Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Have you seen this? Best case for SRM in Arctic I've seen!

Inventor Nathan Myhrvold describes "space hose" for getting aerosols
into stratosphere - and he's done the modelling to show it could be used
at the Arctic, to cool whole hemisphere, without disrupting weather (see
about 9 minutes in). "Cooling the Arctic shuts of a whole lot of
tipping points." It shows incredible promise, but governments aren't
running to him - so far.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn

"Suppressing the only technology that could get us out of this
pickle..." would be plain silly.

He argues (as nobody I've seen to argue before), that even emissions
reduction to zero overnight, would not solve the problem of global
warming, because about 20% CO2 stays in atmosphere for thousands of years.

"Geoengineering has to be part of the debate". "We have to examine the
options". "You can't rule these things out."

Cheers,

John

[Ron Larson]

John and list:

I agree that this was an important interview for advancing
geoengineering (Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite
writers/analysts/interviewers). My main objection was that Fareed or
his show producers seemed to not be aware of the limitations of SRM. By
this I mean that the fundamental causation agent - excess CO2 - was
ignored, not mentioned once. Greg Lau's message to the list just
earlier on the need to protect against ocean acidification was never
hinted at. (More tomorrow on that.)

The end of the twenty minutes was on Myrhvold's firms focus on
investing in inventions - which he says only his new firm is doing
(emphasizing this is not the same as venture capital - which he also
claimed has revolutionized modern American (world?) business).

I wish I knew whether Myrhvold himself was working on CO2 removal as
well as his SO2 approach. The site also has quite a bit on the Salton
Sink concept (see
http://www.intvenlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Salter-Sink-white-paper-300dpi1.pdf).
Also see http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=338 for added material on
geoengineering.

Ron

John Nissen wrote:
> Hi all

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.121/2589 - Release Date: 12/27/09 02:18:00
>
>

[John Latham]

Hello John et al,

Thank you, John, for drawing attention to the fascinating Nathan Myhrvold interview. In my view the stratospheric seeding SRM scheme developed by Nathan, Lowell Wood (both colossally brilliant and creative scientists) and others is very likely to work effectively if it were to be deployed: and funding for an examination of the idea and its ramifications should be made available as a matter of urgency.

I?d argue also that two eggs in the basket are better than one, and that the cloud whitening (cloud albedo enhancement) scheme also holds significant promise of being able to stabilize the Earth?s temperature and polar sea-ice cover at about current values for some decades into the future ? at least until the 2xCO2 point. To examine this statement please read the just-published paper on this idea, by Rasch, Latham & Chen, in the special geo-engineering issue of Env. Res. Lett., edited by Ken Caldeira & David Keith, link

http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/4/045112

Figure 2 of this paper, emanating from fully-coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM computations, illustrates how the proposed maritime cloud seeding, conducted in a 2xCO2 situation, can restore sea-ice cover to values existing at 1xCO2. I?d also point out that the cloud seeding produces its maximum cooling in the polar regions.

Pursuing a little further the eggs-in-basket metaphor, it seems possible that although both the stratospheric sulphur and maritime cloud seeding schemes ? if technological and other problems were satisfactorily resolved ? could both prove to be independently able to ?buy significant time?, they might, acting in concert prove to be more powerful and flexible than either acting alone. One possible scenario is that the bulk of the cooling would result from stratospheric scheme while cloud whitening ? which is in principle capable of making localized (as well as global) changes ? could provide fine tuning in important selected areas.

All Best, John (Lat...@ucar.edu)                    12/27/09

                                                ***************************************************************

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
>

--
John Latham

lat...@ucar.edu   &    john.l...@manchester.ac.uk

Tel. 303-444-2429 (H)    &  303-497-8182 (W)

[John Nissen]

Hello John,

Yes, I absolutely agree.  It's common sense to have several approaches in parallel, if the future of the world could depend on it!  Similarly, to prevent ocean acidification, we need the CDR type of geoengineering as well - again with several approaches developed in parallel. 

But the big step, to start the ball rolling, is to get a widespread acceptance that emissions reductions alone will not, and cannot, save the planet in the short term, because of various tipping points.  Scientists have effectively lied to governments about this.  This is a catch-22 situation.  The scientists have lied about the dangers from tipping points, because they don't want to be seen to rock the boat on emissions reductions.  If they admit that geoengineering is needed, then it is an admission that they have been lying to the governments.  They therefore downplay the danger of catastrophes capable of taking out the whole of civilisation.  So they are just hoping against hope that the tipping points will not arrive too soon.   This is wishful thinking at its most dangerous.

It is simply amazing the strength of wishful thinking, even among the most apparently rational of scientists.  Why is the retreat of Arctic sea ice not taken more seriously?  It is obvious to anybody who looks at the record of sea ice retreat that the sea ice will disappear long before the end of the century.  But even the earlier IPCC models of this decade did not take into account the retreat that had already started!  Just look at figure 13 in the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" report [1].  The red line is already starting to go out of range of model "predictions" in the 80's.  How could the IPCC honestly say in their 2007 report, with apparent confidence, that the sea ice would last this century.

I now want to know if I've been lied to about the safety and effectiveness of SRM geoengineering.  All the arguments about the dangers seem to have been exaggerated.  For example, you hear that geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols would be terribly dangerous.  Yet Nathan said that his models showed that stratospheric aerosols, deployed at high latitudes, would not have a deleterious effect the world climate.  Similarly, when the cloud brightening technique is mentioned, you hear about a single simulation result showing that if the technique is deployed "in the Atlantic" (actually one spot), it could reduce precipitation in the Amazon [2].   It is so easy to damn a technique by careful selection of models and model results.

Of course, the "socially acceptable" attitude to geoengineering is to damn it, because you will get support from environmentalists and people who want the only global warming "solution" to be a change in world order.  Thus almost all the research papers one sees have picked on some possible danger of a geoengineering technique and then used modelling to show there could be circumstances where it might be dangerous.

There really needs to be more honesty in this whole business, otherwise the scientists, here and elsewhere, who prevaricate about geoengineering, will be guilty of delaying the development and implementation of the only technologies which could save our children and the rest of civilisation from catastrophe.

Cheers,

John

P.S.  Finding this video clip was the first triumph of joining the Google alerts.  Every single alert reference I've followed has been anti-geoengineering except this one!

[1] http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
[2] http://www.whyy.org/podcast/072809_110630.mp3

---

[Arco...@aol.com]

Hello, I'm new here and I expect to make a few blunders until I am better acquainted with previous discussions.  I am a retired physicist and have some leadership role in the Sierra Club.

 

The Salter Sink is an excellent concept for raising cold water to the surface.  the area that needs design attention is the injection system at the bottom of the tube.  With careful design, it will raise probably ten times as much cold water as is pumped down.  This design work is quite easy.

 

Next, I had never considered the advantage of the wave-driven pump as a way to cool the ocean, rather as a way to raise nutrients to the surface to increase biological production.  Most of the ocean surface world-wide is limited in production by inadequate nitrate and phosphate rather than iron.  Some good places for hurricane control are also good for placement of "ocean farms" fed by wave pumps.  For example, the North Atlantic Gyre region, also known as the Sargasso Sea.

 

I believe if somebody will check the economic potential of pump-fed sea farms in some areas such as the horse latitudes, it will be found that the Salter pumps will pay for themselves and return a handsome profit.

 

My thought-- it isn't necessary to remove the pump structures before they encounter storms--if they are lowered below the surface by about 100 meters, then they are completely sheltered from the storm above.

 

I can imagine a Salter pump connected to a lattice structure that spreads over an area of sea around the pump.  Kelp or other suitable plants are anchored to the lattice.  The "farm" provides a sea pasture in which farm animals are grown and harvested for market.

 

Ernie Rogers

Pleasant Grove, Utah

Phone 801-368-4902

 

In a message dated 12/27/2009 6:02:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rongre...@comcast.net writes:

John and list:

    I agree that this was an important interview for advancing
geoengineering (Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite
writers/analysts/interviewers).  My main objection was that Fareed or
his show producers seemed to not be aware of the limitations of SRM.  By
this  I mean that the fundamental causation agent - excess CO2 - was
ignored, not mentioned once.  Greg Lau's message to the list just
earlier on the need to protect against ocean acidification was never
hinted at.  (More tomorrow on that.)

   The end of the twenty minutes was on Myrhvold's firms focus on
investing in inventions - which he says only his new firm is doing 
(emphasizing this is not the same as venture capital - which he also
claimed has revolutionized modern American (world?) business).

    I wish I knew whether Myrhvold himself was working on CO2 removal as
well as his SO2 approach.   The site also has quite a bit on the Salton
Sink concept (see
http://www.intvenlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Salter-Sink-white-paper-300dpi1.pdf). 
Also see http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=338 for added material on
geoengineering.

Ron


John Nissen wrote:
> Hi all
>

> Have you seen this?  Best case for SRM in Arctic I've seen!
>
> Inventor Nathan Myhrvold describes "space hose" for getting aerosols
> into stratosphere - and he's done the modelling to show it could be used
> at the Arctic, to cool whole hemisphere, without disrupting weather (see
> about 9 minutes in).  "Cooling the Arctic shuts of a whole lot of
> tipping points."  It shows incredible promise, but governments aren't
> running to him - so far.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn
>
>
> "Suppressing the only technology that could get us out of this
> pickle..." would be  plain silly.
>
> He argues (as nobody I've seen to argue before), that even emissions
> reduction to zero overnight, would not solve the problem of global
> warming, because about 20% CO2 stays in atmosphere for thousands of years.
>
> "Geoengineering has to be part of the debate".  "We have to examine the
> options".  "You can't rule these things out."
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>  

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.121/2589 - Release Date: 12/27/09 02:18:00
>
>  

[John Gorman]

Strongly agree with every word of this.

 

SRM is the easy way to give overall cooling and whether Mythrvold is right, in saying that the right place to inject is the arctic, turns out to be correct only time and good models will tell. His argument for injecting in the arctic is slightly different from those of us who have suggested this previously. I, Greg Benford etc suggested saving the arctic without affecting the rest of the world too much. He seems to suggest that it is the right place to inject for general cooling.

 

Either way it seems likely that general cooling will probably leave some undesirable regional effects where the regional nature of cloud whitening would give us real control  of the local effects.

 

A whole new science -and not easy -but almost certainly necessary.

 

John Gorman

[Mike MacCracken]

Just a note that while pumping heat down into the ocean can lead to local cooling, storing heat in the ocean is adding and retaining energy, so will eventually emerge as warming. And, of course, it will contribute to sea level rise. Thus, while a local effort of this type to help limit hurricane intensification may be a good trade, it is not likely to be a global cure for the system (unless one can really pull the GHG concentrations down in other ways so heat from the ocean would moderate the rate of cooling—as it does now during winter).

Mike MacCracken

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

The oceans are a big thermal store so the scheme would give us time for
a quiet think. However we can bring nutrients up to the photic layers
and grow more phytoplankton giving more dimethyl sulphide for cloud
nuclei and converting lots of CO2 to non acidic biomass, some of which
we can eat.

There is a paper called /Hurricanes carbon and fish and a picture called
/MacNeill downtube in the /Hurricanes folder at the site below my
signature. /Chlorophyll comparison shows how empty most of the oceans
are for most of the time. Click through at about one a second for a
month-by-month animation. We need lots of permanent, private la Nina events.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

Mike MacCracken wrote:
> Just a note that while pumping heat down into the ocean can lead to
> local cooling, storing heat in the ocean is adding and retaining
> energy, so will eventually emerge as warming. And, of course, it will
> contribute to sea level rise. Thus, while a local effort of this type
> to help limit hurricane intensification may be a good trade, it is not
> likely to be a global cure for the system (unless one can really pull
> the GHG concentrations down in other ways so heat from the ocean would

> moderate the rate of cooling�as it does now during winter).

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Dan Whaley]

Steve,

In talking to Dave Karl a few years ago who was testing Phil Kithil's tube, it seemed like a core problem was trying to select for a depth where you had more nutrients (P, N) than CO2, so there was a net gain... since carbon is also greater at depth.  Also-- Phil seemed to think he would keep the tubes equidistant from each other with a huge network of underwater cables... which seemed logistically (as well as aesthetically) problematic.

Curious as to your thoughts in these areas...

D

> moderate the rate of cooling—as it does now during winter).

[Andrew Lockley]

The more you remove the micro and macro nutrient limitations from phytoplankton growth, the more you make it likely that oxygen becomes the limiting factor - ie. that all the available oxygen has been used up.  This is likely to lead to the creation or extension of 'dead zones' or anoxic regions in the ocean, together with consequential disruption to the ecosystem, and potential methane creation.

It's this kind of effect which, I understand, worries ETC group and others.  (See Chan et al, 2008)

I'm far from a marine biologist myself, and I'm raising the issue simply to encourage caution, rather than to claim expertise.

A

2009/12/28 Dan Whaley <dan.w...@gmail.com>

[Dan Whaley]

You're conflating two things Andrew, the limitation on growth and the consequences (usually on heterotrophs) of its decomposition / remineralization.  Free oxygen is never limiting on photosynthesis, since it is not consumed in the process, but rather produced. 

Anoxia or hypoxia as a result of phytoplankton growth are issues primarily in coastal enviornments when excess or continuous algal production in shallow environments leads to the depletion of oxygen in proximity to marine populations as that biomass decomposes.   The question in the open ocean, where any kind of climate mitigation via phytoplankton would be done-- i.e. in 4-6km of water column vs. 100m-- is... what has happened in past climates when we know primary productivity was much higher over long time periods, and what might happen in today's ocean if productivity were increased by various degrees... obviously there is more water column for remineralization to be distributed through and advective currents will distribute the effects over a larger area.  This is both a potential benefit as well as a potential concern.

Cao and Caldeira have looked at the effects of acidification at depth (and also at the surface) based on taking phosphate to zero in the southern ocean.  More models and observations need to be made for a variety of effects, including oxygen, N2O and methane, downstream nutrient depletion, DMS cooling in addition to CO2 reduction (and to Oliver's point, what kind of deployment would be appropriate for what kind of intended scenario)-- and looking at other kinds of limiting factors like silicate--  to get a better understanding of the processes there.  Observational programs should both be driven by and feed modeling throughout. 

D

[Ron Larson]

Professor Salter and Geoengineering List

1. Thanks for the leads at your "site below...signature". One
problem - I could not get the one labeled "McNeil Downtube" to open, so
you might check. It was nice to see that Nathan Myrhvold is/was a
sponsor for this interesting work. I look forward to reading more at
your site.

2. In 1981, newly elected President Reagan killed (along with most
everything else related to RE/EE) a quite promising Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion (OTEC) program, with the bald-faced lie that further R&D was
not needed - claiming that OTEC was commercially ready - which no-one
believed then or now. There has been a small amount of continuing work
- especially in Hawai. Emphasis was then on electricity production and
now is on low cost air-conditioning and aquaculture for land-based
systems. I have a call in to the former head of that program (Dr.
Robert Cohen of Boulder Colorado) to see if he might offer some Salter
Sink thoughts from the point of view of the OTEC technology that he is
still pushing hard. He and numerous contractors tried hard before the
program was killed to ensure that the mixed hot and cold water that was
expelled at a proper depth so as to minimize impacts on aquatic life. I
think the down-tube was one of the main study areas. I doubt they
ever considered trying to cool the surface - but Bob Cohen would know.
They had many ideas on how to bring various useful commodities to shore
- that may prove helpful to you That program also supported
considerable research on wave generation, but that is probably of less
interest now as wave technology has progressed a lot in 29 years. My
point is that there may be a history of ocean-based energy generation
that was claimed to be cost effective that could subsidize what you
would like to test.

3. By chance today, I found that you were one of several dozen
panelists for the new Royal Academy program to fund geoengineering -
both CDR and SRM, with its first report out (last week?) that can be
downloaded at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Energy/AdviceConsult/GeoengineeringWorkshopReport.htm.
I haven't tried yet to totally understand your group's conclusions that
might be different from the September report, but I was impressed by
some high-ranking words that I don't believe were in the September RS
report (governability -12 votes, public acceptability - 11 votes,
controllability -22 votes, side effects - 31 votes, etc). But the
suggested 2 or 3 major themes still seem a lot like those in the
September report.
Are you able to tell this list anything to suggest how the next
RS report may be different because of your one day meeting? I ask
because I did not feel that the previous panel of 12 had much experience
with Biochar and therefore was pleased to see that several of your new
panel associates had published in that area. Were all the
Geoengineering technologies represented well? Were votes cast with a
pretty good knowledge of every technology's potentials? Anything to
report on the new RS request for a new set of volunteers that I see are
being recruited - and will you and others on this last panel be eligible
for that as well?

Thanks in advance for anything more you can add on any of the above. Ron

<snip remainder>

[Ken Caldeira]

Unless you do some pretty fancy things with nutrient ratios in sinking organic matter, increasing ocean vertical mixing is not an efficient way to store carbon but is an efficient way to store heat.

A potential co-benefit is a likely increase in marine productivity.

That said, this would involve perturbing marine ecosystems potentially on a huge scale and would run counter to the goal, which many of us share, of trying to preserve natural marine ecosystems to the greatest extent possible.

I do not think anoxia is a big issue as essentially you would be creating an artificial upwelling/downwelling zone and possible environmental downsides (e.g., anoxic regions) could be monitored for and act as a limit on scale of deployment. In fact, one possible application of vertical pumps in the ocean could be to bring oxygen into anoxic "dead zones".

As with many interventions in the Earth system, the interesting cases are at the leading edge of the slippery slope: 

As Behrenfeld and others have shown, warming in the tropics has led to increased stratification and thus a decrease of nutrient transport into the euphotic zone, with concomitant decreases in marine photosynthetic activity. One could imagine a case where ocean vertical mixing was engineered simply to bring local sea surface temperatures and vertical mixing rates closer to the status quo ante -- ie, the main goal in this case would be to counter direct impacts of global warming on a local marine environment.

If you could show that you are countering some effects of global warming locally and thus helping to preserve a natural marine environment, one might consider this a good thing even if one feared the slippery slope towards using the marine environment to store heat that would otherwise damage land ecosystems (and human systems).

----

By way of disclosure: I am listed as a co-inventor on several patent applications related to vertical pumps in the ocean, but have stated that I will donate to non-profit charities and NGOs any revenues that accrue to me from application of these patents to climate intervention projects (an unlikely event).


___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Stephen Salter]

Dan and Andrew

I share Andrew's worry about oxygen depletion if there are too many
nutrients but I hope that because the sinks are moving oxygen-rich
surface water downwards and then letting it come part of the way up we
should be providing more.

I share Dan's concern about a network of cables. You might be able to
use them in shallow water like the Caribbean where there is nasty dead
zone at the mouth of the Mississipi but not in deep oceans. They would
be a dreadful obstruction to one another and to other traffic. It is
also hard to provide cable attachment points on a floppy structure.
This is why I want to let the sinks drift round gyres and merely adjust
their radius from the gyre centre by tweaking which side releases water.

I did my very best to explain to the Atmocean people the requirement to
match the load presented by any wave device to incoming waves but they
were very resistant. During the upward stroke their buoys are trying to
lift an enormous inertia of the long column of water in the hose. The
side entry valve system makes the sink look like the next bit of sea for
half the time and we know that wave-to-wave energy transfer is very
efficient.

I can adjust my skirt depth but this is to allow the units to be moved
over shallow water. I would have expected that since the deep water has
had a long time to mix there would not be all that much variation in the
nutrient concentration. It would be very useful to have pointers to any
data you have. I am also keen on gentle supply rates of the right blend
of natural nutrients over long periods.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

Andrew Lockley wrote:
> The more you remove the micro and macro nutrient limitations from
> phytoplankton growth, the more you make it likely that oxygen becomes
> the limiting factor - ie. that all the available oxygen has been used
> up. This is likely to lead to the creation or extension of 'dead
> zones' or anoxic regions in the ocean, together with consequential
> disruption to the ecosystem, and potential methane creation.
>
> It's this kind of effect which, I understand, worries ETC group and
> others. (See Chan et al, 2008)
>
> I'm far from a marine biologist myself, and I'm raising the issue
> simply to encourage caution, rather than to claim expertise.
>
> A
>

> 2009/12/28 Dan Whaley <dan.w...@gmail.com <mailto:dan.w...@gmail.com>>

> S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <mailto:S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>

>
>
>
> Mike MacCracken wrote:
> > Just a note that while pumping heat down into the ocean can
> lead to
> > local cooling, storing heat in the ocean is adding and retaining
> > energy, so will eventually emerge as warming. And, of
> course, it will
> > contribute to sea level rise. Thus, while a local effort of
> this type
> > to help limit hurricane intensification may be a good trade,
> it is not
> > likely to be a global cure for the system (unless one can
> really pull
> > the GHG concentrations down in other ways so heat from the
> ocean would

> > moderate the rate of cooling�as it does now during winter).

> >
> > Mike MacCracken
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/09 1:34 AM, "Arco...@aol.com

> <mailto:Arco...@aol.com>" <Arco...@aol.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

> > > Version: 9.0.722 / Virus Database: 270.14.121/2589
> - Release
> > Date: 12/27/09 02:18:00
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > You received this message because you are subscribed
> to the
> > Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to
> the Google
> > Groups "geoengineering" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> >
> > --
> >
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> > Groups "geoengineering" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

[M V Bhaskar]

We have been using Diatom algae to increase dissolved oxygen levels in
fresh water lakes.
Our observation is that Cyanobacteria decrease dissolved oxygen level
due to accumulation and decomposition and Diatoms increase dissolved
oxygen levels since they do not accumulate, since they are consumed by
zooplankton.
The same would hold true even in oceans - both coastal waters and deep
sea.
We are sure that dead zones in coastal waters can be solved by causing
Diatom Algae bloom in the dead zones.

In deep seas dead cyanobacteria may decompose near the surface and
dead diatoms may sink deep.
Discussing about 'Phytoplankton' in connection with ocean
fertilization is inadequate.
Different types of phytoplankton may cause diametrically opposite
effects.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Dec 29, 11:11 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> Unless you do some pretty fancy things with nutrient ratios in sinking
> organic matter, increasing ocean vertical mixing is not an efficient way to
> store carbon but is an efficient way to store heat.
>
> A potential co-benefit is a likely increase in marine productivity.
>
> That said, this would involve perturbing marine ecosystems potentially on a
> huge scale and would run counter to the goal, which many of us share, of
> trying to preserve natural marine ecosystems to the greatest extent
> possible.
>
> I do not think anoxia is a big issue as essentially you would be creating an
> artificial upwelling/downwelling zone and possible environmental downsides
> (e.g., anoxic regions) could be monitored for and act as a limit on scale of
> deployment. In fact, one possible application of vertical pumps in the ocean
> could be to bring oxygen into anoxic "dead zones".
>

> *As with many interventions in the Earth system, the interesting cases are

> at the leading edge of the slippery slope:

> *

> As Behrenfeld and others have shown, warming in the tropics has led to
> increased stratification and thus a decrease of nutrient transport into the
> euphotic zone, with concomitant decreases in marine photosynthetic activity.
> One could imagine a case where ocean vertical mixing was engineered simply
> to bring local sea surface temperatures and vertical mixing rates closer to

> the* status quo ante *-- ie, the main goal in this case would be to counter

> direct impacts of global warming on a local marine environment.
>
> If you could show that you are countering some effects of global warming
> locally and thus helping to preserve a natural marine environment, one might
> consider this a good thing even if one feared the slippery slope towards
> using the marine environment to store heat that would otherwise damage land
> ecosystems (and human systems).
>
> ----
>

> *By way of disclosure: I am listed as a co-inventor on several patent

> applications related to vertical pumps in the ocean, but have stated that I
> will donate to non-profit charities and NGOs any revenues that accrue to me
> from application of these patents to climate intervention projects (an
> unlikely event).

> *

>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>

> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab

> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com

> > > wrote:
>
> >> The more you remove the micro and macro nutrient limitations from
> >> phytoplankton growth, the more you make it likely that oxygen becomes the
> >> limiting factor - ie. that all the available oxygen has been used up.  This
> >> is likely to lead to the creation or extension of 'dead zones' or anoxic
> >> regions in the ocean, together with consequential disruption to the
> >> ecosystem, and potential methane creation.
>
> >> It's this kind of effect which, I understand, worries ETC group and
> >> others.  (See Chan et al, 2008)
>
> >> I'm far from a marine biologist myself, and I'm raising the issue simply
> >> to encourage caution, rather than to claim expertise.
>
> >> A
>

> >> 2009/12/28 Dan Whaley <dan.wha...@gmail.com>

>
> >>  Steve,
>
> >>> In talking to Dave Karl a few years ago who was testing Phil Kithil's
> >>> tube, it seemed like a core problem was trying to select for a depth where
> >>> you had more nutrients (P, N) than CO2, so there was a net gain... since
> >>> carbon is also greater at depth.  Also-- Phil seemed to think he would keep
> >>> the tubes equidistant from each other with a huge network of underwater
> >>> cables... which seemed logistically (as well as aesthetically) problematic.
>
> >>> Curious as to your thoughts in these areas...
>
> >>> D
>

> >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Stephen Salter <S.Sal...@ed.ac.uk>wrote:
>
> >>>> Hi All
>
> >>>> The oceans are a big thermal store so the scheme would give us time for
> >>>> a quiet think. However we can bring nutrients up to the photic layers
> >>>> and grow more phytoplankton giving more dimethyl sulphide for cloud
> >>>> nuclei and converting lots of CO2 to non acidic biomass, some of which
> >>>> we can eat.
>
> >>>> There is a paper called /Hurricanes carbon and fish and a picture called
> >>>> /MacNeill downtube in the /Hurricanes folder at the site below my
> >>>> signature. /Chlorophyll comparison shows how empty most of the oceans
> >>>> are for most of the time. Click through at about one a second for a
> >>>> month-by-month animation. We need lots of permanent, private la Nina
> >>>> events.
>
> >>>> Stephen
>
> >>>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> >>>> School of Engineering and Electronics
> >>>> University of Edinburgh
> >>>> Mayfield Road
> >>>> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> >>>> Scotland
> >>>> tel +44 131 650 5704
> >>>> fax +44 131 650 5702
> >>>> Mobile  07795 203 195

> >>>> S.Sal...@ed.ac.uk
> >>>>http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>

>
> >>>> Mike MacCracken wrote:
> >>>> > Just a note that while pumping heat down into the ocean can lead to
> >>>> > local cooling, storing heat in the ocean is adding and retaining
> >>>> > energy, so will eventually emerge as warming. And, of course, it will
> >>>> > contribute to sea level rise. Thus, while a local effort of this type
> >>>> > to help limit hurricane intensification may be a good trade, it is not
> >>>> > likely to be a global cure for the system (unless one can really pull
> >>>> > the GHG concentrations down in other ways so heat from the ocean would
> >>>> > moderate the rate of cooling—as it does now during winter).
>
> >>>> > Mike MacCracken
>

> >>>> >     rongretlar...@comcast.net writes:
>
> >>>> >         John and list:
>
> >>>> >         I agree that this was an important interview for advancing
> >>>> >         geoengineering (Fareed Zakaria is one of my
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ken Caldeira]

Steve,

"Raw" ocean nutrient data is available at:  http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD09/pr_wod09.html

Gridded data is available at: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA05/pr_woa05.html

Graphical representations of nutrient and oxygen fields are available at: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA05F/woa05f.html

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

>         > moderate the rate of cooling—as it does now during winter).

[David Schnare]

B.

 

Can you identify some papers on use of diatom algae on dead zones (fresh and salt water)?

 

Thanks,

d.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[John Nissen]

Thanks Ron.

That paper you mention from Intellectual Ventures Lab [1] has some excellent arguments for geoengineering in general and for the Lab's geoengineering design work in particular.  For example:

---

8. What is the greatest potential benefit you see from geoengineering? What about possible harms?

Realistically, geoengineering could offer us a way to buy time by preventing the worst effects of global warming while society gets its act together on a carbon-emission free energy infrastructure. [snip]

Other people worry that geoengineering may not work, or that it could provide a false hope. That is an argument for more research and development, not less. At the present time there is almost no research and development funding for geoengineering, which seems foolish given what is at stake.

Another concern is that there might be unforeseen consequences of geoengineering. This is also a topic which research can address. Geoengineering is only under consideration to combat the vastly more harmful effects that are predicted from severe climate change.

---

However they seem unaware of urgency - acting quickly to minimise the risk of losing the Arctic sea ice and passing a point of no return.

Cheers,

John

[1] http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=338

---

[Andrew Lockley]

Having considered ocean fertilisation in more depth, I have further concerns.

The export of carbon beyond the mixed layer suggests that it will end up as marine snow.  My understanding is that a significant proportion of clathrates and natural gas deposits start in this way.  If we are to undertake a programme of deliberate ocean fertilisation, there is at least a possibility that we will create geologically-significant deposits of relatively unstable methane-based material.

Has this issue been fully considered by those proposing fertilisation?  It's all very well sequestering large amounts of carbon, but if the whole lot belches back out as methane a few decades later, that will simple lead to more serious problems than those which existed before.

I've not heard a mention of this issue before.  Is this because I'm misguided in my understanding of ocean methane formation, or have I clumsily stumbled upon something potentially important?  I suspect the former and fear the latter.

Please can those with expertise on the matter offer some insight?

Thanks

A

2009/12/29 M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@gmail.com>

[Dan Whaley]

These are found in permafrost and continental slope areas. You might
look into the "clathrate stability zone" and look at where they are
distibuted worldwide.

Buffett and Archer 2004 is a good treatment... or google scholar, even
the wiki entry on methane clathrates is instructive.

D

On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having considered ocean fertilisation in more depth, I have further
> concerns.
>
> The export of carbon beyond the mixed layer suggests that it will end up as
> marine snow.  My understanding is that a significant proportion of
> clathrates and natural gas deposits start in this way.  If we are to
> undertake a programme of deliberate ocean fertilisation, there is at least a
> possibility that we will create geologically-significant deposits of
> relatively unstable methane-based material.
>
> Has this issue been fully considered by those proposing fertilisation?  It's
> all very well sequestering large amounts of carbon, but if the whole lot
> belches back out as methane a few decades later, that will simple lead to
> more serious problems than those which existed before.
>
> I've not heard a mention of this issue before.  Is this because I'm
> misguided in my understanding of ocean methane formation, or have I clumsily
> stumbled upon something potentially important?  I suspect the former and
> fear the latter.
>
> Please can those with expertise on the matter offer some insight?
>
> Thanks
>
> A
>

> 2009/12/29 M V Bhaskar <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[M V Bhaskar]

David

A couple of papers that have studied the Si : N ratio and related
issues in the Gulf of Mexico are -

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&artid=23704
Officer and Rhyther (22) suggested that a shift in the Si:N atomic
ratio from above 1:1 to below 1:1 would have two effects: altering the
marine food web by reducing the diatom-to-zooplankton-to-higher
trophic level food web, and increasing the proportion of flagellated
algae, including those that produce harmful algal blooms.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6472/abs/368619a0.html
The increases were substantial by 1980, by which time riverine
nitrogen loading had doubled relative to the beginning of the century,
even though the silica loading had declined by 50% over the same
period. Thus changes in river-borne nutrient loadings can modify
coastal food webs and affect the amount and distribution of oxygen in
bottom waters on the scale of continental shelves.

These indicate that reduction in silica : nitrogen ratio results in
lower diatom population and that this has a negative impact on the
ocean ecology.
The development of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone and change in Si : N
ratio over the past 50 years seem to be correlated.

The point we are trying to make is, Is the reverse true?
If Diatom population is increased will the tropic status of the water
change for the better?
No one seems to have studied this.

A blog post about dams - silica - diatoms - red tides is available at
http://friendsofsebago.blogspot.com/2009/12/silica-depletion-and-lake-regulation.html

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Dec 29, 10:07 pm, David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> B.
>
> Can you identify some papers on use of diatom algae on dead zones (fresh and
> salt water)?
>
> Thanks,
> d.
>

> > > >>>>http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs>

> ...
>
> read more »