The first benefit of Iron Fertilization would be restoration of Whales, crustaceans and finfish. Unfortunately people are ignoring this benefit due to narrow interpretation of the theory of Iron Fertilization.
The increase in CO2 emissions benefited people for about 200 years and it is only now that we are witnessing the problems. The benefit of Iron Fertilization too would be similar the benefit would first be in restoration of fish in the oceans and only after this would there be any large sequestration of carbon. But the fact that is ecologically and economically beneficial is being ignored. Whale and finfish population of oceans has declined by 75% to 90%, restoration requires some type of Ocean Fertilization. regards Bhaskar On Sunday, 20 October 2013 23:42:02 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: > > Dear Emily, > Just to clarify: > 1) Whales themselves are net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere - they > consume and respire many times their weight in marine carbon that they then > ventilate to air. HOWEVER, it has been suggested that their nutrient-rich > poop (which floats) could fuel further marine photosynthesis and hence > effect net air CO2 drawdown relative to what would happen without whales. > I'm a little skeptical, but let's do more research to find out. > > 2) Baleen whales solve several major problems facing the algae biofuels > industry - they efficiently harvest algae (OK invertebrates that eat algae) > and convert this on the fly to massive stores of hydrocarbons in a manner > that Sapphire Energy, the DOD, etc can only dream about. Whales are the > Chevrons and ExxonMobils of the ocean, and were exploited as such into the > last century. > > 3) Obviously, we are not going back to these bad old days, but it is food > for thought as to how we might be able to build on this very efficient > model of marine biofuel production to help solve our current energy and CO2 > problem. Ranching whales might seem shocking, but then look what we do to > another mammals. I suggest free-range ranching and humane liposuction to > harvest the oil to avoid killing the animals, but I'm just thinking out > loud here. Who knows, maybe some engineer will invent a mechanical whale > and solve the whole animal exploitation dilemma (still, at the expense of > those poor, defenseless, and beautiful algae). > > In any case, I think our days of hands-off management of a once pristine > ocean needs to be replaced by a more hands-on, pro-active style, the > details of which are in need some serious debate and research: > http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html > > I'm just saying that we cannot ignore 70% of the planet, either as a > victim of our activities, or a possible solver of our current predicament. > Mother Nature won't. > > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "[email protected] <javascript:>" > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > > *To:* Emily Lewis-Brown <[email protected] <javascript:>>; > [email protected] <javascript:>; Michael Hayes > <[email protected]<javascript:>>; > "[email protected] <javascript:>" > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:58 AM > *Subject:* Whales and harvesting oil Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's > unlikely CDRers > > Ps i sorry, i should have added, any wording around 'harvesting' whales or > using the oil, would i expect be met with ngo outcry. > The whales are a good source of carbon stotage when they are live and > swimming around the ocean. Their long migration habits are a critical > component of their feeding and carbon cycling eco-functions also. > Thanks > Emily > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2 > ------------------------------ > *From: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Sender: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Date: *Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:52:08 +0000 > *To: *<[email protected] <javascript:>>; Michael Hayes< > [email protected] <javascript:>>; [email protected]<javascript:> > <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers > > Hi, > Whales are very slow growing and reproducing animals and would not be a > quick store of co2. > While the ngo community would welcome support in protecting wild whales > and helping populations re-grow, i anticipate huge resistance to the word > 'ranching' as it suggests captivity. > Please consider wording which supports exisiting whale cionservation > methods. > Thanks > Emily. > Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2 > ------------------------------ > *From: * Greg Rau <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *Sender: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Date: *Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:05:01 -0700 (PDT) > *To: *Michael Hayes<[email protected] <javascript:>>; > [email protected] > <javascript:><[email protected]<javascript:> > > > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers > > OK, thanks Michael. I'll tell my squadron of B 52s hold off aerial > bombing of the N hemisphere with earthworms until we get more information. > As for whales I'm a big fan of whale ranching, especially if carbon credits > are involved - see earlier posts. > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Michael Hayes <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Cc:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 12:27 PM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers > > Greg, Ron et al., > > One issue with earthworms is that they can consume forest floor nutrients > useful to the macro flora. Here In the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, > where earthworms are not indigenous yet have become ubiquitous, tree growth > rates have been adversely effected by the introduction of worms. Here is a > sample of available media literature: Invasive Earthworms > <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html> > > *"All of the terrestrial earthworms in Minnesota are non-native, invasive > species from Europe and Asia (There is a native aquatic species that > woodcock eat). At least fifteen non-native terrestrial species have been > introduced so far. Studies conducted by the University of Minnesota and > forest managers show that at least seven species are invading our hardwood > forests and causing the loss of tree seedlings, wildflowers, and ferns.".* > * > * > This may be another case which illustrates that the balancing act of > Nature's matrix of relationships is not well suited for 'system by system' > treatment. If one relationship is broken it does seem to cause an > unraveling of other seemingly unrelated relationships. Another example of > this type of matrix disruption is shown by the over harvesting of Baleen > Whales; which has now led to a significant decrease in oceanic CDR via loss > of macro algae. > > Earth system science may be the ultimate chess game. > > > Best, > > > Michael > * * > > On Friday, October 18, 2013 11:31:26 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote: > > Greg and list: > > This is my first day back from the 4-day biochar conference (went > well). I have read the abstract and the supplementary material, but not > yet the full article (copy would be much appreciated). I am pretty sure > the authors are encouraging vermiculture for CDR reasons - but that the > authors did not consider biochar in their studies. I am also pretty sure > that worms prefer soil with biochar augmentation. So to answer Greg's > question, the answer is probably "no" - but I need to read the full article > to give a better answer. > > There is a fair amount of literature on the coupling of worms and > biochar, but I found none addressing "better than" and don't think this > particular article will help. Both worms and biochar increase carbon above > and below ground. That is where the real CDR will be taking place. > > Ron > > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Better than biochar? > Greg > > > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html > Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification > of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization > Yuanhu > Shao<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-8> > & Shenglei > Fu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-9> > Affiliations<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#affil-auth> > Contributions<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#contrib-auth>Cor > > responding > author<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#corres-auth> > , > Deborah A. > Neher<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-6> > ,Jianxiong > Li<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-7> > Roger A. > Burke<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-4> > ,Jianping > Wu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-5> > , > Paul F. > Hendrix<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-2> > ,Lauren E. > Dame<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-3> > , > Weixin > Zhang<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-1> > , > Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2576 doi:10.1038/ncomms3576 > Received 28 April 2013 Accepted 09 September 2013 Published 15 October > 2013 > Article tools > Abstract > A recent review concluded that earthworm presence increases CO2 emissions > by 33% but does not affect soil organic carbon stocks. However, the > findings are controversial and raise new questions. Here we hypothesize > that neither an increase in CO2 emission nor in stabilized carbon would > entirely reflect the earthworms’ contribution to net carbon sequestration. > We show how two widespread earthworm invaders affect net carbon > sequestration through impacts on the balance of carbon mineralization and > carbon stabilization. Earthworms accelerate carbon activation and induce > unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with carbon > mineralization, which generates an earthworm-mediated ‘carbon trap’. We > introduce the new concept of sequestration quotient to quantify the unequal > processes. The patterns of CO2 emission and net carbon sequestration are > predictable by comparing sequestration quotient values between treatments > with and without earthworms. This study clarifies an ecological mechanism > by which earthworms may regulate the terrestrial carbon sink. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@ googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ > group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ > groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > . > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
