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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Group, > > Is full scale OIF still being considered? Seriously, I don't know. > > 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 > > On Nov 25, 6:54 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > FYI, I believe this is from Diana Bronson of ETC: > > > >http://www.etcgroup.org/en/about/staff/diana-bronson > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Diana Bronson > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
