Seeding the oceans with iron could be a major mistake.. perhaps the current co2 levels are the only think keeping an ice age at bay.. a rapid uptake of co2 by diatoms could tip us over the edge..

Very tellingly, if raising the minute amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere were truly terrible in any way, this cheap solution would already be employed, whereby the oceans could have been seeded to stimulate the natural growth of plankton, with the missing trace minerals.

For the cost of conducting a single one of those interminable boondoggle "Conferences", to transport ten of thousands to Rio, Kyoto, Bali, or whatever exotic locations that all the government and quasi-government feeders at the public trough want to visit to merely hear once again how absolutely necessary it is for everyone ELSE to lower their standard of living.

Besides where is the Global Warming? It has stopped and been cooling for the past ten years. After the temperature climbed for but 19 years by tenths of a single degree and set off the orgy of hysteria.

Besides they have succeeded; it appears they will have elected the left wing socialist messiah, and it is necessary that the manufactured "problem" be cured by a wave of his magic tongue.

Edelman PR services: "If there was a problem with adding fossil fuel-sourced CO2 to the atmosphere, the algae would have dealt with it already."

Edelman won the American Petroleum Institute's $100 million PR contract, c. 2006, which was set up to counter the newly elected Congress' mandate to boost renewable energy and end government subsidies for fossil fuels. Their effort was largely successful - Big Oil and Big Coal retain all their tax breaks and subsidies, no meaningful climate legislation (fossil fuel caps) has been passed, or even discussed, and the meager existing renewable energy tax credits were almost defeated, until they were attached as a rider to the $700 billion financial bailout in order to help win the second House vote.

The API and the Edison Electric Institute (actually, the Coal-Fired Electricity Institute, but "edison" sounds better) are the two of the industry trade groups which, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are the leading financiers of the tobacco science PR blitz being run by various PR firms and front groups on the behalf of fossil fuel interests.

The actual science is very clear: fossil fuel CO2, in combination with deforestation, is raising the planet's surface temperature, leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which further raises the temperature. As a result, the oceans are warming, the Arctic has begun a rapid thaw (too be followed, within years or decades, by Antarctica), the world's mountain glaciers will be mostly gone within 20-80 years, and agriculture will suffer more frequent droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events. That's just in the short term, too.

Well after we're all dead and gone, the world will be facing rising sea levels, drastically reduced agriculture capacity, acidic oceans, and massive extinction of species, some of which has already happened.

This will be bad for humans, but the diatoms will likely have few problems. However, there's plenty of evidence that algae won't draw down atmospheric CO2. That's because the vast majority of CO2 taken up by algae is later converted back to CO2 in the deep, oxygenated oceans.

If the depths of the oceans become stagnant and anoxic, then a large portion of algal photosynthesis-fixed carbon can indeed get buried - which is how most oil and gas deposits formed in the first place. However, the last time such large-scale carbon burial took place was tens to hundreds of millions of years ago.

These worst-case scenarios can be largely avoided by taking steps such as eliminating fossil fuels, halting and reversing deforestation, and using wind, sunlight and photosynthesis as the basis of the energy supply. That will require a less overconsumption-based economic system in the U.S. and globally, and that means the end of the most profitable business on the planet - the international fossil fuel trade.

The international slave trade might be the best analogy here - the slave-plantation society system worked, in a fashion, but was ultimately discredited and discarded. We don't need a slave-based economy, unlike what the pundits of the day argued, and we don't need a fossil-fuel based economy either.

there is a link to a talk from 'bronze age astronomer' McCracken'
This fellow worked on ice core samples (hence bronze age) with reference to sun spot activity.

He writes in his book "Blast off"that he beleives that if here is no return to sunspot activity in the next six months, that we will likely be in for a 20 year extended cooling that will mask greenhouse increases.

He expresses concern that if this were to occur and people 'forget' the greenhouse gas contribution, that when sunspot activities resume , the problem will be compounded

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2388008.htm

Climate change science is fairly sound and is supported by every recognized scientific organization. People very much care about the climate but it can be also said that the immediacy of the economic climate is very much a present situation.

The climate provides billions if not trillions of dollars worth of basically free services which everyone depends on. The loss of which would mean that we would have to divert resources to provide these services to ourselves.

Asking people to pay more for independence may make inroads to some but the protection of the environment and the loss of these valuable services is very real and hits much closer to a govt's home - their pocketbooks. Unfortuneately, to do something about it, requires them to hit their constituentes' pocketbooks. Additionally is the problem of the demonization over the years of the word environmentalism by extreme right.

Who has supported the developments that might possibly give greater independence? The hybrid and electric cars? Who has actually paid for the majority of them to this point? Who has weighed the opportunity costs available and paid for them and has laid the present foundations? It was the environmentalists.

Anyway, back to the diatoms. It is interesting to note though that diatoms may exibit different behaviours in different conditions. I'm not too sure though what this research will yield. The first commercialization of iron fertilization-carbon reduction failed. Do I expect different outcome in the future? Who knows. We may get some usefullness out of the genetic info but any information on the lifecycle of these organisms which contribute to the CO2/O2 cycle could be usefull especially in light of changing climate.

PS. Thanx for the info Ike. I was wondering if the renewable tax credit was ever going to get through the Senate with the Republican stalling tactics but with the present economic situation, god knows where the money will come from or even if the demand will be there. I will have to try to read up on the rider to the bill to see the specifics.