Therefore it's my opinion that the not - so - extreme decline from April to July 2010, coupled with the higher - than - usual April value, coupled with the changes (both trend and fluctuation) in both the size of and the timing of the annual cycle, are
such that there's insufficient evidence to conclude that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption caused a noticeable change in atmospheric CO2, whether by emissions from the eruption, the lack of emissions from air traffic, or iron
fertilization of the
oceans.
Lately, a growing number of scientists have been advocating research to see if massive, manmade iron
fertilization of the
oceans might induce
such blooms, and thus mitigate warming.