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 > > On 11/26/2009 8:44 AM, Oliver Wingenter wrote: >> 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 ยป >>> >> -- >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- 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.
