M . V. and list, The large increase in salmon can not be credited to a short term (days) bump in algal growth within a tiny fraction of the full range of the area(s) these salmon use...over their life cycle. There is simply no...no remotely plausible corrilation.
Also, increased (unconfined) nutrients could have just as easily kicked off viral/bacterial pathigens, hyper growth of parasites and or litorial benthic biotic crashes. In extreamly brief words, all salmanoids require robust and ongoing supplies of feed (3-10+ years) before they mature and group inshore. They are solitatary animal that avoid schooling until their final dash to the rivers! Many of animals withhn this last run did not even come close to the oif site...in their life time! Also, the stock in question may easily have been fingerlings a decade ago...and... three years ago. All runs are a mix of species and ages. The OI F effort was neither robust enough nor contenious enough to have been a significant (positive) factor in the broad matrix of factors which make a run happen. I'm confident that the increase is due to many other factors other than a dinky little short term algal bloom in an small issolated field. Also, when litorialy sited OIF does trigger a die off (which is highly plausible), who will pay for it? (Think possible $30M+ fine/10+ years in jail for kiling endangered animals) OIF should be strictly limited to the STCZs and, even then, confined/controlled within tanks. Why not maximize the benifits/resorces and limit the risk through using very simplistic/basic marine engineering means and methods? I'm not opposed to using the microbial loop in an highly controlled and regulated way. After all, we exist largely due to that marine biological loop and the loop is a strong ce tool. Let's not screw the loop up nor give it mythical powers. Michael Sent with Verizon Mobile Email ---Original Message--- From: [email protected] Sent: 12/26/2014 12:06 am To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? Hi Michael The contradiction in your statements are obvious - If $ 150 million have been spent over past 10 years on one project and many such projects are being executed, why is there a sudden increase in this year's Salmon run, there ought to have been a steady increase over the past 10 years. I am not saying that the entire increase in this year's Salmon run is due to the Haida Nation experiment, but the link should be studied and more such experiments should be conducted. Far too much effort is being wasted in criticism instead of moving forward with systematic scientific research. Regards Bhaskar On Thursday, 25 December 2014 04:14:32 UTC+5:30, Michael Hayes wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > The whole concept of the salmon population dramatically increasing due to > a few days of extra feed is, on the face of it, simply ridiculous. Here in > the Pacific Northwest there has been an ongoing multi decades effort at > salmon > recovery <http://www.rco.wa.gov/%5C/salmon_recovery/efforts.shtml> and > the last few years we have seen the northward migration of warmer waters > which has reach just offshore the Salish Sea > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea>. This warming of the offshore > waters has increased the primary production in those waters and many of the > Fraser River and Skagit River <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagit_River> > (my local river) salmon mature in the offshore waters outside the Salish > Sea. On the Baker River > <https://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Fish.aspx> alone, over $150M > has been spent in less than 10 years, on one salmon recovery project alone > and there are multiple international projects of the same caliber. Thus, > the claim that the OIF effort miraculously multiplied the salmon population > in here in the PNW is not credible....by a long shot. > > Best, > > Michael > > On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:37:37 PM UTC-8, Bill Stahl wrote: >> >> To the extent that an increased salmon catch was due to OIF, the Haida >> experiment turns the usual CDR issue on its head. Instead of a CDR idea >> looking for any possible economic justification to bring it over the line >> into financial feasibility, this would be a financially feasible >> aquaculture technique with a potential add-on subsidy from carbon pricing. >> Has anyone compared what the Haida spent vs. what the salmon industry got >> out of it, to calculate a rough ROI? (Allowing for a range of estimates of >> how much was due to OIF*). I can easily imagine a bunch of fishermen in a >> Ketchikan bar swapping stories about what a great season they had because >> of the Haida project, then talking about subsidizing this money-maker with >> carbon credits. >> >> ‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually used to warn against GE research >> (e.g. Hamilton’s ‘No, Let’s Not “Just Do The Research”) but there is a >> slippery slope in carbon pricing too. The carbon prices cited by >> environmental advocates as sufficient to change the energy system quickly >> would be far higher than those required to get many CDR schemes into >> action, including ones like OIF that are anathema to many of the most vocal >> supporters of carbon pricing. And if an OIFapproach can already make money >> unsubsidized for existing, and influential, economic interests then >> investment will flow to it. If you support a strong carbon price - and >> that’s the organizing principle of climate change advocacy across the board >> - you may already pulling an oar in this particular rowboat, even if >> you hate the idea. >> >> Which is OK by me. But perhaps the people who so annoy Tulip say the >> things they do because they figured this out too. >> >> Any suggestions of other fisheries that might be amenable to this >> approach? Clearly most species do not gather at as convenient a >> feeding-trough as a Haida Eddy, but surely there are some. >> >> *Of course how effective the Haida OIF was as CDR is a separate issue. >> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout.
