scale, scope, structure

[Diana Bronson]

Dear Ken and other Geoengineering Group members,


I am not sure exactly who the "we" in Ken Caldeira's message refers to, but I  think it would be premature (to be generous) to assert there is  meaningful consensus about the need to do research into climate intervention/geoengineering.  In fact, in the major intergovernmental forum where responses to climate change are being discussed (the UNFCCC meetings in preparation for Copenhagen) there has not been any discussion of this topic. Recent relevant decisions in other fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity , the London Convention and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea have tended to caution against real world experimentation in geoengineering technologies (mostly ocean fertilization) .  The vast majority of the world's governments, peoples, environmentalists and other civil society groups involved in these processes have very little -- if any -- knowledge of what is being proposed in the field of geoengineering.  While one of the four pillars of the UNFCCC talks is technology, there is no reference to geoengineering anywhere in the draft text.  Surely if this was a matter of consensus, one would find such a reference.

I think the consensus that Ken is referring to is maybe one amongst a narrow group of climate scientists, or perhaps amongst an even narrower set of individuals interested in geoengineering.  Such as most of the members of this group?  The recent flurry of reports, many of which were authored by regular contributors to this group cannot possibly be construed as a consensus.  There is no way that a question of such magnitude and far reaching implications should be conceived as a technical matter to be resolved by a small group of scientists.   Trying to restrain the debate and frame it in such narrow technical terms will yield conclusions that are wrong, incomplete and counter-productive to meeting the climate challenge.

Let me be clear – Apart from geoengineering diverting funds from other climate related research that in my view would be more fruitful,  there is some research into geoengineering technologies that is harmless.  Climate scientists should be free to explore whatever interventions they wish in the laboratory or via computer modelling (‘behind closed doors among consenting adults’ as it has been eloquently expressed). But we know how limited those results can be and how such models often drive demands for real world analogues to verify or disprove the In silico results and how pressure for field trials follows quickly on the heels of interesting modelling results.

 It is quite another matter when it comes to leaving the lab and pursuing experimentation "outside" as James Fleming usefully framed it last week at a forum in Montreal.  As we have already seen in the case of ocean fertilization, scientists and companies are anxious to try out their theories in the real world on ever larger and larger scales and won’t take disappointing or downright negative results as a red light.   In the case of ocean fertilization, despite 13 small trials with poor results and high-profile calls for caution, a rather large state-sponsored experiment (Lohafex) was given a green light as some sort of cause celebre for free scientific enquiry, despite the fact that that same state (Germany) has helped to broker a moratorium at the Convention on Biological diversity less than year earlier. That the results appeared to back up some of the reasons for the moratorium is not exactly cause for celebration. By that time any possible harm is already done. When it comes to the commons, like the atmosphere, the stratosphere or the oceans, surely a more robust system of regulation and governance would be required before "we" can allow a series of experiments to be launched.  And while the recently announced UK and US Hearings into the question of governance of geoengineering, it would be the height of arrogance to think that such a process is a replacement for a global conversation. 

The order in which these things happen is of utmost importance and I would hope that there would be a consensus on ironing out  these governance issues BEFORE real-world experimentation gets any serious consideration amongst responsible scientists.   Indeed, given that the purpose of the UNFCCC is to "prevent dangerous anthopogenic interference with the climate system" (article 2), it could be argued that such experimentation directly contravenes the express purpose of the treaty. I am not qualified to make a legal assessment of that eventuality but surely the only (however flawed)  international legal instrument we have on climate change cannot be ignored.

But that is not all we have either.  A quick scan of international institutions would reveal a number of treaties and international agencies with a direct interest in climate "intevention" ranging from the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD)  to an agency like the FAO whose goal to eliminate hunger could be further set back by droughts provoked by stratospheric aerosol injections or poorly executed modifications of soil through biochar addition; or the Convention on Biological Diversity that has already expressed concerns about geoengineering, or the human rights system which aims to protect peoples rights to free, prior and informed consent  or to health or food or other matter that could very well be affected not only by deployment, but even by experimentation.  Obviously any country that might be affected would also want to have its say. 

And if we agree that some rules need to be determined before experimentation gets any consideration, we must be clear that such rules cannot be established only by scientists,  only to be followed if people sign up to them and only to be followed when it suits a scientific programme to follow them.   Exclusivity will not work.  Elitism will not work.  Voluntarism will not work.  The discussion on governance cannot be led by scientists who will receive the research grants, corporations who will own the patents and institutions with close connections to the corporations.   It must be democratic, participatory, informed and international.  Those on the front line of the fight against climate change (think Arctic peoples, Indigenous Peoples, small island states, least developed countries, coastal peoples) need to be involved. For the most part, they have not participated in this conversation and are largely unaware it is even going on.

Others on this list have made the point that silence should not be mistaken for consent.  In this case, since you are seeking input on what should be prioritized, I would suggest that what is most urgently needed is some serious research on the international governance mechanisms that are currently in place, the gaps in terms of covering off the different geoengineering technologies that exist and the beginning of a plan for how a more comprehensive, democratic and sustainable approach could be devised should we ever be in the unimaginably horrible situation where deployment could be considered as a serious option. Also required is a throrough engagement with communities beyond this narrow technical community that allows those groups to bring their knowledge and their wisdom to bear upon the question of whether large scale climate intervention is a wise approach, not merely whether it is feasible. Determining the wisdom of the course of action should at least come before sinking large amounts of taxpayers money into building the mechanisms to deploy such systems.  And never should such technologies be allowed to be privately owned or unilaterally experimented or deployed (as we know, with several of these technologies, experimentation IS deployment). 

Thank you for opening up this debate - I just think it should move beyond the technical and embrace some of the critical political questions that need to be asked prior to those technical issues.

Regards -- 

Diana Bronson

[Ken Caldeira]

FYI, I believe this is from Diana Bronson of ETC:

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/staff/diana-bronson

--

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.

[Dan Whaley]

Diana,

It's good to see movement in the ETC position.

You and Jim will of course remember that issues of governance are
discussed here regularly, so your final entreaty that this forum "move
beyond the technical" is perhaps moot. Non-technical discussions
occur here frequently.

Governance is of course high on the priority list of many people in
this community. The LC meetings are a great example--which many on
this forum have attended and supported. That process moved from a
statement of concern to unanimous consent for scientific projects to
move forward last fall. This spring the OIF working group and the
Scientific Group each met separately to begin crafting the OIF Risk
Management Framework for what reporting would be required from those
projects, and just last month the regular LC meeting was held again
and spent considerable time reviewing progress on those activities. I
was at each of these meetings and I think it is quite inaccurate to
say that the LC process has tended to "caution against real world
experimentation". In fact, I would say that the LC has now shaped an
administrative process to support exactly that. And of course, this
is a UN body.

Also, while existing framework documents for the UNFCCC may not
mention geoengineering, I think this is an extraordinarily weak piece
of evidence to argue against a growing consensus for research into
geoengineering. If the Royal Society recommendations, the House
subcommittee hearings, the National Academies' forthcoming report, the
13 National Academies joint statement from last year, Bob Watson's
remarks in the UK Guardian yesterday, and the London Conventions
deliberations aren't enough to convince you, then I'm honestly not
sure what would. Clearly there is a strong call from the most
respected institutions, each of which had to engage in consensus-
finding processes in order to generate such statements that research
is appropriate. To fault Ken for referring informally to this group
that there is a consensus seems somewhat pointless.

Clearly you have mentioned many organizations-- some of them active
bodies, some of them treaty organizations-- which would have an
interest or remit to consider these questions. Many of the
individuals here in this same community have been quite active in
exploring the implications of these and the correct way to go about
engaging on these questions. Papers are forthcoming, talks will be
given in Copenhagen. In fact, there will be no less than three side
sessions specifically on the governance of geoengineering there, one
of them an official, UNFCCC event. Perhaps you will be able to
attend.

"And if we agree that some rules need to be determined before
experimentation gets any consideration, we must be clear that such
rules cannot be established only by scientists, only to be followed
if people sign up to them and only to be followed when it suits a
scientific programme to follow them."

Your point might be a good one, but clearly the one example of
governance that has already been established--the LC process for OIF--
avoids exactly that, right? So, could we say we're on the right
track?

Thanks for your considered remarks.

By the way-- the LOHAFEX project was forced to low silicate waters
largely as a result of the delays caused by some last minute
activism. Perhaps you have another technical interpretation?

Dan

On Nov 25, 5:00 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> FYI, I believe this is from Diana Bronson of ETC:
>
> http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/staff/diana-bronson
>

> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Diana,
 
The geoengineering debate is largely forced upon us for the human unwillingess to cut emissions. Had you followed tonight's announcement the United States are not prepared to reduce their emissions more than 3-4% from 1990 levels, they present the matter using figures just couple years ago as the period 1990-2005 saw the CO2 emissions to raise 21-22% over the period, effectively announcing a status quo.
 
Until you can get the emitters like the United States to agree a substantial cut, 3-4% cut is less than Kyoto cut well over decade ago, the only other option, people unwilling to rain in greehouse gases that have global warming forcing effect on the athmosphere and acidification effect on the oceans, the remaining option in the toolbox to combat the committed warming and the future projected warming, may well be geoengineering. The scope of geoengineering is not unlimited but always stay relatively marginal for practical intents and purposes at least.
 
If the overall global warming projected is 4C to 6C which appear in recent models, geoengineering hardly could make our planet too cool to mitigate even half of that warming whatever we wished to implement with our finite financial resources.
 
I would draw attention to your language here which seems prejuducial and prescriptive:

 
"how a more comprehensive, democratic and sustainable approach could be devised should we ever be in the unimaginably horrible situation where deployment could be considered as a serious option."
 

This seems to have the pre-trial judgement that "unimaginably horrible situation" of deployment is the answer before the question is even made, a totally unscientific and prejudiced approach, giving a value-based assessment before anything is done. With this kind of attitude the 19th century diggers of the Suez Canal were told that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean fish populations would transfer diseases and both seas would go into extinction due to pathogenic pollution from one sea to the other once the ships started to take short cut. So much better then to make all the ships to go around Africa and pour billions of tonnes extra fuel each year.  Your prejudiced approach is scare-mongering.
 
Similarly, many geoengineering solutions loose their effect immediately or almost immediately when turned off.
 
You also include everything and anything, as a way to stymify any reasonable outcome within acceptable time frames. There is also the issue of indigenous, the Chinese consider themselves indigenous, the Japanese industrial revolution was indigenous, also large nations can be indigenous although this is now hijacked to mean small, stateless, tribal, et cetera, making the consultations in complex scientific issues infinite due to need of raising the educational standards to comprehend the geo and climate science in detail. Does this mean that the indigenous need to be fed and opinionated by Greenpeace and the kind of folk to do what their patrons in the West want indigenous say.

 
"It must be democratic, participatory, informed and international.  Those on the front line of the fight against climate change (think Arctic peoples, Indigenous Peoples, small island states, least developed countries, coastal peoples) need to be involved. For the most part, they have not participated in this conversation and are largely unaware it is even going on."
 

When doctor needs to do an operation and remove appendicitis or do judgemental decisions in case of food poisonings or some unclear inflammatory condition, is the patient put through the science classes learn how the operations are conducted. No. The good scientific judgement is there to determine whether the operation delivers more benefits than harms, all in balance of probabilities. Sometimes people do worsen and die as they did not respond to the operations as was hoped for. But does that mean that no operation must go aheat until every patient is fully acquainted with the medical trials or knows the pharmaceutical studies of the tablets he eats to control his condition. No. If the effect is bad the treatment is suspended. Trials of new therapies are also made to minimise the impact in sample size or in duration.
 
This sounds like Greenpeace in 1970s, 1980s, 1990s saying that nuclear energy is bad, coal-power stations were tolerable and cleaner. It goes the same way like in 1960s DDT was banned claimed to kill millions of people. In fact the malaria deaths that stood at 50,000 per year in 1960 increased to over 1,000,000 cases per year in the areas where DDT treatment was withdrawn, resulting in over 40,000,000 deaths. WMO finally reintroduced DDT for malaria battle back in 2006 and the cases are rapidly falling in areas where pandemics had grown so large. When AIDS were discovered and only 500 cases were diagnosed it was suggested that quarantine for the sexual intercourse transmitted disease would be contained if all the infected people would be stopped from having sex in outside community. The result: world-wide epidemic with tens of millions: 46 million infected people in some continents with 7.8% of entire population is today HIV positive, plus 26,000,000 AIDS deaths. Was the prevention of the right of travel and freedom to practise sex by 500 (mostly drug addicts or homosexuals) more important than protection of overall world population now 46 million infected like uncontrolled epidemic of leprocy in antiquity, in addition to 26 million that has already died. Biofuels? All well-intentioned efforts, but wrong.
 
It is easy to be retrospectively saying this and that. Many things can go many ways. But demonising geoengineering before anything is done is wrong: is simply as wrong as claiming the Suez Canal was a dasngerous idea and the whole ecology of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea would collapse if the Indian Ocean was connected to the Mediterranean by the artificial channel. If we did not have dug that, how much more CO2 would the ocean going vessels have dumped into skies, then to acidify the ocean. Millions, billions tonnes of CO2. If Greenpeace has shut up and Europe had built its energy supply based on nuclear energy instead of coal-fired power stations, claimed safe, in 1970s anti-nuclear hysteria, would we have even found out the global warming problem yet. Alas, much because switchover from nuclear to coal, we see the well intentioned, poorly engineering acquainted people acting as advisers, that the problem has come to be what it is today.
 
With the United States today 25.11.2009 declaring that they cannot afford CO2 beyond 3-4% of 1990 levels of fossil fuel consumption, there is no other realistic solutions for us left by politicians except to try to patch up the awesome gap by geoengineering as far as we can. It is certain that if the United States cannot reduce its fossil fuel emissions beyond 3-4% levels from 1990 base year without seriously affecting economic growth, consumption and the acceptable living standards of its citizens, that China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and other countries with much lower per capita consumption of energy are unable to rain in their own consumption as politicians stating otherwise will not get elected to help the USA maintain its high level of consumption while asking others to cut theirs from very much lower emission positions without rising poverty.
 
I may have sounded harsh on this judgement, but as it stands 3-4% reduction in the USA per capita emission of 25 tonnes of CO2 for 2020 is certain to call for geoengineering to take up the bits and sort out the anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing thus forced upon the rest of world.
 
Kr, Albert
 

---

From: dianab...@gmail.com
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] scale, scope, structure
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:44:12 -0500

--
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.

---

View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Group,

Is full scale OIF still being considered? Fertilizing the greater
part of the Southern Ocean simply will not work. Please see my
published work on this. Discussing this further is a waste of time.
Burr, I get frozen just think about it, Si, diatoms or not. Is OIF
really a kind of ponzi scheme? Where do I invest (bet)?

Perhaps, I am to harsh but has anyone (other than myself and another
group) done an environmental impact report on the abrupt and severe
cooling that might occur due to quit elevated DMS emissions, CCN
production and cooling that will happen?

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Group,

Is full scale OIF still being considered? Seriously, I don't know.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dan Whaley]

Oliver,

I know you've read the recent papers re a next generation of
projects. (Buesseler, et al; Watson, et al; Lampitt, et al; Smetacek
and Naqvi, etc.) Clearly some persons feel there are still questions
worth asking. There are others (Chisholm, Cullen, yourself, etc.)
that do not. It's great that we have a big world to accommodate
everyone. A few more OIF projects will not diminish it. But to call
it a Ponzi scheme? The interest is coming from a fair number of
people. The recent AGU Chapman conference on the Biological Pump at
Southampton was a good indicator.

To me, the open question is: Did increased productivity in the past
result in accelerated atmospheric withdrawal, and: can we simulate--
even crudely-- some of those conditions in the modern ocean. Does
increased productivity lead to increased export? And of course, what
is the cost, and what are the impacts of doing so. Ethically, should
we? etc.

Obviously you think the answer is no, which leaves other territory for
you to explore.

I do find your comment about DMS rather odd. Obviously DMS is a bit
of an interesting question (Kelly and I asked for your best several
papers on this about six months ago... you demurred pending some
further analysis). But what is strange is your comment on "abrupt and
severe cooling".

???

Isn't cooling what we're trying to achieve? And of course, the idea
that any of these geoengineering techniques would get globally
deployed immediately seems impossible to imagine. We have always
assumed that one would scale up gradually. Large, long time series
research efforts in more and more places in the oceans, etc. So---
wouldn't you be able to measure or model any cooling effect long
before it became 'abrupt and severe'. And if we get carbon
sequestration and regional cooling both-- then perhaps OIF is a bit
like marine cloud seeding in terms of its utility as SRM and CDR
both.

We have always assumed that the DMS effect was so limited (2 weeks,
etc) that it wouldn't be much benefit. One can only visit any place
in the ocean probably no more than once a year due to the need for
nutrient recycling, so the SRM benefit was a small kicker, but
probably not substantial. Do you see it differently?

Dan

PS, it would help if you would attach the specific paper(s) that you
think put the nail in the coffin of OIF ...





On Nov 25, 9:52 pm, Oliver Wingenter <oliver.wingen...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Dan,

You and other still don't get it.  Full scale fertilization of the Southern Ocean will lead to extraordinary amounts of DMS which will oxidize to sulfate aerosol and massive and abrupt cooling.  It is that simple.

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter



Dan Whaley wrote:

--

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.

  

[Dan Whaley]

What is it that I don't get? At the risk of repeating myself:

"The idea that any of these geoengineering techniques would get

globally
deployed immediately seems impossible to imagine. We have always
assumed that one would scale up gradually. Large, long time series
research efforts in more and more places in the oceans, etc. So---
wouldn't you be able to measure or model any cooling effect long
before it became 'abrupt and severe'. "

If I simply follow your logic, then why do you need to go to "full
scale" if there is substantial cooling at an intermediary level?

And, if you really feel like this is an effective way to provide
cooling, then why aren't you advocating for more research here instead
of talking about ponzi schemes.

D

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dan Whaley]

Just to remind you--- I am very curious about your data and have
asked for it. (see email pasted below)

I would still love these references if you have them... thanks.

On 7/17/2009 9:10 AM, Oliver Wingenter wrote:
> I am away at a meeting and will get back to you next week. My estimate did
> not include feedbacks and probably over estimates cooling by about a factor
> of three or four which is still a lot of cooling.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Whaley [mailto:dwh...@climos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:05 PM
> To: oliver.w...@gmail.com
> Subject: dms
>
> oliver,
>
> what are your best 4-5 papers (or papers you know of) on the potential
> for DMS to provide a cooling effect from OIF?
>
> do you have copies?
>
> d

>


On Nov 26, 8:22 am, Oliver Wingenter <oli...@nmt.edu> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Dan,

It seems you have not read our Atmospheric Environment papers or our
PNAS paper. We already are advocating enhancing iron on a very
limited basis (~ 2%) for cloud brightening. What we mean by this is,
all around the Southern Ocean several strips a few km wide will be
enhanced with a nanomolar of iron.

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

Dan Whaley wrote:

> Oliver....
>
> Really surprised by your comments, and by your unwillingness to engage in detail. i asked for the paper that you feel covers these points in detail. i also, again, would respectfully ask that if you have papers on DMS that Kelly and I should be aware of, that you provide them. I asked about 6 months ago and, you said to wait... you were rethinking some things.
>
> Do you feel the need to have a public contest about this? can't we all get along?
>
> Also-- i have nowhere advocated for "Full scale fertilization of the Southern Ocean". If you can locate this-- please provide. I am advocating for research-- at somewhat larger scales-- to get data. Do you oppose this?
>
> Dan

> ...
>
> read more »

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Dan,

I recall a couple of months ago you asked me to send you papers on
DMS. I was on travel and never heard from you again. Perhaps you can
hire a student to do your literature searches for you.

Sincerelay,

Oliver Wingenter

PS a few DMS papers (the ones we wrote minus 1 which is AE) are on on
my website.

On Nov 26, 9:44 am, Oliver Wingenter <oliver.wingen...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dan Whaley]

Great idea!

In the meantime, could you be a love and attach the two or three most
relevant ones so I don't have to go thru the 50 papers you've been an
author on since 2005?

Dan

On Nov 26, 9:03 am, Oliver Wingenter <oliver.wingen...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Alan Robock]

Dear Diana,

I would like to add to Dan's list, the American Meteorological Society's
statement on geoengineering from July, 2009, which will be considered
by the American Geophysical Union for endorsement next month. Indeed
there is a consensus for many forms of indoor research (to paraphrase
Jim Fleming) on geoengineering. But there is not a consensus on outdoor
research, that is doing field tests in the atmosphere, on land, or in
the ocean. I think you have to clearly distinguish between these two
types of work.

By the way, at a geoengineering workshop here in Hamburg, Germany, that
ended yesterday, Yuri Izrael, former head to the Russian
Hydrometeorological Office, and now director of Institute of Global
Climate and Ecology in Moscow, called for an international
geoengineering conference including all the nations of the world, not
just the developed ones who are now doing climate modeling, to consider
their interests in this subject and to keep all the work in the open and
transparent. This is exactly what you proposed to several of us last
week in Montreal.

Alan

Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

>>> Let me be clear ? Apart from geoengineering diverting funds from other

>>> climate related research that in my view would be more fruitful,  there is
>>> some research into geoengineering technologies that is harmless.  Climate
>>> scientists should be free to explore whatever interventions they wish in the

>>> laboratory or via computer modelling (?behind closed doors among consenting
>>> adults? as it has been eloquently expressed). But we know how limited those

>>> results can be and how such models often drive demands for real world
>>> analogues to verify or disprove the In silico results and how pressure for
>>> field trials follows quickly on the heels of interesting modelling results.
>>
>>>  It is quite another matter when it comes to leaving the lab and pursuing
>>> experimentation "outside" as James Fleming usefully framed it last week at a
>>> forum in Montreal.  As we have already seen in the case of ocean
>>> fertilization, scientists and companies are anxious to try out their

>>> theories in the real world on ever larger and larger scales and won?t take

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

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Dan,

The literature is quit rich in regards to DMS and albedo. I suggest you
hire a student that has access to the literature and direct them to get
the knowledge you need.

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

PS. However, I can write that OIF will never worked based on a severe
increased in albedo based on our research. As a scientist, or
investment recruiter, I would think you would have wanted to know this
in 2004 when we first alluded to this in our PNAS paper.


Dan Whaley wrote:
> Great... so what seems to be the problem?
>
> Can you please attach your papers?
>
> D

[Ken Caldeira]

Oliver,

When you write "OIF will never worked based on a severe increased in albedo" do you mean "OIF will never work as a carbon capture and storage option because the resulting severe increase in albedo would overcool the environment"?

Best,

Ken

PS. It is usually helpful to point people to your relevant papers when they ask.

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

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

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

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi All

A paper on the subject of which type of Phytoplankton contributes more
to DMS -

Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers
Volume 42, Issue 6, June 1995, Pages 873-892
Relationship between dimethylsulfide and phytoplankton pigment
concentrations in the Ross Sea, Antarctica
Giacomo R. DiTullio* and Walker O. Smith Jr.

"DMS:chl a ratios (58-78 nmol μg-1) were significantly higher in
waters dominated by Phaeocystis antarctica compared to diatom-
dominated waters (2-12 nmol μg-1)."

link to abstract -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGB-3YS8NFB-27&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0d92684f454d965237bf4e4fbfd6bdef

It appears that Diatoms contribute less to DMS than other
phytoplankton.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Nov 28, 11:59 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> Oliver,
>
> When you write "OIF will never worked based on a severe increased in albedo"
> do you mean "OIF will never work as a carbon capture and storage option
> because the resulting severe increase in albedo would overcool the
> environment"?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> PS. It is usually helpful to point people to your relevant papers when they
> ask.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>

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

> ...
>
> read more >>
>
> Wingenter_et_al_AtmEnv2007.pdf
> 107KViewDownload

[Oliver Wingenter]

Dear Group,

Dan Whaley thought I should pass these paper along. Let me know if you
have a hard time getting any of the references.

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

Dan Whaley wrote:

> Oliver-- If you didn't mind, I would be inclined to repost these to
> the forum so that everyone can benefit-- w/ gracious acknowledgment of
> course. Pls let me know if this seems ok to you.
>
> Dan
>
> On 11/28/2009 3:21 PM, Oliver Wingenter wrote:
>> I don't think Kelly got all of the papers I sent.
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> Oliver Wingenter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Oliver Wingenter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oliver Wingenter wrote:
>>>>> My pdfs did not attach. I will send you the pdfs tonight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan Whaley wrote:
>>>>>> Oliver--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A private request, one more time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For both Kelly (cc'd here) and I.
>>>>>> \
>>>>>> Could you, as an expert on the subject, pls foward the 2-5 papers
>>>>>> on DMS (yours or others) that you think are most relevant-- we
>>>>>> would both be quite thankful to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She was the initiator of the original request to me this summer,
>>>>>> that I forwarded along-- so either way, you might send them along
>>>>>> to her. Thanks for your consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan

[Ken Caldeira]

Oliver,

Repeating my earlier email in different words:

Do I understand correctly that your objection to ocean iron fertilization is that it is too effective at cooling the Earth via the DMS pathway to ever be of much use in cooling the Earth via the CO2 removal pathway?

Does your objection apply only to using ocean iron fertilization to cool the Earth via the CO2 removal pathway or does it extend to cooling the Earth via the DMS pathway?

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

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

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu

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

[oli...@nmt.edu]

Dear Ken,

We described a way to cool the SO region by iron fertilizing a few percent
of the SO. At the scale need for OIF to be effective for CO2
sequestration, to much cooling would likely occur.

Our calculation were done an a spread sheet and therefore do not include
feedbacks. The DOE is working on a more complete Earth System model but
it will be a quite a while before we can use that.

Stimulating the phytoplankton for either purpose would mean raising the Fe
concentration from ~ 0.2 nanmolar to a few nm. I am not sure the optimal
amount Fe has been determined yet.


Oliver

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

>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>> .

[M V Bhaskar]

Dr Wingenter

Can you please elaborate on the Fe you are referring too in your post
-

> Stimulating the phytoplankton for either purpose would mean raising the Fe
> concentration from ~ 0.2 nanmolar to a few nm. I am not sure the optimal
> amount Fe has been determined yet.

The type of Fe and the way in which Fe is delivered would have an
impact the quantity to be used.
If a superior solution is available you could get the desired result
with lesser amount of Fe used.
One member of this group said in a private email to me that our
product does not contain enough Fe.
The fact is that it is able to produce the required bloom of Diatom
Algae with very little Fe, due to the use of nano technology.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

> > kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu

> ...
>
> read more »