Hi, To save the need for grinding, we can increase the serpentinization rate by boring holes or cutting slits with a chain saw to permit more sea water to take part If we extend their water paths into deeper depths to move sea water further down, we can see a lowering of the ocean levels close to the spreading ridges. It would require an extensive fracture network to provide the surface area needed for significant reaction.
Parminder Singh Malaysia On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 7:43:02 PM UTC+8, Parminder Singh wrote: > > HI > > I have considered the use of wave sinks to move large amounts of water > into the depths to reduce them in size. > Ex of this is a Salter Sink currently designed to tame hurricanes. > See attach for info. > > Parminder Singh > Malaysia > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:25:24 PM UTC+8, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> Has anyone looked at dumping olivine into turbidity flows, rather than >> using beach wave action for grinding? >> >> As this could be done in the open ocean, it would avoid shoreline >> regulations. >> >> It could also be used to adjust pH at depth, which is otherwise a >> significant problem. >> >> A >> On 15 Jan 2015 09:55, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dr. Schuiling et al, >>> >>> Your work does offer an elegant summation of a logic which few can >>> dispute, especially someone as scientifically ill equipped as myself. The >>> use of olivine opens up a number of far more complex climate change >>> mitigation and adaptation scenarios than what you propose and there is a >>> need to more often give credit to the importance of this mineral and your >>> work with it. I for one, intend to better highlight the importance of >>> olivine within my own work on the IMBECS Protocol. >>> >>> I realize you see little value in spending time on promoting vast scale >>> oceanic farming as depicted in the IMBECS Draft. However, here in the US >>> the use of littoral waters for shore line operations, such as you have >>> rightfully proposed, face massive regulatory restrictions and limitations >>> (even for temporary scientific investigations). Thus, the deployment of a >>> large scale network of olivine/diatom shoreline operations in this country >>> is not practical. This type of extreme regulatory burden is one of the >>> critical reasons why I'm working on an offshore version of your >>> olivine/diatom concept. >>> >>> Thank you for allowing us to read your draft. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:09:23 AM UTC-8, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have written down some of my thoughts on “natural” geoengineering. >>>> I haven’t published it, but would appreciate comments, Olaf Schuiling >>>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> -- 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.
