I realize that the group is generally focused on large-scale, chemical
applications in both the atmosphere and oceans as primary,
geoengineering solutions. These are well-known contentious issues and
yet deserving of rigorous investigation and pilot testing.
Concurrently, if not this group, then another should apply such rigor to
investigating measures to exploit the fecundity of marine species. This
biological aspect offers the universally-acceptable process to rapidly
increase nutrient cycling for increasing primary productivity in all
oceans and moving dissolved carbon into the marine biomass and deep
ocean sequestration. Life is tenacious and robust. Implementation of
strict ocean stock management policies, enforced by national navies,
coast guards, and marine agencies can facilitate a rapid response from
the ocean ecosystem to achieve many of the group's goals. It may offer
a path of least resistance.
Many references exist on this topic that lay the framework for such a
global geoengineering program, as indicated in this example:
TEMPERATE MARINE RESERVES ENHANCE TARGETED BUT NOT UNTARGETED FISHES IN
MULTIPLE NO-TAKE MPAS
Irene Tetreault1 and Richard F. Ambrose Ecological Applications, 17(8),
2007, pp. 2251-2267 (c) 2007 by the Ecological Society of America
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California,
Los Angeles, California 90095-1772 USA
Abstract.
Although many papers report the effects of no-take marine protected
areas (MPAs or reserves), scientifically rigorous empirical studies are
rare, particularly for temperate reef fishes. We evaluated the responses
of fish populations to protection from fishing in reserves by comparing
densities and sizes inside and outside of five no-take reserves in
southern California, USA. Our results are robust because we compared
responses across multiple rocky-reef reserves in two different years and
controlled for possible site differences by (a) ensuring that habitat
characteristics were the same inside and outside reserves, and (b)
sampling species that are not targeted, which would not be expected to
have a direct response to fishing. We compared fish density and size and
calculated biomass and egg production across all five sites. Fishes
targeted by recreational and/or commercial fisheries consistently
exhibited increases in mean density (150%), size (30%), biomass (440%),
and egg production (730%) inside reserves. Reserve effects were greatest
for legal-sized targeted fishes: significantly greater densities were
found exclusively inside reserves for targeted species (580%), the
largest size classes existed only inside reserves, and mean biomass was
1000% higher. These responses were unlikely to have been caused by
habitat differences because there were no significant differences in
habitat characteristics between reserve and control locations. Densities
of non-targeted species did not differ between reserve and non-reserve
locations, further supporting the conclusions that differences in
targeted species between reserve and control locations were due to
harvesting rather than site-specific effects. Although MPAs cannot
replace traditional fisheries management, the concentration of increased
biomass and egg production is a unique MPA benefit that serves both
reserves and fisheries. Scientifically rigorous studies that include
multiple reserves, such as this study, are needed to inform management
and policy decisions.
Again, I suggest to the group the concept of laying the oceans fallow at
something like 5 or 10-year regular cycles with limited, regulated,
intermittent harvest until the biomass has increased 5 fold (pre-1700
conditions). Of course, commercial LSM facilities would be promoted and
supported by national governments regulating EEZs and the UN for
international waters.
Bruce
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 4:58 AM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Implications of Current Developments in International
Liability for the Practice of Marine Geo-engineering Activities
Hi All
If something turned out to be a great way to extend bio-diversity,
increase food supplies and save lives should we sue people for not doing
it?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 06/12/2013 02:09, Mike MacCracken wrote:
Interesting how seemingly confident the author is of potentially
adverse impacts of iron fertilization. How would the harm be identified
and proven? There are ways to work at determining if fertilization would
work, but how would the damage done be figured out in a convincing way?
Lots could be asserted, but what could be proven? Sure there are
differences, but does that make it
