Sev, I strongly agree with Michael Hayes comments on: 1. The aggregation of buoyant flakes - I think this will happen as Michael says and is due to Langmuir circulation - see this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_circulation and this recent article http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/08/30/3220549_oceans-distinctive-lines-caused.html?rh=1.
2. Royaly payment from those who catch fish within the 'managed plume' - I doubt that has any legal basis. Your equating such payments with states charging foreign fishing fleets to fish their EEZs does not hold water as those states have a clear legal basis to do so under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). You need to talk to an international lawyer about this. 3. Liability - Michaels' comments seem very valid to me. A couple of other comments: 4. Unless your bouyant flakes are incredibly small, you are going to get many more than one phytoplankton organism accessing a flake's mineral content as these organisms can be as small as 1 micron in diameter. 5. It should also be noted that the London Protocol (LP) amendments covering ocean fertilisation set a minimum standard and that Contracting Parties are at liberty to set more stringent measures if they so wish - Article 3.4 of the LP. Best wishes Chris. On Saturday, September 6, 2014 8:32:21 AM UTC+1, sevc...@me.com wrote: > Michael, > > The marine dispersal pattern from Fukushima seemed to show a dispersion > similar to that of diffusion through gas or water, superimposed upon > transport by wind and current. It did not show much in the way of > aggregation. This was also the case with the rogue OIF experiment off > Canada’s West coast. Moreover, when a patch of loose, floating material > enters an eddy it tends to form something that looks like a spiral galaxy, > yet there seems to be little tendency to concentrate the material, if > anything the reverse. The patterns formed are uneven because the different > patches entering the eddy typically do not carry the same identifying > material. However, should the entire set of patches entering the eddy be > covered roughly equally with flakes, I doubt that one would observe > noticeably uneven patterns within the remaining lifetime of the flakes. > Concentrations of buoyant material, such as those forming the Great Pacific > garbage patch, take years to form. Lesser concentrations from small gyres > tend to be dispersed by strong winds. > > My flakes *are* a more complete form of OIF. Call it husbanded ocean > fertilisation (HOF), where the nutrients cause neither eutrophication nor > are largely wasted to the dark depths. Transforming the analogy to land, > HOF is fertilisation that remains where it is needed beside the plant > roots, causing neither harmful runoff nor aquifer contamination. If the > authorities prefer global warming, ocean acidification and extreme weather > events to go catastrophic, rather than modelling, cautiously testing, and > implementing those climate engineering techniques that show good promise, > modest risk and potential profitability, then they will deserve the > people's wrath and bitter regret that follows. Unfortunately, such > irresponsibility and delay will not allow most of the biosphere to survive. > If the IMO, CBD and LC/LP folks cannot take adequate account of these > existential threats, then they should hand over the responsibility to a > body than can, as is suggested on page 37 of Grant Wilson's paper > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2312755 or by his > other option, *“World **Commission on Climate Engineering”, detailed by > Parson and Ernst.* > > Regarding your royalty payment objections, Island and other states are > already charging foreign fleets fees to fish in their territorial and EEZ > waters. They also often charge local fishers with fishing licence fees. > Furthermore, as a fisherman would you not strenuously object to another > vessel taking advantage of the burley you had distributed to catch the fish > attracted to it, thereby robbing you of the fruits of your labour? This is > not, in principle, different from being allocated temporary rights to a > plume of ocean that you are fertilising and managing under independent > scientific monitoring and UN governance. > > Proper monitoring, governance and, if necessary, insurance would help > ensure that your activities did not cause irreparable damage, as well as > quantifying the marine enhancement and carbon biosequestration services > that you, or the fertilising agent, were providing. > > 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 sevc...@me.com <javascript:> They are made >> freely available under Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) Attribution licensing. >> >> > -- 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.
