Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Greg Rau]

phere had been up to 5 times of the recent level. 
Franz D. Oeste

         -- Originalnachricht --Von: "Amal Bhattarai" 
An: "Robert Tulip" Cc: 
"carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com" 
; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
"geoengineering" ; 
markcapron@podenergy.orgGesendet: 02.06.2019 23:20:39Betreff: Re: [CDR] Re: 
[geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering 
Techniques

Regarding kelp forests for marine sequestration, how is one to understand that 
it is atmospheric carbon that is being sequestered, and not the oceanic 
dissolved carbon, of which there is plenty?

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:09 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
 wrote:

 Dear Mark
 
Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 FinalReport DE-AR916 on the 
potential for seaweed forests to addressglobal needs for food, fuel and 
climate.  Iencourage readers to review the linked report, as it provides a 
compellingscientific agenda for reversing global warming and cleaning up the 
oceans.

I would like to know ifthere has been media coverage of this project, as it 
seems to me one of thebiggest and most important efforts now underway for 
practical climate action.

Best wishes

Robert Tulip
 


On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  wrote: 
 
 
 A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than the 
Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  Estimated 
initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume that the Feed the 
world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly snowball to full global 
capacity.
The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering.  It 
could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon storage 
technique.  

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.orgFeed the world. Fuel the world. Reverse climate change.


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine
Geoengineering Techniques
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Tue, March 12, 2019 4:41 am
To: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
"
, geoengineering



http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques
High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques
2019 #98 (143p.)Author(s): GESAMPPublisher(s): GESAMPJournal Series GESAMP 
Reports and StudiesThis report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine 
geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or boost 
the reflection of incoming solar radiation to space (albedo modification) or in 
some cases both. Further, the report recommends a) that a coordinated framework 
for proposing marine geoengineering activities, submitting supporting evidence 
and integrating independent expert assessment must be developed and b) that a 
greater expertise on wider societal issues is sought with the aim to establish 
a knowledge base and provide a subsequent analysis of the major gaps in 
socio-economics and geopolitics.  -- 
 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.


 

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/20190520114320.d9cc1239cd025ff256116092005df229.f0b5e7ff2c.wbe%40email12.godaddy.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




  
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/760731356.7755725.1559484546070%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Thomas Goreau]

of the world. The cliffs had built from the carbonate 
> preciptating healthy and productive PL life. During the epoche of the 
> Cretaceous the CO2 levels within the atmosphere had been up to 5 times of the 
> recent level.
> 
> Franz D. Oeste
> 
> 
> 
> -- Originalnachricht --
> Von: "Amal Bhattarai"  <mailto:ocean.based...@gmail.com>>
> An: "Robert Tulip" mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>>
> Cc: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> 
> carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>" 
>  <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>; andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; "geoengineering" 
> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
> markcap...@podenergy.org <mailto:markcap...@podenergy.org>
> Gesendet: 02.06.2019 23:20:39
> Betreff: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed 
> Marine Geoengineering Techniques
> 
>> Regarding kelp forests for marine sequestration, how is one to understand 
>> that it is atmospheric carbon that is being sequestered, and not the oceanic 
>> dissolved carbon, of which there is plenty?
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:09 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
>> > <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Mark
>> 
>> Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 Final Report DE-AR916 
>> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q6HO5OSmSLmfUJWu8YrkMxanEsGEucww> on the 
>> potential for seaweed forests to address global needs for food, fuel and 
>> climate.  I encourage readers to review the linked report, as it provides a 
>> compelling scientific agenda for reversing global warming and cleaning up 
>> the oceans.
>> 
>> I would like to know if there has been media coverage of this project, as it 
>> seems to me one of the biggest and most important efforts now underway for 
>> practical climate action.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Robert Tulip
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST, > <mailto:markcap...@podenergy.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than the 
>> Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  Estimated 
>> initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume that the Feed 
>> the world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly snowball to full 
>> global capacity.
>> 
>> The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering.  It 
>> could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon storage 
>> technique.
>> 
>> 
>> Mark E. Capron, PE
>> Ventura, California
>> www.PODenergy.org <http://www.podenergy.org/>
>> Feed the world. Fuel the world. Reverse climate change.
>> 
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine
>> Geoengineering Techniques
>> From: Andrew Lockley > <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
>> Date: Tue, March 12, 2019 4:41 am
>> To: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>
>> > <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>"
>> > <mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>, geoengineering
>> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques
>>  
>> <http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques>
>> 
>> High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering 
>> Techniques
>> 
>> 2019 #98 (143p.)
>> Author(s): GESAMP
>> Publisher(s): GESAMP
>> Journal Series GESAMP Reports and Studies
>> This report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine geoengineering 
>> techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or boost the 
>> reflection of incoming solar radiation to space (albedo modification) or in 
>> some cases both. Further, the report recommends a) that a coordinated 
>> framework for proposing marine geoengineering activities, submitting 
>> supporting evidence and integrating independent expert assessment must be 
>> developed and b) that a greater expertise on wider societal issues is sought 
>> with the aim to establish a 

Re: Re[2]: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Klaus Lackner]

Now that you have big manure piles on the ocean floor, no light, but bacteria 
to digest it.
Klaus



From:  on behalf of Amal Bhattarai 

Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:34 AM
To: Franz Dietrich Oeste 
Cc: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com" , 
Robert Tulip , "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" 
, geoengineering , 
"markcap...@podenergy.org" 
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of 
Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

As far as the mechanics of sequestration, kelp forests (also land based plants) 
can be harvested and sunk to ocean floor, quickly, before being consumed and 
respired. Microbial phytoplankton need more sophisticated methods

The issue is scale. Can “new growth” be counted in gigatons per year?

If so, costs would be much less than DAC, which also needs “sinking”. deep 
ocean or deep underground.






On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:27 AM Franz Dietrich Oeste 
mailto:oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>> wrote:
Dear Amal

Thank you for this key question which can be answered like follows:

Healthy ocean phytoplankton layer (PL) plants and green microbes cannot 
assimilate carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide solutions like the continental 
plants. (PL) plants are forced to use bicarbonate instead of CO2. As a 
consequence of this fact the PL needs to generate one hydroxyl ion for every 
bicarbonate carbon assimilated to organic carbon.

This is no disadvantage for the PL as it seems at first sight. This 
assimilation effect produces a basicity membrane at the surface of the globes 
ocean which prevents the bicarbonate carbon from leaving the ocean and which 
activates the atmospheric CO2 to get absorbed by the basicity of the ocean 
surface. Because every hydroxyl ion produces a new bicarbonate ion by CO2 
absorption from the atmosphere the PL cannot not go short in carbon delivery 
for organic carbon production.

Additional to organic carbon PL plants need nitrogen, sulphur and halogens for 
production of organic N, S, and halogen compounds. Also this organics become 
fertilized by the PL life from dissolved salts like sulphates, nitrates, and 
halogenides and also generate OH ions during their conversion to organic hetero 
compounds. Also this metabolic reactions of the PL produce additional 
alkalinity.

Healthy PL can compensate excessive basicity generation which would increase 
the pH values to >9 that is adverse to healthy metabolism. The sequestration of 
solid carbonate shells and skeletons from bicarbonate is a measure to 
compensate such uncontrolled pH increase because every carbonate generated 
produces one molecule carbonic acid which neutralizes the OH ions by 
bicarbonate generation. Such carbon shell producers in the PL for instance are 
coccolithophores and foraminifera. Even within extreme productive PL layers 
like the Humboldt Current upwelling system in front of the South American west 
coast this kind of carbonate sequestration keeps the pH well within the 
metabolic optimum.

Because the assimilation reaction and basicity generation is only active during 
daytime the pH decreases during the night and even may drop to values of 8 or 
even below. This phenomenon of the dark is the cause of the CO2 escape from 
upwelling deep water within the polar parts of the ocean during the long 
lasting winter night because during this season the basicity membrane of the 
ocean has a hole within these regions.

So called "Ocean Acidification" said to be a cause of the increased CO2 
concentration in the atmosphere has not been caused by this effect. Actual 
cause are damages to the complex PL layer ecosystem which reduces their 
assimilation activity and OH ion productivity: During the very warm Cretaceous 
epoch the phytoplankton and ocean life flourished as can be seen from the chalk 
cliffs of Dover and many fossilized remains found in many other regions of the 
world. The cliffs had built from the carbonate preciptating healthy and 
productive PL life. During the epoche of the Cretaceous the CO2 levels within 
the atmosphere had been up to 5 times of the recent level.

Franz D. Oeste



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Amal Bhattarai" 
mailto:ocean.based...@gmail.com>>
An: "Robert Tulip" mailto:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>>
Cc: 
"carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>
 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>"
 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>;
 andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; "geoengineering" 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 
markcap...@podenergy.org<mailto:markcap...@podenergy.org>
Gesendet: 02.06.2019 23:20:39
Betreff: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed 
Marine Geoengineering Techniques

Regarding kelp

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Thomas Goreau]

It’d easy to grow seaweed, we grew it at record rates in Jamaica in the 1980s, 
but very hard to stop it rotting, or being eaten!

In other words, gross C sequestration can be locally very large, but net C 
sequestration may be very small or close to zero.

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island 
Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@bestweb.net
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon 
Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392 


Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734 


The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for 
Sustainable Development
http://www.greenthindisc.org 

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

When lies trump truth, the dark ages begin

> On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:26 PM, Dan Miller  wrote:
> 
> To the extent that additional seaweed forests grow and, therefore, decrease 
> ocean CO2 content, that will lead to a decrease in atmospheric CO2 because 
> the ocean and atmospheric CO2 levels remain in balance.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, once we start Direct Air Capture, we will need 
> to remove “extra” CO2 to account for the CO2 the oceans will put back into 
> the atmosphere once the atmospheric levels decrease.
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Jun 2, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Amal Bhattarai  > wrote:
> 
> Regarding kelp forests for marine sequestration, how is one to understand 
> that it is atmospheric carbon that is being sequestered, and not the oceanic 
> dissolved carbon, of which there is plenty?
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:09 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
>  > wrote:
> Dear Mark
> 
> Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 Final Report DE-AR916 
>  on the 
> potential for seaweed forests to address global needs for food, fuel and 
> climate.  I encourage readers to review the linked report, as it provides a 
> compelling scientific agenda for reversing global warming and cleaning up the 
> oceans.
> 
> I would like to know if there has been media coverage of this project, as it 
> seems to me one of the biggest and most important efforts now underway for 
> practical climate action.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Robert Tulip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  > wrote:
> 
> 
> A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than the 
> Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  Estimated 
> initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume that the Feed the 
> world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly snowball to full global 
> capacity.
> 
> The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering.  It 
> could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon storage 
> technique.
> 
> 
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Ventura, California
> www.PODenergy.org 
> Feed the world. Fuel the world. Reverse climate change.
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine
> Geoengineering Techniques
> From: Andrew Lockley  >
> Date: Tue, March 12, 2019 4:41 am
> To: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
> 
>  >"
>  >, geoengineering
> mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
> 
> 
> http://www.gesamp.org/publications/high-level-review-of-a-wide-range-of-proposed-marine-geoengineering-techniques
>  
> 
> 
> High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques
> 
> 2019 #98 (143p.)
> Author(s): GESAMP
> Publisher(s): GESAMP
> Journal Series GESAMP Reports and Studies
> This report comprehensively examines a wide range o marine geoengineering 
> techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or boost the 
> reflection of incoming solar radiation to space (albedo modification) or in 
> some cases both. Further, the report recommends a) that a coordinated 
> framework for proposing marine geoengineering activities, submitting 
> supporting evidence and integrating independent expert assessment must 

Re[2]: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Amal

Thank you for this key question which can be answered like follows:

Healthy ocean phytoplankton layer (PL) plants and green microbes cannot 
assimilate carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide solutions like the 
continental plants. (PL) plants are forced to use bicarbonate instead of 
CO2. As a consequence of this fact the PL needs to generate one hydroxyl 
ion for every bicarbonate carbon assimilated to organic carbon.


This is no disadvantage for the PL as it seems at first sight. This 
assimilation effect produces a basicity membrane at the surface of the 
globes ocean which prevents the bicarbonate carbon from leaving the 
ocean and which activates the atmospheric CO2 to get absorbed by the 
basicity of the ocean surface. Because every hydroxyl ion produces a new 
bicarbonate ion by CO2 absorption from the atmosphere the PL cannot not 
go short in carbon delivery for organic carbon production.


Additional to organic carbon PL plants need nitrogen, sulphur and 
halogens for production of organic N, S, and halogen compounds. Also 
this organics become fertilized by the PL life from dissolved salts like 
sulphates, nitrates, and halogenides and also generate OH ions during 
their conversion to organic hetero compounds. Also this metabolic 
reactions of the PL produce additional alkalinity.


Healthy PL can compensate excessive basicity generation which would 
increase the pH values to >9 that is adverse to healthy metabolism. The 
sequestration of solid carbonate shells and skeletons from bicarbonate 
is a measure to compensate such uncontrolled pH increase because every 
carbonate generated produces one molecule carbonic acid which 
neutralizes the OH ions by bicarbonate generation. Such carbon shell 
producers in the PL for instance are coccolithophores and foraminifera. 
Even within extreme productive PL layers like the Humboldt Current 
upwelling system in front of the South American west coast this kind of 
carbonate sequestration keeps the pH well within the metabolic optimum.


Because the assimilation reaction and basicity generation is only active 
during daytime the pH decreases during the night and even may drop to 
values of 8 or even below. This phenomenon of the dark is the cause of 
the CO2 escape from upwelling deep water within the polar parts of the 
ocean during the long lasting winter night because during this season 
the basicity membrane of the ocean has a hole within these regions.


So called "Ocean Acidification" said to be a cause of the increased CO2 
concentration in the atmosphere has not been caused by this effect. 
Actual cause are damages to the complex PL layer ecosystem which reduces 
their assimilation activity and OH ion productivity: During the very 
warm Cretaceous epoch the phytoplankton and ocean life flourished as can 
be seen from the chalk cliffs of Dover and many fossilized remains found 
in many other regions of the world. The cliffs had built from the 
carbonate preciptating healthy and productive PL life. During the epoche 
of the Cretaceous the CO2 levels within the atmosphere had been up to 5 
times of the recent level.


Franz D. Oeste



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Amal Bhattarai" 
An: "Robert Tulip" 
Cc: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com" 
; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
"geoengineering" ; 
markcap...@podenergy.org

Gesendet: 02.06.2019 23:20:39
Betreff: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of 
Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques


Regarding kelp forests for marine sequestration, how is one to 
understand that it is atmospheric carbon that is being sequestered, and 
not the oceanic dissolved carbon, of which there is plenty?



On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:09 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide 
Removal  wrote:

Dear Mark

Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 Final Report 
DE-AR916 
<https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q6HO5OSmSLmfUJWu8YrkMxanEsGEucww> 
on the potential for seaweed forests to address global needs for food, 
fuel and climate.  I encourage readers to review the linked report, as 
it provides a compelling scientific agenda for reversing global 
warming and cleaning up the oceans.


I would like to know if there has been media coverage of this project, 
as it seems to me one of the biggest and most important efforts now 
underway for practical climate action.


Best wishes

Robert Tulip





On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  
wrote:



A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than 
the Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  
Estimated initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume 
that the Feed the world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly 
snowball to full global capacity.


The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering. 
 It could use any good-for-millennial and ocean