Re: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

[Greg Rau]

For some perspective on why we haven't converted ocean deserts to C sinks, see 
these early arguments from some very influential oceanographic 
heavyweightshttp://www.bio.miami.edu/prince/Chisholm.pdf
Ken and I offered an alternative to this "hands off the ocean" view 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5553/275.4.full but to little effect.

Now that we've learned that land biology manipulations aren't going to 
singelhandley save our bacon (or the 
ocean):http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2016EF000469/asset/eft2203.pdf?v=1=j3pbjnzv=8ecb4ce810928afd86afbe71a43e4c644cb0149a
is it time yet to revisit what the other 70% of the Earth's surface and 99% of 
it's livable volume might have to offer? Or shall the false concept of 
preserving a "still pristine" ocean remain the enemy of research into 
potentially planet-saving actions?

Greg


  From: Brian Cady 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 5:17 AM
 Subject: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
   
Perhaps it will help to emphasize the scale of the OIF opportunity. It takes 
energy to fix air's carbon, and sunlight is a most sustainable energy source. 
Much earth-incident sunlight is already used by life on earth, but desert areas 
as well as High Nutrient - Low Chlorophyll ocean (HNLC) areas both have low 
productivity. Deserts cover 10% of earth’s dry land, whileHNLC waters stretch 
across 1/5th of the oceans, Dry land coversnearly 30% of earth, while water 
covers about 70%. 10% of 30% is 3%; 20% of 70% is 14%, 4.8-foldmore, hence, 
opportunities for engaging sunlight energy in carbonreduction in HNLC waters 
may exceed those in deserts. Providing trace iron to HNLC areas may be the 
least expensive carbon fix, and, as Russell Weitz points out, we're already 
doing it unintentionally through ship rusting, as well as through combustion of 
iron-containing fuel in ships, etc. that cross HNLC areas.

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright Water wrote:
Let me repeat the essence of what I wrote in response to Jeff in Nature-- 
Marine corrosion  results in every  unprotected square meter of a steel ship's 
immersed surface sheding an average of 8 g/m2  or more of iron a year. The 
average laden vessel-  a 30,000 tonne Handymax, has an immersed surface of  
~8,000 m2, and large containerships and tankers run up to 2 hectares each.  so 
each ship may be expected to shed  roughly six to twentty kg a year. As the 
world fleetin service exceeds 10,000 such ships, iron fertilization in the sea 
lanes is already  in the range of 60 to 200 tonnes of iron.. not counting 
smaller but more numerous  craft, many correctly classified as 'rustbuckets, ' 
sunken vessells and iron wharfage and coastal protection.
If as little as  a few %  of  the  immersed  steel has been imperfectly 
maintained ,the 10 tonne  release criterion has been met or exceeded -annually, 
for roughly the last 100 years- 



On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:11:24 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:

https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- 
sparks-controversy-1.22031

Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in Chile, but 
researchers doubt its motives.   
   - Jeff Tollefson
23 May 2017
Article tools
   
   - PDF
   - Rights & Permissions
Blickwinkel/AlamyPhytoplankton need iron to make energy by 
photosynthesis.Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop 
tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, 
the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it 
wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 
project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium on 
commercial ocean fertilization.The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of 
Vancouver, Canada, says that it is seeking permits from the Chilean government 
to release up to 10 tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of 
Coquimbo as early as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the 
organization grew out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions 
of Vancouver, that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some 
researchers suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an 
unproven and potentially harmful activity.“They claim that by producing more 
phytoplankton, they could help the recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo 
Ulloa, director of the Millennium Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, 
Chile. “We don’t see any evidence to support that claim.”
Related stories
   
   - Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods
   - Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire
   - Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan
More related storiesTensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute 
went public with 

[geo] US exit from Paris climate accord makes discussing how and whether to engineer the planet even harder

[Andrew Lockley]

http://theconversation.com/us-exit-from-paris-climate-accord-makes-discussing-how-and-whether-to-engineer-the-planet-even-harder-78574
*US exit from Paris climate accord makes discussing how and whether to
engineer the planet even harder*
June 8, 2017 3.35am BST
 David A. Dana

The Paris Agreement could provide a forum for international cooperation on
risky, planet-scale engineering to cool the Earth.Tatiana
Grozetskaya/Shutterstcok.com


   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   

   -
   -

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
has invoked condemnation and consternation

from
many commentators, including many of the United States’ strongest allies

.

While the withdrawal undoubtedly will impede efforts to reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions – and very regrettably so – it may have a negative
effect on another area of global climate negotiation: geoengineering.

Geoengineering, in the form of deflecting the sun’s energy
, has been discussed as a
technologically feasible, yet highly risky, near-term response to the rapid
warming of the planet. The only reasonable, and indeed sane, way for the
debate over the contentious question of geoengineering to proceed is in the
context of inclusive, transparent, reasoned international cooperation – the
same process that led to the Paris Agreement.

Yet the Trump withdrawal has weakened the very institution that could be
the most viable nexus for such international cooperation.
What’s inside Paris accord

Mitigating the effects of climate change by lowering greenhouse gas levels
is the primary focus of the Paris Agreement, which is built on voluntary
commitments by each member state to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The
Trump administration’s withdrawal – and more generally, its rejection of
the Obama-era efforts to cut emissions via the Clean Power Plan

–
may lead other countries to back away from their commitments.

But climate change mitigation is only part of the needed global response to
climate change in the coming decades. There also is a need for global
cooperation with respect to both climate change adaptation and
geoengineering. The agreement could foster such cooperation, but again,
only if nations do not defect.
One of the most discussed and least expensive methods for cooling the Earth
is blocking the sun’s radiation by releasing microscopic particles into the
atmosphere. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/flickr.com

, CC BY 

Like climate mitigation, the need to adapt to climate change is explicitly
built into the Paris Agreement. The accord calls for the transfer of
resources

[geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

[Brian Cady]

Perhaps it will help to emphasize the scale of the OIF opportunity. It 
takes energy to fix air's carbon, and sunlight is a most sustainable energy 
source. Much earth-incident sunlight is already used by life on earth, but 
desert areas as well as High Nutrient - Low Chlorophyll ocean (HNLC) areas 
both have low productivity. Deserts cover 10% of earth’s dry land, while 
HNLC waters stretch across 1/5th of the oceans, Dry land covers nearly 30% 
of earth, while water covers about 70%. 10% of 30% is 3%; 20% of 70% is 
14%, 4.8-fold more, hence, opportunities for engaging sunlight energy in 
carbon reduction in HNLC waters may exceed those in deserts. Providing 
trace iron to HNLC areas may be the least expensive carbon fix, and, as 
Russell Weitz points out, we're already doing it unintentionally through 
ship rusting, as well as through combustion of iron-containing fuel in 
ships, etc. that cross HNLC areas.

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright Water 
wrote:
>
> Let me repeat the essence of what I wrote in response to Jeff in Nature-- 
>
> Marine corrosion  results in every  unprotected square meter of a steel 
> ship's immersed surface sheding an average of 8 g/m2  or more of iron a 
> year. The average laden vessel-  a 30,000 tonne Handymax, has an immersed 
> surface of  ~8,000 m2, and large containerships and tankers run up to 2 
> hectares each.  so each ship may be expected to shed  roughly six to 
> twentty kg a year. As the world fleetin service exceeds 10,000 such ships, 
> iron fertilization in the sea lanes is already  in the range of 60 to 200 
> tonnes of iron.. not counting smaller but more numerous  craft, many 
> correctly classified as 'rustbuckets, ' sunken vessells and iron wharfage 
> and coastal protection.
>
> If as little as  a few %  of  the  immersed  steel has been imperfectly 
> maintained ,the 10 tonne  release criterion has been met or exceeded 
> -annually, for roughly the last 100 years- 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:11:24 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031
>>
>> Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
>>
>> Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in 
>> Chile, but researchers doubt its motives.
>>
>>- Jeff Tollefson 
>>
>> 
>>
>> 23 May 2017
>> Article tools
>>
>>- PDF 
>>
>> 
>>- Rights & Permissions 
>>
>> 
>>
>> Blickwinkel/Alamy
>>
>> Phytoplankton need iron to make energy by photosynthesis.
>>
>> Marine scientists are raising the alarm about a proposal to drop tonnes 
>> of iron into the Pacific Ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, 
>> the base of the food web. The non-profit group behind the plan says that it 
>> wants to revive Chilean fisheries. It also has ties to a controversial 2012 
>> project in Canada that was accused of violating an international moratorium 
>> on commercial ocean fertilization.
>>
>> The Oceaneos Marine Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada, says that 
>> it is seeking permits from the Chilean government to release up to 10 
>> tonnes of iron particles 130 kilometres off the coast of Coquimbo as early 
>> as 2018. But Chilean scientists are worried because the organization grew 
>> out of a for-profit company, Oceaneos Environmental Solutions of Vancouver, 
>> that has sought to patent iron-fertilization technologies. Some researchers 
>> suspect that the foundation is ultimately seeking to profit from an 
>> unproven and potentially harmful activity.
>>
>> “They claim that by producing more phytoplankton, they could help the 
>> recovery of the fisheries,” says Osvaldo Ulloa, director of the Millennium 
>> Institute of Oceanography in Concepción, Chile. “We don’t see any evidence 
>> to support that claim.”
>> Related stories
>>
>>- Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods 
>>
>>- Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire 
>>
>>- Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan 
>>
>>
>> More related stories 
>> 
>>
>> Tensions flared in April, when researchers at the institute went public 
>> with their concerns in response to Chilean media reports on the project. 
>> The government has since requested input from the Chilean Academy of 
>> Science, and the institute is organizing a forum on the 

[geo] N2O

[David Sevier]

This sounds quite concerning….

 

Melting Arctic awaits nitrous oxide release

 
 0 

Share 

4 days ago 

Source:

Climate News Network

A huge nitrous oxide release from thawing permafrost could speed up the
global warming already raising temperatures across the Arctic. 

London -- Scientists have identified a new climate menace in the rapidly
warming Arctic.  As soils frozen for tens of thousands of years begin to
thaw,  
they could surrender vast quantities of nitrous oxide to accelerate further
global warming.

Nitrous oxide or N2O, known also as laughing gas, is
 one of the
minor greenhouse gases,  but molecule for molecule it is almost 300 times
more potent than carbon dioxide. And permafrost with the potential to
release nitrous oxide covers about a fourth of the Arctic.

Researchers led by   Carolina Voigt from
the University of Eastern Finlandreport in the
 Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences that they experimented with what they call
mesocosms of peaty soils from the Arctic: in a compromise between the
microcosm of a laboratory experiment and open field trials on the tundra,
the scientists collected 16 columns of peat, some topped with natural
vegetation, from Finnish Lapland.

They set these mesocosms up in a climate-controlled chamber, replicated
natural light, moisture and temperature conditions, and monitored them for
33 weeks. They replicated natural seasonal thaws of the upper soils, and the
deep and long-term thaw of the permafrost.

Tropical parallel

And they found that the highest post-thaw emissions of nitrous oxide came
from the bare peat soils: these emissions were fivefold those from
still-frozen soils and matched the kind of outgassing observed in tropical
soils, which are the world’s largest natural land-based nitrous oxide
source.

If the peat columns were covered by vegetation, then emissions fell up to by
90%. If the peat soils were waterlogged, nitrous oxide release was entirely
suppressed.

This, once again, is basic or fundamental research: it leaves the big
questions unresolved. But it also demonstrates another reason for
international concern over
 the rapid
and dramatic warming of the Arctic. 

The permafrost is a vast reservoir of ancient carbon, protected from decay
by microorganisms simply by its frozen state: it becomes

increasingly vulnerable as the world warms, as humans burn fossil fuels and
dump ever greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“The Arctic N2O budget will depend strongly on moisture changes, and a
gradual deepening of the active layer will create a strong non-carbon
climate change feedback”

Since the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet,
 the release of carbon dioxide from the thawing soils, and also of
 vast
quantities of methane, will almost certainly accelerate global warming yet
further.

And since the predicted range of warming for the Arctic by the century’s end
is 5.6°C at a conservative estimate and 12.4°C at the most, the permafrost
may be seen as yet another dangerous factor in the global warming equation.

The Finnish researchers have just added to the anxiety, because, they point
out, the upper three metres of the permafrost are home to – once again, at a
very conservative estimate – 67 billion tons of nitrogen. This is 500 times
the amount of nitrogen added to soils as fertiliser worldwide by farmers.

“Our results,” they report, “imply that the Arctic N2O budget will depend
strongly on moisture changes, and that a gradual deepening of the active
layer will create a strong non-carbon climate change feedback.” – Climate
News Network

 

 

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.