Oliver, Repeating my earlier email in different words:
Do I understand correctly that your objection to ocean iron fertilization is that it is too effective at cooling the Earth via the DMS pathway to ever be of much use in cooling the Earth via the CO2 removal pathway? Does your objection apply only to using ocean iron fertilization to cool the Earth via the CO2 removal pathway or does it extend to cooling the Earth via the DMS pathway? Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ 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 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Group, > > Dan Whaley thought I should pass these paper along. Let me know if you > have a hard time getting any of the references. > > Sincerely, > > Oliver Wingenter > > Dan Whaley wrote: > > Oliver-- If you didn't mind, I would be inclined to repost these to > > the forum so that everyone can benefit-- w/ gracious acknowledgment of > > course. Pls let me know if this seems ok to you. > > > > Dan > > > > On 11/28/2009 3:21 PM, Oliver Wingenter wrote: > >> I don't think Kelly got all of the papers I sent. > >> > >> Oliver > >> > >> Oliver Wingenter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Oliver Wingenter wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Oliver Wingenter wrote: > >>>>> My pdfs did not attach. I will send you the pdfs tonight. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dan Whaley wrote: > >>>>>> Oliver-- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A private request, one more time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For both Kelly (cc'd here) and I. > >>>>>> \ > >>>>>> Could you, as an expert on the subject, pls foward the 2-5 papers > >>>>>> on DMS (yours or others) that you think are most relevant-- we > >>>>>> would both be quite thankful to you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> She was the initiator of the original request to me this summer, > >>>>>> that I forwarded along-- so either way, you might send them along > >>>>>> to her. Thanks for your consideration. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/27/2009 7:58 PM, Oliver Wingenter 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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]<geoengineering%[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]<geoengineering%[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.
