This article shows that we can reliably cause phytoplankton blooms, but doesn't link it with actual "carbon removal". I suppose CO2 is temporarily removed in the form of the bloom, but I believe historically these blooms have a low efficiency for "permanent capture" because the plankton decay or are consumed. The only way to effectively capture would be to somehow create the bloom, then sink the phytoplankton en masse deep within the ocean where the would be neither eaten or decayed. Maybe possible with the right setup, but hard to scale.

> [People think we] couldn’t possibly know what the consequences would be.

> It’s not true, though. We have quite a precise understanding of what happens

Ah, man, the hubris to see a long history of human interventions with unexpected knock on consequences, and think, “but this time we know.” It’s comical, even. We’re talking about an intervention large enough to reverse decades of climate change, of course there will be unintended consequences.

In the end, however, we will likely have to do something, and this might be the solution with the best-mapped consequences (and thus fewest unforeseen consequences).

Don't know if it's off topic, ad hominem, or whatnot : but this substack is an almost comical example of a "one-post-poney".

The author is VERY much a fan of phytoplankton fertilization. He does not cite many other people talking about it, but he is very very very convinced.

Maybe he's right, but the tone and the "once you have a hammer, everything look like deep ocean fertilization" bit does not help.

BREAKING NEWS: New study shows that plants consume carbon dioxide, emit oxygen. Implications for greenhouse gas reduction unknown but promising.

I had a nightmare where we bred some super plankton to capture CO2 and it quickly colonized and killed the entire ocean and we doomed the world. On the bright side, if this were possible, plankton would have already done it right?