Sev et al, I would like to read your full proposal and any documentation you can send would be welcomed. In response to your clarifications:
*1)* The eddy effect <https://www.google.com/search?q=oceanic+eddy+effect&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZD8KVKnmM479oQSFpYLADg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=667>, often found within oceanic surface flow patterns, would seem to dictate that the floating particles will accumulate in uneven patterns. The field of Lagrangian Particle Tracking <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Lagrangian+Particle+Tracking&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=>, which illuminates this phenomenon, can provide substance to the view that floating particles will, in general, not remain in an even dispersal pattern. The modeling of the Fukushima Daiichi events' marine dispersal pattern <http://www.asrltd.com/japan/plume.php> shows what may be an analogy to what you are proposing, *at the Lagrangian level*. A non-Google Earth 3-D video of the event modeling can be found here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eh4nBVJTsw>. *2)* The IMO/CBD has placed significant limits on OIF and your approach is far more like OIF than dislike OIF. Can you provide a...compelling... argument that there is a significant distinction between your particles and OIF? *3)* *"**Fish caught ..... within a managed plume would be subject to a royalty payment...*.". How do you propose laying legal claim to fisheries? Providing open water nutrients can not be equated to 'farming/ranching' as you have no effective control over the animals and the animals will spend most of their life cycle in non-treated waters. Commercial fisherman, I being an ex-fisherman, will simply ignore such claims (accompanied by a multitude of one finger salutes). However, it would be interesting to observe a small start-up 'fertilizing' an area, such as Bristol Bay <https://www.google.com/search?q=bristol+bay+salmon&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lzYKVPLBD9GyogTT84LIBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg>, and then suing the commercial fisherman for monetary gain due to the fertilizer dispersal. As a truly humanitarian suggestion, I highly and strongly recommend flak jackets for the start-up principles and I would not accept any invitations for bear/dear hunting outings. BBQ invitations should also be avoided. As a final thought on this one point, are you prepared to '*pay*' for any and all wildlife kills and or human health damage due to a blooming of toxic algae <http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/>? Also, marine bacteria and viruses <http://www.worldoceanobservatory.org/events/humanhealth/observer3.htm> evolve rapidly in response to nutrient availability and thermal changes/challenges. If you wish to profit from this form of open water/uncontrollable fertilizer application, you must take full responsibility of any and all side effects resulting from such an activity. Finding financial backers who will knowingly walk into such a potentially vast scale of liability will be challenging. Best regards, *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* *The IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/pub> and Blog <http://voglerlake.wix.com/the-imbecs-protocol>* On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:18 PM, sevcla...@me.com <sevcla...@me.com> wrote: > Sev Clarke in reply to Michael Hayes. > Thanks Michael, that feedback is indeed appreciated. > > Regarding the possible aggregation of buoyant flakes on the ocean surface, > I doubt that it will represent much of a problem. Each flake will tend to > be acted on similarly by wind, wave and current. Spread widely as intended, > the approximate previous position of each flake would soon be taken by > another. Excepting where they are thrown up on beaches, that are designedly > remote from their point of dissemination, they will tend to retain their > initial dispersion or a little more; and, because of their limited life, > they will typically not last long enough to accumulate in accretive ocean > gyres, as do some of our plastic wastes. > > For the same reasons, they will not result in over-fertilisation, aided by > the fact that, even if they did aggregate, the ultra-slow release of the > largely insoluble and lignin-encased fertiliser would tend not to cause > eutrophying blooms. The limited space on each flake would not permit more > than one phytoplankton at a time at each site to access the flake's mineral > content directly with its extractive ligands. This factor also serves to > hinder dissolving iron from re-accumulating as fast-sinking particulates. > > I am indebted to you for directing my attention to the Lambert patent US > 8535107. Whilst there are strong similarities, there are equally strong > differences. Lambert uses inorganic supports, specifically expanded > vermiculite and similar materials, to provide buoyancy, whilst my rice > husks and the lignin that binds and encloses minute air pockets are both > organic. Furthermore, Lambert uses his perlite, vermiculite, tiny hollow > glass spheres and aerated ceramics as high-albedo reflectants, whereas I > encourage phytoplankton to perform this task, knowing that most surfaces > floating on the ocean surface will soon become coated in biofilm anyway. > Lambert describes relatively large structures, such as solid pucks and > arrays of buoys, that could become hazards to shipping, unlike my tiny > flakes. Also, Lambert makes no apparent use of sustainable or waste > materials. He uses energy-intensive methods to secure his fertilisers, and > the materials that he uses are not as benign as mine to marine life - for > instance ground glass is a known gastronomic hazard. Finally, as you say, > Lambert's costs make his business model excessively weak. Mine is not, as > the full documentation shows. My estimated carbon sequestration cost is > $1.08/tonneC, which, even if were twenty times that, is still modest. > > P.S. My flakes are not constrained, but are to be monitored as moving, > visible plumes. Fish caught and additional carbon flux within a managed > plume would be subject to a royalty payment or carbon credit. Gaining > international recognition for such may be one of the two the most difficult > hurdles, the other being flake dissemination approval. The global cooling > and extreme weather mitigation effects are thought to be non-monetizable. > > Best regards, > Sev Clarke > > > > On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, sevc...@me.com wrote: >> >> Sam Carana has made a good summary of two of my recent concepts that are >> designed to address both climate change and ocean acidification at >> http://geo-engineering.blogspot.de/2014/08/seven-ocean-fertilization- >> strategies.html >> Would members consider how the concepts and their supporting technologies >> might be: constructively criticised, improved, their effects modelled, be >> lab tested, and approved for mesocosm piloting. Full documentation is >> available on request from sevcla...@me.com They are made freely >> available under Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) Attribution licensing. >> > -- > 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/FUC2yTLyszE/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
