There's a lot of inaccurate information in these comments. First off, iron is only one of many limiting nutrients for phytoplankton growth. Many marine ecologists have already established that the use of iron fertilization will only be effective to a certain stage of growth and may have many unintended consequences. Most notably, eutrophication is a likely result as explosive phytoplankton growth will consume iron rapidly until the depletion of another limiting nutrient will cause a collapse in the community, leading to an exponential increase in decay. The phytoplankton at first would sequester carbon (sink), but after the decline decomposition by bacteria would release more carbon (source) and consume more oxygen than was created by the phytoplankton leading to so-called "dead-zones" or hypoxic/anoxic (low/no-oxygen) water. Phytoplankton distribution in the ocean is extremely patchy and concentrated in areas with high nutrient input (upwelling, coastal areas). Consumers and subsequently predators often have similar patterns in reproduction and migration, which have co-evolved with phytoplankton blooms on a complex temporal scale. Simply dumping iron in the ocean does nothing to ensure the production will sustain organisms beyond bacteria (more oxygen consumption, predators/consumers need oxygen). A good plan would be to reduce carbon emissions (methane, CO2 especially) and reverse deforestation. RICHARD TOWNSEND "man's puny efforts over the past 200 years is going to wreak havoc over an ecosystem that has been evolving for over 4 billion years is at best Ludacris" hmm.. what's LUDICROUS is that you cannot see the impact we have so obviously had. You cannot dump 34 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in one year (2011) all the while disrupting natural cycling and not expect any consequences. It's ludicrous and irresponsible that we have done essentially NOTHING to slow down.

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/global-warming-film/

"A MOST Inconvenient Truth" - the portion of research that Al Gore didn't mention.

This sounds like a whole lot of bad idea. 1 good result does not expunge 5 negative (known) side effects.

Tony, thanks for this honest assessment of the actions of some of the Environmental loonies that have co-opted the movement over the past 30 years. Too many Chicken Little Crazies predicting that the sky is falling along with a heaping helping of Right-Wing Con Artist pushing comic book science while they pursue an enormous personal payoff. The assumption that man's puny efforts over the past 200 years is going to wreak havoc over an ecosystem that has been evolving for over 4 billion years is at best Ludacris. Only mentally disturbed attention seekers and naïve children continue to promote this troubling waste of time to fight a predicted outcome that has no place in reality. This as the world’s economic system teeters on the brink of collapse, a far worse known outcome that we have had to endure at various times throughout history and that can easily be corrected if all of mankind’s efforts are directed toward eliminating the power of a minority of known powerful Oligarchs. It turns out that removing this corrupt and dangerous minority sector that has had ultimate control over the lives of the planet's population for so long will also reverse the long standing policies that are devastating our planet's environment.

If this is supposed to work, then why aren't all those sunken ships from WWII, not to mention the Titantic, already helping?

If there was some scientific evidence this might help, I would say "go for it". There are already "dead zones" in the ocean - would dumping there cause further enlarging the existing dead zones?