Re: [geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics
Should we end fish farming? - Original Message - From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:43:13 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics Can We Stop Modern-Day Yellow Journalism? Media coverage such as yours distorted what went on until a casual observer wouldn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Is that your job? Do you lie awake at night worried that you will fail the next day in your effort to distort and confuse? I sent that and some other thoughts to the editor of Popular Mechanics, publisher of the Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. Yellow journalism describes what journalism in New York degenerated into as a result of the circulation war Hearst and Pulitzer controlled newspapers conducted in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Editors would sensationalize or make up events to fit story ideas they thought would sell more papers. Wikipedia has a Yellow Journalism entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism A short article is here. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring04/vance/yellowjournalism.html Most media coverage of the ocean fertilization experiment the Haida recently conducted off the coast of British Columbia, by reporting it in terms that appear to have nothing to do with the facts of the event and with sensationalized details, brought the topic of yellow journalism to mind. Take this Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. The Haida say that whatever happened it was their experiment which they paid for and controlled. The Haida believe that the reason they caught a record number of fish recently is because iron rich dust from a volcanic eruption fertilized the ocean where the fish they are interested in grow up. As far as they know, that volcano isn't going to erupt again any time soon. But they have boats, and they can buy fertilizer. So they took 120 tonnes of fertilizer out onto the high seas and dumped it where they think the fish live. If they succeed in increasing their fish catch as a result, they hope to repeat the event. The Haida say it was their idea to approach Russ George, not the other way around. They see selling carbon credits as supplementary funding which, if it can be shown that fish stocks can be increased in this way, could help them do it more often. Popular Mechanics author Kathryn Doyle tells us what happened was rogue science on the high seas, as Russ George... launched his latest in a long line of big, controversial ideas, where 200,000 pounds of iron sulphate was supposed to spur a huge plankton bloom which was supposedly intended to have a planetary effect. Russ George's unilateral geoengineering has outraged scientists. I'll leave aside the obvious question: why didn't Kathryn report the amount of material in picograms? There is no mad scientist involved in unilateral geoengineering. There is a group of Natives who consulted Russ George as they attempt to test an idea they have to increase their fish catch. Kathryn's article, in comparison to many articles about this event, discusses geoengineering in ways that seem appropriate. But this is later on, after the wild headline and the distortions of the first three paragraphs. Why ignore what happened and write it up this way? On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:53:30 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?src=rss Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from doing it himself? BY KATHRYN DOYLE NASAIt's hard to stop a bad idea with enough money behind it—even rogue science on the high seas. Russ George, a wealthy American businessman with a history of big, controversial ideas, launched his latest one this October: dumping 200,000 pounds of iron sulfate into the North Pacific. His aim was to spur a huge plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide in photosynthesis and then sink to the ocean floor. George was attempting to engage in ocean fertilization, the idea that seeding the sea in this way creates those organic blooms that sequester carbon when they sink. Plenty of scientists have bandied about the idea of ocean fertilization—it's one of the most common proposals for geoengineering, or engineering the earth to protect civilization from climate change. But George didn't write a scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron. He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida Salmon
[geo] Re: Geoengineering: An Interim Strategy to Curb Global Warming? A Talk With John Latham
I tend to agree with John Latham, ... it should be called something like climate restoration. What we’re trying to do, as far as possible, is to keep things as they are, not to change them. Inevitably, there would be some change but hopefully nothing like the change that would happen if we don’t do anything. First, we are not trying to exactly engineer a solution. It is not as if we can control every aspect of the Earth's ecosystems as we would a computer program, a car, or a spaceship. However, we can manage ecosystems. Much of this is already occurring in forestry and prairie restoration projects. As troublesome as it may be, human being react to words. Recasting geoengineering as something more palatable and accessible will create a more favorable reaction. On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:25:38 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.vagabondjourney.com/geoengineering-interim-strategy-curb-global-warming-john-latham/ Geoengineering: An Interim Strategy to Curb Global Warming? A Talk With John Latham BY ROZINA KANCHWALA ON DECEMBER 2, 2012, Geoengineering” has become a buzzword in climate change discussions. Some critics view it as something to be avoided because of the unknown consequences it could have and others call it a band-aid for the climate crisis rather than a strategy which addresses the core problem of greenhouse gas emissions. While proponents view geoengineering as something that deserves attention because we are headed towards an uncertain future as we approach a so-called climatic “tipping point,” and the deliberate remediation of the earth’s climate may be our only hope to avoid catastrophe. ohn Latham is a cloud physicist who has been working on a technology called marine cloud brightening for many years. He talked with VagabondJourney.com over telephone about his views on geoengineering, the current state of climate change, as well as what his proposed technology could do to help buy us time until a long term solution for global warming is found and utilized.Geoengineering seems to be a bit of a buzzword that generates strong opinions. Do you endorse this word or do you prefer something else?I think it’s an absolutely terrible word because it carries possible connotations of Dr. Strangelove and trying to change the climate of the world; in fact, it should be called something like climate restoration. What we’re trying to do, as far as possible, is to keep things as they are, not to change them. Inevitably, there would be some change but hopefully nothing like the change that would happen if we don’t do anything.You published a paper in 1990 about cloud brightening technology. This was when global warming was hardly on anyone’s radar. Can you tell me more about how you came up with this idea and how long you’ve been working on it?In those days, there wasn’t any significant public consciousness on the possibility of significant climate change and, in particular, the increase in temperature. At that time, I ran something called the Atmospheric Science Department at University of Manchester in England. Some of the people we interacted with were already beginning to conclude from measurements and knowledge of physics that If we kept on burning fossil fuels then we were going to get in big trouble because the burning produces carbon dioxide. As I’m sure you know, that gas, a lot of it, will remain in the atmosphere. What it does is absorb heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape from the Earth. So, there’s a warming because you still have the sunlight coming in and the amount that goes out to balance it to keep the Earth’s temperature steady would lessen because the carbon dioxide stops some of the radiation going out. So that’s the danger. I must have picked this up from 1 or 2 colleagues, because I’m not a climate scientist but have worked a lot with clouds. If we step back for a minute, clouds are very important in climate. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. If clouds weren’t there, the Earth would be a lot warmer. Over the oceans, which cover about 75% of the earth, there is a cloud covering. About a third of the oceanic area has a cloud covering. These are the clouds we are suggesting might be made more reflective. At the moment, they bounce back about half of the sunlight. And the other half gets through. If we could somehow or other increase the refraction of sunlight back, that bounces back into space, then we could produce a cooling. If we could control it, we could hopefully produce a cooling that balances the warming that results from the burning of fossil fuels producing carbon dioxide.The long term solution is for us to stop using fossil fuels. But, at the moment, despite all the worry about climate change, the burning of fossil fuels just keeps on increasing. That’s why we’re on a possible path to disaster. Building off of
Re: [geo] ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems
Andrew etal Thanks for catching this interesting news release. The part of most interest to me was this fifth paragraph: “Biochar has been promoted as a win-win-win solution,” Harpole said. “You get energy, you improve soil conditions and increase crop yield.” I will try to alert these researchers at one of the premier biochar-research centers (ISU) on the fourth win (carbon negativity) - which is of prime interest to this list. My guesses are that these researchers will find a) that fugitive char will be a small amount, and b) any fugitive char will increase growth anywhere it lands - and generally this char will positively affect both annuals and perennials, which can in turn be harvested for increasing amounts of char. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:48:18 PM Subject: [geo] ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/news/article_10b8f6e4-3ca4-11e2-9dcb-001a4bcf887a.html ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems By Eric Debner, eric.deb...@iowastatedaily.com | Posted: Monday, December 3, 2012 12:00 am Biochar may be a next-generation soil amendment utilized by farmers to increase agricultural productivity. While this biorenewable solution has potential for commercial use in the near future, there are aspects and variables that could be further explored to improve the capabilities of biochar.Lori Biederman, adjunct assistant professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, and William Harpole, assistant professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, received a grant from the ISU-based Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture to experiment and research the effects of biochar on a restored native prairie plant species in Western Iowa. Harpole said the experiment will explore the downstream ecosystem impacts of biochar on native plants and biodiversity.Biochar is a byproduct of a process called pyrolysis, that essentially turns biomass, such as corn stover and switchgrass, into a renewable source of energy. Harpole said biochar can be used as an additive to help strengthen soils by adding water retention properties and nutrients such as phosphorus, which helps farmers increase their crop yields.“Biochar has been promoted as a win-win-win solution,” Harpole said. “You get energy, you improve soil conditions and increase crop yield.”Harpole said this ideal scenario creates a fourth question: the environment. Is that a win, or is that a loss?When applied to the landscape, Harpole said biochar is susceptible to erosion and win that can carry it into neighboring ecosystems. Harpole said some studies have shown that up to 50 percent of biochar can be transported away through erosion or wind.“We have to be careful of protecting our buffers and understanding how biochar affects the perennial systems that are right next door to annual crops,” Biederman said. “[Biochar] blows everywhere, and can very easily end up in places where it was not applied.”Biederman and Harpole conducted a process called meta analysis in which they collected all the published information on biochar experiments and put it into a data table. Harpole said most of the data showed biochar has, on average, positive effects with plant growth.“It also points out what we don’t know,” Harpole said. “We don’t have much information about the impacts of [biochar] on downstream ecosystems.”Harpole said the effects of biochar could play out in a number of ways. If biochar is beneficial for agricultural systems, then it could also benefit natural systems. Harpole said an alternative situation is biochar could negatively affect native plant species but positively affect exotic weedy species.One aspect of downstream ecosystems that Biederman and Harpole want to explore is the effect biochar has on perennial plants compared with annual plants. Biederman said perennials are plants that persist for many growing seasons while annuals perform their entire life cycle, from seed to flower to seed, within a single growing season. Biederman said annual plants typically fared better in biochar-treated soils than perennials.“There’s something about being a perennial and annual plant that makes them react differently to biochar,” Biederman said. It is important for researchers to investigate all aspects of biochar before applying it onto the field, to better understand how biochar affects the perennial systems right next door to annual crops.“More information helps us make better decisions about how we use our landscape and what we’re trying to conserve and promote,” Harpole said. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to
