Introducing LOF: Localized ocean fertilization is not OIF....It’s vastly better
Peter Fiekowsky
My new substack is out: Localized ocean fertilization is not OIF....It’s vastly better
I apologize to those who have seen the graph recently. This is a more complete discussion.
This new piece explains how nature removed almost 20 Gt CO2 in a year and a half after the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. This defies published OIF models that say only about 1 Gt CO2 can be removed in a year, using all the oceans.
The refined process is Localized ocean fertilization, (LOF). It is based on new analysis of CO2 after volcanic eruptions and CO2 satellite data from NASA's OCO-2 .
“You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own data.” - Ken Buesseler
“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes
The removal data is clear in the Keeling Curve, Mauna Loa CO2 data (blue), compared to a simple model (green).
Fig. 2. The lower panel compares actual CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa (solid blue) with expected CO2 levels (dotted green). The discrepancy indicates long-term removal of 2.25 ppm of CO2. The upper panel shows that two eruptions of similar size and global cooling impact, Agung (1963) and El Chichon (1983) led to no persistent CO2 removal. (from Fiekowsky and Burnham, 2025)
The key points, for this audience, are:
Most CO2 removal occurs in downwelling eddies. Smetacek reported about 50% of biocarbon removal, compared to typically 1-2% removal using sinking diatoms in non-downwelling regions. Data analysis in process from NASA’s OCO-2 CO2 observatory satellite confirms this.
Maintaining higher iron levels allows growth of nitrogen fixing phytoplankton (cyanobacteria). This provides a continuing supply of critical nitrates. Sophie Bonnet writes about this
Other explanations for the 1992 CO2 removal, such as increased diffuse light and 0.5C lower temperature increasing photosynthesis and CO2 solubility, don’t fit the historical CO2 data. The other two large eruptions (Bali and El Chichon) that cooled the planet similarly, don’t show any significant CO2 impact.
chris....@btinternet.com
Peter,
There are quite a number of problems with your Localized Ocean Fertilization (LOF) proposal, most of which you are already aware of (e.g., see my email response to you of 12 September 2023). In my attached response I will primarily focus on your estimate of the CO2 decline after the Mt Pinatubo eruption and make some short comments about a few other points.
The conclusion of my response is:
There was no large-scale ocean fertilization event in the South China Sea in 1992-1993 following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 as:
- Your calculation of the estimated CO2 removal is based on a flawed methodology that greatly exaggerates the decline in atmospheric CO2 and is thus invalid.
- The real removal of atmospheric CO2 in that period was due to terrestrial uptake, mainly in North America, coupled with a reduction in emissions that together explain the actual decline in atmospheric CO2.
- Consequently, there is no need to invoke speculative Local Ocean Fertilization to explain the decline in atmospheric CO2 following the Mt Pinatubo eruption.
Best wishes
Chris.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Peter Fiekowsky
Sent: 11 January 2026 15:15
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Ken O Buesseler <kbues...@whoi.edu>; Fei Chai <fcha...@gmail.com>; Victor Smetacek <Victor....@awi.de>; Seth John <seth...@usc.edu>; Carl Page <carl...@gmail.com>; John Preston <Pre...@temcapital.com>
Subject: [CDR] Introducing LOF: Localized ocean fertilization is not OIF....It’s vastly better
My new substack is out: Localized ocean fertilization is not OIF....It’s vastly better
I apologize to those who have seen the graph recently. This is a more complete discussion.
This new piece explains how nature removed almost 20 Gt CO2 in a year and a half after the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. This defies published OIF models that say only about 1 Gt CO2 can be removed in a year, using all the oceans.
The refined process is Localized ocean fertilization, (LOF). It is based on new analysis of CO2 after volcanic eruptions and CO2 satellite data from NASA's OCO-2 .
“You can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own data.” - Ken Buesseler
“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes
The removal data is clear in the Keeling Curve, Mauna Loa CO2 data (blue), compared to a simple model (green).
Fig. 2. The lower panel compares actual CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa (solid blue) with expected CO2 levels (dotted green). The discrepancy indicates long-term removal of 2.25 ppm of CO2. The upper panel shows that two eruptions of similar size and global cooling impact, Agung (1963) and El Chichon (1983) led to no persistent CO2 removal. (from Fiekowsky and Burnham, 2025)
The key points, for this audience, are:
- Most CO2 removal occurs in downwelling eddies. Smetacek reported about 50% of biocarbon removal, compared to typically 1-2% removal using sinking diatoms in non-downwelling regions. Data analysis in process from NASA’s OCO-2 CO2 observatory satellite confirms this.
- Maintaining higher iron levels allows growth of nitrogen fixing phytoplankton (cyanobacteria). This provides a continuing supply of critical nitrates. Sophie Bonnet writes about this
- Other explanations for the 1992 CO2 removal, such as increased diffuse light and 0.5C lower temperature increasing photosynthesis and CO2 solubility, don’t fit the historical CO2 data. The other two large eruptions (Bali and El Chichon) that cooled the planet similarly, don’t show any significant CO2 impact.
I welcome feedback, negative and positive, while we prepare a paper for peer review.
Please share this in your communities. It's important.
Thank you-
Peter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2nJ%3DfXh6cYkQwNnMRYxphGQrak%2Bpj8ZTzftotAB7sLbSQ%40mail.gmail.com.
