directed to the generic set of policy wonks who repeatedly
hype "technologically advanced solutions" as long as said "solutions"
a) are shiny & new(-ish)
b) are easily marketable (lots of mock-up photos & low science content advertising)
c) have a minimal impact on BAU
d) don't imply any penalty or restriction on the sheep electorate at large

Whether that includes you as one of that set is only known by you and I would not
wish to offend you by implying the opposite.

The phrase "pet projects" was not intended to imply that the wonks get a hand-out
or personal financial benefit from said projects (which was the connection you were
suggesting that I was making).

It explicitly doesn't include the promotion of tried & tested renewable solutions
(wind, solar hot water, solar PV, concentrating solar thermal, biogas, hydro,
geothermal, GSHP or any of the myriad conservation options).

The derogatory tone comes from the deliberate support of eye-catching bullshit
projects (e.g., "iron-seeding", "carbon capture & storage", "space-based solar")
that prefer to distract with wishful thinking rather than daring to point out the
greed, laziness and totally self-serving views of the "Business As Usual" crowd.
All this category of wonks achieve is the promulgation of coal- & gas-fired plants,
the maintenance of piss-poor efficiency standards and the encouragement of the
public mindset that "someone will sort it out for me" whilst guaranteeing the
continued profits for the BAU corporations.


> Really, is that your point?

Yes, really, the above restatement (rather than your distraction) IS my point.

[kristopher]

16. That sounds a lot like my paraphrase to me.

You can embellish it all you want, but it comes across as sour grapes from someone wanting to squander huge sums of very scarce public money and waste a great deal of precious time on a PROVEN third rate solution like nuclear power.

[Nihil]

17. Only through your particular set of filters.

Everyone else can see my point in plain black & white in both of the above posts:

>> Policy wonks know that gee-whiz "solutions" are more popular with the voters ...
>> ... than anything that vaguely implies moderation in consumption
>> (much less a potential hit to their pockets).

... and the ones who might have misunderstood the original statement of the
above would probably have picked it up from my clarification (in response to
your attempt at side-swiping/distraction):

>> The phrase "pet projects" was not intended to imply that the wonks get a hand-out
>> or personal financial benefit from said projects (which was the connection you were
>> suggesting that I was making).
>>
>> It explicitly doesn't include the promotion of tried & tested renewable solutions
>> (wind, solar hot water, solar PV, concentrating solar thermal, biogas, hydro,
>> geothermal, GSHP or any of the myriad conservation options).
>>
>> The derogatory tone comes from the deliberate support of eye-catching bullshit
>> projects (e.g., "iron-seeding", "carbon capture & storage", "space-based solar")
>> that prefer to distract with wishful thinking rather than daring to point out the
>> greed, laziness and totally self-serving views of the "Business As Usual" crowd.
>> All this category of wonks achieve is the promulgation of coal- & gas-fired plants,
>> the maintenance of piss-poor efficiency standards and the encouragement of the
>> public mindset that "someone will sort it out for me" whilst guaranteeing the
>> continued profits for the BAU corporations.

I've highlighted an important part of that in the hope that it will get through
your "everything is about ME" glasses and your "any dispute is obviously an
attack from a nuke-only nut" filters.

:eyes:

[StarsInHerHair]

15. did they dump clay onto it?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20050904/OPINION/50906003

but I see another algae is cropping up,so clay is a partial fix. hhmnnn