Ken etal 1. This is mainly to say that Dr. Kallio was referencing Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, not Greenpeace, re Oxygen depletion (your question below). I talked about her in my last message and would rather not give her more publicity here on this same topic. Anyone who can't find her quote, let me know.
2. But I think Greenpeace needs more discussion here. I have generally been a supporter of Greenpeace - but I think they are as likely to be supportive of Geoengineering as they are of biomass (respectively # 8 and #3 in Dr. Kallio's list below. This is to hope we can figure out how to get this group turned around - which I think is Dr. Kallio's hope as well. 3. I haven't found a specific lengthy reference by Greenpeace to Geoengineering (#8), but re Biomass (#3) I am disappointed in the treatment (neglect) of biomass in these two fairly recent Greenpeace reports: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2011/10/ForestBiomess_Eng.pdf http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/6/greenpeace-energy-r-evolution.pdf 4. I haven't yet looked at each in detail, but think they have paid zero attention to the role of biomass (stored energy) in backing up the large amounts of wind and solar they postulate. I also see nothing on biomass for CDR. Is there any way we can get their attention on these two matters? 5. The WWF has taken a completely different (and very positive) view of biomass - and I would guess on CDR. See: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ 6. Are the WWF and Greenpeace talking to each other? Cany Ken or anyone facilitate that dialog? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: "Veli Albert Kallio" <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> Cc: "bhaskarmv 64" <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com>, "Geoengineering FIPC" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 4:45:25 PM Subject: Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising Just to be clear, I have seen no evidence that Greenpeace has anything to do with the inane remarks about oxygen depletion. I have had interaction with at least two Greenpeace scientists (specifically, Paul Johnston and David Santillo). While they have sometimes argued for positions that I have disagreed with, I have found them both to be thoughtful and respectful of scientific facts. So, while there may be sound criticism of positions taken by Greenpeace, let's not associate them with positions they have not held. If I am wrong, and Greenpeace has said that "carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms", I would like to see the citation. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Veli Albert Kallio < albert_kal...@hotmail.com > wrote: "New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans." Dr. Mae-Wan Ho This is an excellent example of bad environmental campaign that is basically a climate or biofuel scare industry (just out there to cash coldly on people's fears). I have seen the 4 scares coming from Greenpeace's fund-rising department's conveyor belt which reduces the credibility of a real scare: climate change Nuclear-Scare ( the China Phenomenon of overheated cores apparently melting themselves through the rocks all the way to China) GM-Food Scare ( the Frankenstein Foods developed by the Monsanto to create crops that poison people and turn ecosystems lifeless by the alien genes) Biofuel Scare ( the Biofuel Starvation resulting as all the food is used by bio diesel drinking cars and people starving in masses as a result) -- I like that idea of oxygen scarcity, scare-industrialists at Greenpeace should follow it up: C + O2 consumes more O2 than C in biofuel combustion into CO2. DDT-Scare ( the Silent Spring that a blanket-ban of this insecticide was better for Africa and its people in all instances and in Malaria infection management) These are further candidates for Greenpeace and other campaigns to keep their industry going and receiving donations, but so doing are misguided Contrail-Scare ( the Aviation Fuel Poisoning by some elements in government, academia or industry who want less people) Vaccine-Scare ( the Vaccination Poisons AIDS / MRI etc used by some rogue elements in government, academia or industry who want less people) Astronomy-Scare ( the HAARP Scare for astronomers to irradiate people, blow out our atmosphere, or whatever) Geoengineering -Scare ( the Scientists Playing God to stop them destroying the nature and people by engineering our environment for the worse) For our Group the last, Geoengineering Scare Industry, is the most relevant one. But it isn't the only one and we should see it as part of our age to create scares where none exists, when there is an opportunity to raise money to set up an organisation that is then fighting the perceived threat to the mankind or our ecosystems. If Geoengineering becomes necessary and accepted, I forecast that these scare-industry groups are re-formulated in fashion of the groups that campaign locally to raise funds against constructing wind turbines or solar power stations. Give the opportunity to an empty-pocket (out-of-capital) industrialist and he establishes his NGO just to beg money. Businessmen crooks set up a charity when they are incapable to make other products or services that the public is willing to pay for. We just have to live with this reality like in this matter expressed as above. From: kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 08:36:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com I hope everyone recognizes that this must be some sort of joke. No reasonable scientist could believe that "carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans". I prefer to think that this is an attempt at humor, because I would not like to imagine that these people are innumerate crackpots. There are something like 3.7 x 10^21 moles of O2 in the atmosphere. If we are emitting say 10 GtC per year, and we round off to 10 g / molC, this is 10^15 moles C. So, at this rate we are depleting about 0.00003 % of the atmospheric O2 each year. This is not a policy concern. On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, M V Bhaskar < bhaskarmv...@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising Implications for Climate Change Policies New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans Dr. Mae-Wan Ho .. Mae-Wan Ho Comment left 22nd August 2009 06:06:43 Ben, you are missing something. First, O2 is there principally because of carbon storage time, its rate of drop currently is ~10 ppm [ per annum ], but it could well swing further downwards. ----------------------- CO2 increase is 1.8 ppm per annum - increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in 200 years at an accelerating rate. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceanCarbonSink.php "The researchers found that the average photosynthesis over all the marine stations in northeast Atlantic was 2 600 + 271 mg O2/m2/day, while the average community respiration was 3 821 + 276 mg O2/m2/day. Clearly, respiration rate was far in excess of photosynthesis. Additional evidence indicated that over the period of a year, respiration still exceeded gross production." http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarmingPlankton.php "The plankton of the oceans will capture 4 Gt of carbon less per year by the end of this century, representing a reduction of 21 percent. This is equivalent to one-third of current worldwide emissions by industrial activities and would significantly aggravate the anthropogenic effects on climate change." Restoring the Phytoplankton of the oceans is the best solution to stop increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . </blockquote> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
