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:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:05 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: > > 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. > > ... > > 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.
