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 <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected]; > [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > read more >> > > Wingenter_et_al_AtmEnv2007.pdf > 107KViewDownload -- 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.
