Have we factored in carbon sequestration as bones and shells of larger creatures?
"Much more carbon is sequestered by echinoderms than previously thought."
and i had already been thinking about fish bones and other hard to digest stuff, dropping into the deep sea bed, either as is os in the poo of larger creatures.
is all this stuff taken into account as part of some larger effect (the biological pump i guess), how would that be estimated, and what sort of margins of error might there be?
i recently saw something that to me to be a ray of hope; that there is a missing sink somewhere, that the biosphere is absorbing more than estimated. is this it? and if it is from organisms with bony and shelly bits, are these not going to suffer disproportionately from ocean acidification?
yes, all the natural processes can be lumped in to a 'black box' model represented by the pre-industrial conditions, but i wondered if they were being measured at some level in between that and individual species.
the ocean seeding experiment was a failure! it was "sorry, the shrimp ate my homework" , oh how i laughed. the wrong kind of algae grew, and got eaten. i since found that the 'right' kind, diatoms, are limited by silica, not iron anyway.
nice background from jim z, cheers for reminding me, i knew that 30 years ago lol :-)
still investigating, but loosing hope it is a big sink or that it will increase.
the increase of shallow seas with sea level rise will increase the effect in the long term, and it looks so far that acidification will disrupt short term but not have such a negative effect in long term as i feared.