Dear Ken, We described a way to cool the SO region by iron fertilizing a few percent of the SO. At the scale need for OIF to be effective for CO2 sequestration, to much cooling would likely occur.
Our calculation were done an a spread sheet and therefore do not include feedbacks. The DOE is working on a more complete Earth System model but it will be a quite a while before we can use that. Stimulating the phytoplankton for either purpose would mean raising the Fe concentration from ~ 0.2 nanmolar to a few nm. I am not sure the optimal amount Fe has been determined yet. Oliver > 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. > > > -- 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.
