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 > On Nov 26, 9:30 am, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
