Bhaskar and ccs
This is to ask you to look more carefully at Dr. Ho's contributions on O2 loss
- per comments earlier from Dr. Caldeira ("a joke?") and myself.
It is great that she is supporting more work on ocean biomass - your primary
area of interest - but I feel you will lose support for that if you use this
"authority" to make your case. If ocean biomass makes sense (and I think it
does for Biochar and energy as well as food), then it is hard for me to see
how/why land based similar activities don't do as well - which she dismisses.
Below, I ask about your quotes from Dr. Ho's work - in an attempt to get at her
and your understanding of carbon sequestration (CDR) topics.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "M V Bhaskar" <[email protected]>
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Cc: "bhaskarmv 64" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 12:39:46 AM
Subject: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising
[ 1] 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
[RWLa: Bhaskar - Are you endorsing this view? (Not clear why you have quoted
her.) I don't think this is accurate - from anything I have read.]
..
[1b?] 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.
[RWL1b: I found this reply to "Ben" at the site you gave:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php
She continued, saying:
" Second if increase in CO2 is so good for plant growth it could have
compensated for O2 falling, but it hasn't. There is also evidence that increase
in CO2 does not translate into increase in carbon fixation; instead it could
merely speed up the carbon cycle, making forests and other ecosystems less
effective in sequestering carbon, thereby making things worse (see previous
article More CO2 Could Mean Less Biodiversity and Worse,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LOG7.php). Speeding up the carbon cycle in the current
context is certainly decreasing the carbon storage time. The devil is in the
detail and the connections. "
[RWL1c: Ben earlier said of her work " I have rarely seen such a sophomoric
analysis." - and I have to agree. Can you or anyone tell me what she is saying
here? I think she sees no chance for CDR (including your type as well as
Biochar) - which is baffling. ]
I am confused by the "------" next. Not sure where the next quote 1c (or your
words??) fits in - certainly not in dispute.
-----------------------
[1c] CO2 increase is 1.8 ppm per annum - increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm
in 200 years at an accelerating rate.
[2] 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."
[RWL2 I find this very surprising data. I have always read that globally
average photosynthesis per day (or year?) is very close to average respiration.
This is off by almost 50%. Anyone able to justify these numbers? She cites a
group of Spanish scientists in her reference [4] - but no way (without buying
into her system) to track that cite. ]
[3] 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.
[RWL3. I doubt the statistics in the above cited paragraph. Presumably this
last sentence is yours (?? - you haven't put most of her above material in
quotes). I am not sure that "restoring" is the " best " way - but I certainly
support R&D in this direction. But it seems to me that without making Biochar
from about half of this added ocean biomass (maybe also BECCS someday), there
is not going to be much decrease in atmospheric CO2 (not much CDR).
Can you endorse her numbers (4, 21, one-third) in this quote? They don't fit
what else I have read on ocean-based photosynthesis.
I repeat that I like what you have written on increasing ocean-based (maybe
shore based?) increased photosynthesis. This in part is to assist your efforts.
Ron
--
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.
